Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 25
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Negative DYK hooks and the BLP policy
- 2024 RfA review, phase II
- 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) 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ki-projects[edit]
- Ki-projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From the removed PROD: no evidence of notability Eeekster (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It looks like the author is part of the organization and has a conflict of interest. Eeekster (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete COI (article's creator has used "we"/etc in relation to the company) spam. OSborn arfcontribs. 16:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nomination; a product of the business being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimetrica. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the creators have commented at Talk:Ki-projects and inserted some citations.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oobi at Work[edit]
- Oobi at Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was speedied per WP:CSD A7, however the page's author contends that the subject is notable, so I've undeleted it to allow for a full AfD. This is a YouTube series of videos based on a Nicktoon (which raises the question of copyright infringement on the part of the series' author?). I believe this fails the GNG; also fails WP:WEB, especially point 3 ("except for...being hosted on sites without editorial oversight...including YouTube"). The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Totally non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG and especially WP:WEB as it is nothing more than a self-published production of extremely low quality. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails both WP:NOTE and WP:WEB; just another YouTube series without the references to establish notability. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Concur on the lack of notability. Bagheera (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the page
Take A Bath, Oobi!should likely be covered by this discussion as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- also List of Oobi at Work videos and
List of Take A Bath, Oobi! videos. I'm unsure how to add them to the AfD proper (and don't have time at the moment), so if somebody else can do that, that might be good. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] - They have all been nominated for CSD. This is starting to look like a major advertising campaign here. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- also List of Oobi at Work videos and
- Note that the page
- Delete - fails GNG and the web specific rules also. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: appears to lack notability Warfieldian (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SNOW - no regular editor has read this article and could state that it meets the notability guidelines. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. VikÞor | Talk 01:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When the phrase "Oobi at Work" is typed in Google Search, this was the top result, even when the page was deleted. If the page is again deleted, Internet users may click on the Wikipedia Oobi at Work link and think that it might of been deleted for vandalism, causing nobody to think that this is a real, existing video series. It should be kept.--71.174.123.114 (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First off, it won't show up in Google searches for too long as Google's spider bots search the web and find the Wikipedia article gone it will be relatively quickly deleted from Google's database. Second, since when does Google's search engine limitations influence Wikipedia keeping non-notable articles? - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. Or WP:CSD A10, duplicative of List of characters in House of Anubis if you prefer. postdlf (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
House of Anubis Couples[edit]
- House of Anubis Couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as a non-notable fan-page. The author has created a page dedicated to the couples on a tv show, and is presumably a lot of OR. I PRODed the article, but that was removed by the author. Nolelover It's almost football season! 23:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to House of Anubis]. No need for this page as an article. Peridon (talk) 23:44, 25 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 - G12 by Graeme Bartlett (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soma Snakeoil[edit]
- Soma Snakeoil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as promotional copyvio. Most of the article is cut-and-pasted from these two advertising sites [1] [2] or their equivalents; there'z active spamming going on. The paragraph I haven't tracked down reads like cut-and-paste advertising, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted this as a copyvio, promotion could have been edited out, but probably not worth the effort! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 27 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 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. postdlf (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shoe-Thrower's index[edit]
- Shoe-Thrower's index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is from a comment on the talk page: "The "Shoe Thrower's Index" is little more than the title of an article in The Economist, February 2011. In my opinion, there is little redeeming value in the article itself in that it cites little empirical evidence and straddles an incoherent line between levity and the serious." The title of the index immediately gives away the non-seriousness of the ranking (an in my personal opinion, stereotypical). And for now, it doesn't have any academic backing or popular or political adoption. Eklipse (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be just a reiteration of a single article from The Economist, not a notable topic in itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also the Big Mac Index from The Economist which has its own page...--Novelty (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Analysis. It's had some press coverage,[3] and is relevant to that section. Fences&Windows 18:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I can understand the notability issues. But this index is being very widely quoted in the media.Bless sins (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. & Metropolitan90.--JayJasper (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Fences and windows. Too early to give the subject independent notability - WP:NOT#NEWS and all that. RayTalk 15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Synthesis. Mootros (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, entirely based on a single unreliable source. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lamitta Frangieh[edit]
- Lamitta Frangieh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Former beauty pageant participant, who never actually seems to have won any competitions. The article is sourced only by facebook. She does get a lot of hits on blogs and discussion forums but I can't seem to find anything reliable which demonstrates long term notability. Possibly in Arabic ? Travelbird (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
CommentI've added her apparent name in Arabic in a Find Sources above, and her self-published source seems to indicate that she was Miss Lebanon World 2004 or 2005 it says 2005, other sources say 2004, the discrepancy *may* arise from the year of the national contest being different than the year of the international contest or some such, but I really don't know. This article and this article actually appear to verify that claim in a BLP-concerning context. This article appears to have a less horrible context but calls her a Miss Lebanon runner-up, but in this article she says she had the full title. [4]. It's possible that both statements are accurate, I've seen a few beauty-contest participants where a runner-up has become "Miss something or other" when the original winner stepped down, but given that I'm relying on automated translation to verify my readings of Arabic above, I'd rather have the claims here verified by someone who can actually read Arabic. If the claim of Miss Lebanon World 2005 (or 2004) can be WP:V, I'd !vote keep,but delete if it cannot be reliably verified that she held that title.--j⚛e deckertalk to me 03:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- (Switched to a clean keep in view of Whpq's final source) --j⚛e deckertalk to me 16:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HOTTIE, and perhaps some actual policy based reasons too. Note that her name is also spelled "Lamita Frangieh". Pageantopolis is a pageant fan site, so I doubt it really it s a reliable source. On the other hand, I find that fan(atics) are sticklers for details and I would personally trust material found this site. Pageantopolis's 2005 Miss World listing confirms she represented Lebanon at Miss World. [5], [6] are a couple of other sources which wouldn't meet our definition of reliable sources that list her as the Lebanese contestant at the 2005 Miss World. Using the spelling I found at Pageantopolis, I found a Tunisian news source that confirms her as the representing Lebanon. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted this is an unreferenced BLP. It is unacceptable for this to leave AFD without sources in the article. Those wishing to keep it should source it. In the spirt of BLPprod, I'm relisting to allow more time for sourcing to be added, otherwise DELETE
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac 22:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a very sane policy, two sources added, and some stubbing/rewriting completed. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 02:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Won a national beauty pageant and went to Miss World. As a pageant queen, that's about as notable as it gets, short of being the Miss World winner. Mbinebri talk ← 19:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 00:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barra Brava F.C.[edit]
- Barra Brava F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable amateur soccer club playing in a local league, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Article is unreferenced, thus failing WP:V. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to be a non-notable 'fan' team without third party refs. Eldumpo (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep recently updated with third party refs. Notability exists because of relation to D.C. United and recognition in community service (now with references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.44.242 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The DC United ref is not really third party, but the Washington Post one is. Do you have any others though to help confer notability? Eldumpo (talk) 21:54, 24 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, Scott Mac 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: brief mention only in the WP as a supporter of D.C. United. Being a supporter of a notable organization does not confer notability. Warfieldian (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as above. The club itself does not appear to be notable, and it cannot inherit notability from D.C. United. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't really cover football teams; WP:CLUB and WP:CORPDEPTH do, however. Only the DC Sports Blog reference gives significant coverage by a secondary source. But this source doesn't necessarily support the claim to notability in the article lead. The notability claim in turn fails WP:CLUB. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I have considered the option of merging this with the Hamdania incident, but I have decided against it because the articles like that are generally about the incident, and little or no interest is attached to the defense attorney's performance in the subsequent trial. If anyone disagrees, and have sources that Mr. Callahan's performance is particularly notable and should therefore be mentioned there, they are by all means free to edit the article and do so, but more than a mere mention is usually required before a redirecting a person's name is justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick J. Callahan[edit]
- Patrick J. Callahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Military lawyer who has apparently represented defendants in some newsworthy cases. It doesn't appear that any of the news coverage cited in the article is about Mr. Callahan as opposed to his clients and their cases. Also, the odd photo that's just been added makes me think that this is a vanity or shoutout article. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Easily lacks notability as a lawyer and as a Marine, failing WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:GNG. The cases he's tried are marginal at best, and the one that actually has notability already has an article on that: Hamdania incident (meaning WP:BLP1E comes into play). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Bahamut. Subject appears to lack "signficant independant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per Bahamut and Anotherclown, in my opinion the subject is not notable enough for a biographical article due to lack of significant coverage. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect - since WP:BLP1E comes into play, any useful information from this article relating to Hamdania incident should be merged there, and the page should be redirected there. Otherwise, given the fact that the MCRD San Diego DI case has received coverage enough in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG (which is where most of the references of the article point to) an article can be made out of that, and his bio article can redirect there. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast VikÞor | Talk 01:49, 28 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) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled (Marina and the Diamonds album)[edit]
- Untitled (Marina and the Diamonds album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unreleased, untitled album by a marginally-notable artist. not a single thing in this article has a source. violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:OR. merge to artist's page or preferably delete.- eo (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without any sources, there's nothing to back up any release of this album. Too much crystalballism anyway. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is already a section in Marina's article on this album; let the editors there deal with the lack of sourcing. Out. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The artist is certainly notable, no 'marginal' about it, but this is basically about an album that is a vague future idea that may never happen.--Michig (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 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) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charlie Christodoulou[edit]
- Charlie Christodoulou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Except for the two sources mentioned, this freedomfighter is untracable by google. Though the last name pops up here and there, never in conjunction with the FPLA, MPLA or massacres. Both sources, after a little digging lead back to the same person: One 'www.terryaspinall.com'. Suspect hoax. Kleuske (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, biography of living person without reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while not a living person (allegedly died in 1976) no Google news results for either Charlie or Charles. Google books only shows this and some stuff cribbed off wikipedia. Not enough to meet GNG. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Ealdgyth. Lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable enough for a separate biographical article due to lack of signficiant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 27 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 nomination withdrawn. Off2riorob, I'm going to enterpret you last comment as you being cool with this article. If I'm wrong let me know and I'll reopen it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ardashir Vakil[edit]
- Ardashir Vakil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Low notability author. Recent complaint from an editor claiming to be the subject removing slanderous content that remained in the BLP for three months. After four years of wikipedia existence it is still a two lined uncited stub apart from a book review. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He has been profiled in the Malaysia Star, and interviewed by Express India which represent coverage about the subject meeting he general notability criteria. Aside from that, his works have received critical reviews in multiple reliable sources such as The Independent, LA Times, New Statesman, Washington Post meeting notoability for authors being multiple reviews from reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The improvements are great thanks, they go a long way to address my issues with the biography. I still see only low notability and a couple of paperbacks and an award for one, but WP:GNG as a minimum requirement seems clearly attained. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 28 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) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jessica Andres[edit]
- Jessica Andres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only claim to fame appears to be that she was cast to be in a major movie, but was completely cut from it. Being an American Apparel model doesn't help notability much either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. When her movies actually come out, and we can see her on the big screen, then she will be notable as an actor. Until then, she is just not notable in any way. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 26 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of project management software[edit]
- Comparison of project management software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list compares business software types, and is wholly unreferenced. It seems to me that this is an unencyclopedic topic and fails WP:DIRECTORY; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to go to determine what product management software would be best to purchase for your business, which seems to be the primary feaure this page provides. The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is simply List of project management software (that link is a redirect to this same article) which is perfectly at place in Wikipedia (and different from directory; it only includes entries for which there are Wikipedia articles). However, with the different products having different features a single list would be of little value and multiple lists (with article links repeated) unwieldly. Organising the list in this way - especially in a sortable table - is the ideal way to handle it. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this would seem to be a reasonable list/comparison article, admittedly one that could use sourcing improvements. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. More than a directory, it's a comparison list. All listed names have articles, but further refs should be added.--Dmol (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to Wikipedia's goals, it aspires to become the best information resource available. The list of project management software with comparison information is a very, very useful item of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aik-itc (talk • contribs) 08:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not only a choice amongst software to purchase (some are GNU) and not only for business activity but can be usefull for personnal activity involving a lot of people. It is also related to project management methodologies articles from Wikipedia and useful for user to test what kind of PM is appropriate to him (PERT, Gantt...). Also removing it from Wikipedia would lead to have only commercial biaised comparisons on commercial paid websites while on Wikipedia comparison charts and tables can be controlled by the community, by the people. --gilles_maisonneuve (talk) (Sorry: long time since logged in, lost usr/pwd. Gilles Maisonneuve from office in Paris)194.119.85.99 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, absolutely. Pages like that are extremely useful, regardless of whether or not they are "suitable for an encyclopedia" (whatever that may be assumed to mean). They allow comparisons involving free software, something that is difficult to find in reviews published on commercial e-zines and paper magazines.
Keep, how is this any less "suitable for an encyclopedia" then a list of Star Trek episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.32.238 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete under G3 by User:Ponyo
FK Atletico Beograd[edit]
- FK Atletico Beograd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't buy this at all. Speedy hoax template was removed by an IP editor. The complete lack of references anywhere on the internets seems to bear out Hammersoft's contention that this is a hoax. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reinstate db-hoax tag and Speedy delete. Everything about this screams hoax, and there's nothing on the net anywhere to support its existence, and nothing local either (List of football clubs in Serbia, no internal links, none of the linked players have articles). Plus the editor attempted to use Atlético Madrid's team crest. If this club were real, why use a crest from a team in a country half a continent away? Blatant hoax. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added a reference with a team crest (that was not Atletico Madrid's team crest just before it was speedy deleted. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 20:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Am not convinced this is a hoax. I added a reference and the article was deleted before I could place a hang on tag. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 20:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What reference is that? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 25 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.
- Nipsonanomhmata has provided this reference on my talk page, but my computer won't even let me open the link. Can anyone else verify the content? I will of course restore the article to let the AfD play out if there is any doubt as to whether the article is actually a hoax. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy Fields[edit]
- Sandy Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to be notable. Played high school, DII college, and pro league that does not compete at the highest level. No secondary sources. Onorem♠Dil 19:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nothing about individual is notable enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 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) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demevolist Music Group[edit]
- Demevolist Music Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demevolist Music Group fails WP:BAND as a hip hop group and fails WP:CORP as a record label imprint. No coverage by reliable sources. The article's author appears to be a member of the group. Disclosure: Content with assertion of notablity was removed as copyvio of the group's blog. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND. A group that never released an album would have to have some other rock-solid notability for an article, and I don't see anything of the sort here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 25 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) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Brook (river)[edit]
- Robin Brook (river) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very minor stream. The article appears to be entirely original research. I have searched for reliable sources but found none, so I believe that this article fails the general notability guidelines in that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Delete unless reliable sources are found. Jeremy (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the related page, Bowman Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the same reasons—Jeremy (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's more than a stream — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpxpress (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest oppose possible this is the page with the best possibility of being expanded on the whole of Wikipedia! It is a huge river, not a stream. If you think this is a stream, then go and delete Blackburn Brook and Burbage Brook and others too, as they are smaller! Requesting this for deletion is the most offensive thing anyone has ever done to me, as I really love this river and can expand it a lot! Same with the Bowman Brook! 91.107.205.247 (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)— 91.107.205.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strongest oppose possible, agree with everything above 100%. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. I've also found that sources are scarce. The only map to feature its name is the OS, the only other websites featuring it are Wikimapia with the entry added by the OP its WP counterpart and a 2 year old Sheffield Forum post about the lack of crossings. The width and flow of the waterway are low and no history is linked to it. It fails on the notability factor and the article appears to be original work with no references. Voting whilst unsigned is improper when an account is available. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. Seems to be original research. Edison (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFF might well need to be deleted, but that is irrelevant; there is no claim to make this a notable waterway. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete, unambiguous copyright violation (and also unambiguous advertising). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel Hill Advisory Group[edit]
- Laurel Hill Advisory Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:CORP or WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 18:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. The page is copyvio from the company's website (here and here) with the paragraphs rearranged. Tagged for speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 25 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 Speedily deleted a7 by User:The Bushranger. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shoayb Khan[edit]
- Shoayb Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced autobiography, author removing SD templates, fails WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7, borderline G11. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A9. TNXMan 17:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All About Keyz (album)[edit]
- All About Keyz (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD was contested, so nominating for deletion. Album of an artist with no article or indication of notability (WP:MUSIC). Creator of article appears to have a conflict of interest with the subject. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:10, 25 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, although I have just moved the article to a slightly shorter title which goes over two, rather than three, lines. There is a reasonable argument presented on both sides. The delete side has argued that the inclusion criteria are arbitrary, and made on the spur of the moment, although this has been rebutted by those pointing out that these five (not six) awards are among the most prestigious and that winning multiple awards like this is an unusual achievement which ought to be documented. I am adding the source found by Jaxsonjo which has lent support to the contention that these awards are indeed among the most prestigious. I am still unsure about whether this ought to be enough, but I cannot see a consensus to delete here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance[edit]
- List of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article screams of list cruft. I know some people love to take note of this type of statistic, but let's face it, this is trivial information. There is no need for a list like this on Wikipedia. Also, the title is waaaaaaaaay too long. Feedback ☎ 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Feedback ☎ 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a deletion argument here beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT (seriously, you've just combined two or three of the examples given there with no further substance). That said, can anyone explain why this particular combination of awards is significant? The significance of EGOT is pretty clear, but this choice of awards seems arbitrary. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it a case of "I don't like it"? I didn't say I hate the list or anyone on it, I just said I don't think it warrants a place on Wikipedia. The criteria to make this list is not significant historically nor culturally. This list has no basis for notability. Feedback ☎ 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "cruft" and "trivia" are given as examples of insufficient deletion arguments at WP:IDONTLIKEIT; "no need for a list like this on Wikipedia" isn't really all that different from "I'm so ashamed this article is on Wikipedia", another example. What they have in common is that they are all unelaborated opinions that don't address the specific content of the article, they only communicate that you want it deleted. Your reply to me above goes a lot further towards explaining your deletion rationale, however. postdlf (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it a case of "I don't like it"? I didn't say I hate the list or anyone on it, I just said I don't think it warrants a place on Wikipedia. The criteria to make this list is not significant historically nor culturally. This list has no basis for notability. Feedback ☎ 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I agree that the title is waaaaaaaaay too long-- it's probably a byproduct of titles that get the "whuzzatmean?" objection, where if the title is "List of actors who have won multiple simultaneous awards", there's a lot of "what awards?" "how much is multiple?" "is it simultaneous if they got awarded at different times?" "how do you define actors?" etc. I don't think it's trivial-- it's a rare actor or actress who gets the award from the voters in their colleagues at American and British Academies and the Screen Actors Guild and the critics at home and abroad. I think this probably would work better as a list of persons who won the most major awards for a particular film performance, and include things like the People's Choice Award. Then, all we have to contend with is "why 8?" "why 7?" "why 6?" etc. Mandsford 20:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that in principle, but I don't see a way to draw a reasonable line between "major" and nonmajor awards, without including all notable awards. Daniel Day-Lewis, for example, is on this list for his role in There Will Be Blood, but if you look at his filmography in his article, you'll see that he won far more than these five awards for it; I count 26 awards that have their own articles. And even if we do include all notable awards, then the total award count is arbitrary and just a function of Wikipedia notability guidelines rather than a concrete fact of how many awards someone has won. So I'm doubting whether we can compose such a list meaningfully unless we can find sources that themselves make such award result comparisons or counts. postdlf (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Arbitrary combination of selection criteria. Why not add "Left handed?" Edison (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have a long tradition of lists of Full Ginsbergs appearances and for awards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Arbitrary selection criteria. Full Ginsburg is not a criteria created by a Wikipedia editor. How about List of people who were Christians, became atheists then won Oscars or List of countries larger than Spain? If the selection criteria were meaningful, there would be reliable sources discussing the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Silly trivia. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A list of achieving the six major cinema awards for the same performance. Jaxsonjo (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We know what the article is intended to be. As outlined above, though, many of us feel the article does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. Please explain which guideline(s) you feel justifies your !vote. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we had a source(s) expressly supporting the view these are "the six major cinema awards," it would go a long way towards justifying this list. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6244543.stm might well be such a list Jaxsonjo (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we had a source(s) expressly supporting the view these are "the six major cinema awards," it would go a long way towards justifying this list. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We know what the article is intended to be. As outlined above, though, many of us feel the article does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. Please explain which guideline(s) you feel justifies your !vote. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:39, 28 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 List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries#Liechtenstein. The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of football clubs in Liechtenstein[edit]
- List of football clubs in Liechtenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Provides less information than can be found at List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries#Liechtenstein, and should therefore redirect there. The editor involved does not appear receptive to discussion of any sort, and has de-prodded at least one article in the last day, leaving me little option but to resort to a full-blown AfD. —WFC— 14:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per nom, no need for a seperate article, especially one which is just nothing more than a different presentation of exactly the same info as in Category:Liechtenstein football clubs. GiantSnowman 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Liechtenstein Football Cup. I would normally !vote to keep this kind of article (depending on the size of the league), but seeing as there are only 7 clubs in the entire country with no national league of its own, a redirect to the relevant competition would be appropriate here. Bettia Talk 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - per Bettia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - per Bettia.--EchetusXe 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Liechtenstein Football Cup, which is a bettiar choice than the other proposals. Mandsford 20:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom to List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries#Liechtenstein. Although the Liechtenstein Football Cup also contains this list, its purpose is not as a list. The current entry is a List of Liechtenstein clubs and the proposed redirect contains lists of clubs form various places including a List of Liechtenstein clubs, but with more information, and it also links back to the Football Cup article, building a better web--ClubOranjeT 22:40, 25 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Angry dad (disambiguation)[edit]
- Angry dad (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to WP:2DAB, this type of disambiguation page is unnecessary, since neither one of the articles is the primary topic. Both of the links are for related episodes of The Simpsons, and only one of them contains the title "Angry Dad". The recommended practice in these situations, is to place a hatnote on both articles, each one directing people to the other article. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur and this disambig is not very notable, how many things are we going to find here that are called angry dad? delete the disambiguation page and hatnote the articles--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- both articles are hat noted now, all we need to do now is wait for the angry dad disambig to be deleted--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnecessary disambiguation page where disambiguation is easily accomplished using hatnotes. It is worth noting that a prod was contested on this page. Since the two pages now have hatnotes on them, I wonder if we can invoke G6 here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Scorpion removed the hat notes saying they are unecessary as both articles are internally linked to each other already, I think we can still invoke G6 already, (why does that remind me of a song in the charts?) --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 19:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tagged it for G6 and will leave it up to an admin to adjudicate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have declined the speedy deletion of this article under criterion G6. A proposed deletion was previously contested so speedy deletion would not seem to be uncontroversial in this case. This does not affect this discussion reaching a consensus either for or against deletion and should not be seen as a comment or recommendation for or against either outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree the speedy should have been declined, but that doesn't change the fact that this dab page is unnecessary, as the disambiguation can easily be achieved by hatnotes. Jenks24 (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Helwig[edit]
- Jonathan Helwig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
subject is not notable and insists on removing deletion tags with no reasons or sources provided HistoryFightFan (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' This does look like the equivalent of AA baseball, and this guy hasn't exactly been a champ, even at this level. I'll mostly defer to those who maintain articles in this area, but this guy doesn't look notable to me. The sources are enough to say that this isn't a hoax, but an actual press article would be better. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO, the applicable notability guideline. Edison (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly fails WP:MMANOT. No other indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication he passes any notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Please read WP:BIO for notability guidelines of people. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Orullian[edit]
- Peter Orullian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable: author who has 110 Google hits when social networks, WP, blogs/forum and his publishers are excluded from the search [7]] Sitush (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One published novel, some short stories... Probably a little short of the bar for notability. I don't see a lot out there beyond normal publicity from the publisher and the author's own promotion. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete References cited do not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete writer with, so far, not a single notable work. Perhaps someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Somebody who a managed to get their first novel published which is quite an accomplishment, but I can find no coverage about him or his work in reliable sources to establish notability at this time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually have been working on trying to get sources. If you can tell me what type of sources you require I will gladly put up those sources. I'm a first time wiki creator. Peter didn't create this page, I did of my own choice. I've seen many other authors that have similiar pages put up. I've added more details in about his music career which do include a band that has it's own wikipage. --Mycoltbug (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - What is needed is to demonstrate that he has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources such as magazines, newspapers, etc. that would satisfy either the general inclusion criteria, or the ones specific to authors. Feel free to post the sources here in this discussion for consideration. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are a couple different ones that I could put up. If you look at the music section there are some new references about his musical endeavors. Also here are a few other references for his work as an author. [8],[9],See the opening statements by the editor at TOR the publishing house about Peter [10]--Mycoltbug (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have taken the liberty of removing the <ref> tags so that the URLS show properly. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What we need is independent coverage about Peter Orullian. The search results from Good Reads is not usable as a reference, and press releases and such from his publisher are not independent sources. For example, something like a New York Times book review would count as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyThere aren't any of that yet availible since the book which is his most notable accomplishment to date won't be released until 12 April. Once that's up I can link the details from that. Here is a review that publsishers weekly put up [11]There are several bloggers out there that are independent of the publisher that prove that he is a good author. I can give you those links also. Here is one concerning him being an acomomplshed singer with a band [12]--Mycoltbug (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply How is my page any different from this page? [13] There isn't much difference at all nor any better proof of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycoltbug (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Because anybody can create an article on wikipedia, the existence of other articles is not a good reason for keeping this article. Each needs to be reviewed on their own merits. I've not reviewed the other article. Perhaps it should also be deleted. Regardless, to have this article kept, reliable sources are needed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply How is my page any different from this page? [13] There isn't much difference at all nor any better proof of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycoltbug (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By your own rules put on the wiki site you way it must be notable and verifiable. Publishers weekly is the international news website of book publishing and bookselling including business news, reviews, bestseller lists, etc. It is a verifiable source for proof that he is an actual author and that is book is worth while. Which would increase his notability. [14] "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" He does have multiple different sources that I have now included for his music and writing that are all independent of him. Therefore by that guideline he is notable. I don't know how 8 short stories, 1 book that is coming out and touring with multiple bands is not notable. --Mycoltbug (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Tor appear to be his publishers & therefore not independent; the band you refer to which has a WP article is,by your own admission, one which he was guest vocalist for on one occasion (and, for all we know, one song). No-one is denying that he is a published author but Publishers Weekly alone as an independent source proves little regarding notability - publishers' lists and potted plot summaries are ten-a-penny but not meaningful because they exist primarily for marketing. I am starting to think that you do have a conflict of interest here: you have contributed to no other article than this one and seem to be absolutely adamant in the stance you are taking on it despite a consensus from more experienced editors - it is, to me, a classic sign of a COI editor. I know you have said that you are not but I'm finding WP:AGF a little hard to stretch at the moment. Apologies for this. I also think that this discussion would be better on the article talk page, which is linked to from here anyway. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment kinda funny how it says debates over the deletion should be on this page right on the warning. But moved my discussion to the talk page as requested. --Mycoltbug (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you are right, my fault. I think some of the detail you are bringing up is a bit more than is usual to find in an article/page such as this, but nonetheless you are right. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From article talk page - given my error above, here is a cut and paste of Mycoltbug's cmt on the talk page:
If you are going to take this page down then that's your choice. I am independent of Peter, TOR, his agent, etc. I just happen to be a fan that enjoys his writing and find him to be of notable need of an article like this. If you disagree that's fine, your choice since you are the person in charge and I'm mearly am trying to use Wikipedia to it's intended use, which to my understanding is an Enclyclopedia of information for people seeking information about a subject that is note worthy. I've seen multiple other authors with as many resources and verifiable sources on your site, I've found that to be a huge boost for information (as I'm sure other users have also.) So if you are going to take this down please tell me how to flag an article for deletion and I'll go flag all the other authors for deletion that I know I have looked at that aren't "notable" by your definition. Otherwise get off your high horse and drop the deletion flag. Which i'm sure by me posting this i'm in breach of [[15]] but I don't care. You are the one who is accusing me of being a liar and threatening to delete my hard work from your site. I may not be a pro at this but I'm trying to learn it and was going to start working/editing other articles but maybe I'll let this place continue to be full of misinformation because of people like you Shitush. --Mycoltbug (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- From article talk page - given my error above, here is a cut and paste of Mycoltbug's cmt on the talk page:
- Comment - you are right, my fault. I think some of the detail you are bringing up is a bit more than is usual to find in an article/page such as this, but nonetheless you are right. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By your own rules put on the wiki site you way it must be notable and verifiable. Publishers weekly is the international news website of book publishing and bookselling including business news, reviews, bestseller lists, etc. It is a verifiable source for proof that he is an actual author and that is book is worth while. Which would increase his notability. [14] "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" He does have multiple different sources that I have now included for his music and writing that are all independent of him. Therefore by that guideline he is notable. I don't know how 8 short stories, 1 book that is coming out and touring with multiple bands is not notable. --Mycoltbug (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I find your claim of "one occasion" as incorrect. If you read the sources properly he was with them for the entire tour not just a single song. Furthermore, I'm providing arguements against everything you have said and no one can really provide refuttable eviedence on the contrary to what my sources say. As the guideline states "This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice," You have established practices of having and using sources such as review sites, publishers, and other locations such as that throughout wikipedia. At the user said above "Publishers Weekly alone as an independent source proves little regarding notability - publishers' lists and potted plot summaries are ten-a-penny but not meaningful because they exist primarily for marketing." He is correct they exist for marketing purposes to help said authors gain notoriety, that does not mean they can be denied as a source. I have included both primary and secondary sources WP:BIO says "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." that has been the subject of an independent book is the key to this argument. It is an independent book. Therefore it should not be deleted. Also the fact that you are using google search as criteria to diminish is notabilty is against wiki policy. See [16] --Mycoltbug (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am withdrawing from this discussion, which is becoming personal because an editor seems to think that I am running the show. To do otherwise would be to inflame the present situation. Let's just see what happens on the consensus for this AfD. Agreed? - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have made substantial edits to the sources as requested and also added more sections about his music endevors. I ask to have some new fresh opinions look at the page based off the gounds I put in my dispute above. This article does not meet the grounds for the request for deletion. If you don't want to dispute my case above that is your call. I just felt that there was little to no good faith gestured to the article and needed to stand up for my hardwork. --Mycoltbug (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Lifehouse[edit]
- Jesus Lifehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This contemporary church article gives no indication of notability (per WP:ORG), and appears to fail the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable third-party sourcing to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability - just an ordinary church, I suspect. StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references cited to satisfy the notability guideline WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a directory of every religious congregation in the world. Edison (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for a lack of notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of notability.. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Scarborough[edit]
- New Scarborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of the entries appear on the Ordnance Survey, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Scarborough, Bramley and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Scarborough, Yeadon Eastleigh 9 (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This disambiguation page was created by indef. blocked sockmaster User:Crouch, Swale. --Kudpung (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have blocked User:Eastleigh 9 as a sock of User:Crouch, Swale. User:Crouch, Swale created the article. I guess that technically we could delete this AFD as CSD G5 and the article as G7 but perhaps that would not be the best approach :) nancy 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing notability as well as verifiability. Edison (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one of numerous place articles started by this user because it is marked on a map, not because it is notable.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Scarborough, Yeadon[edit]
- New Scarborough, Yeadon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not on the Ordnancy Survey Eastleigh 9 (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand New Scarborough is indeed on the OS maps at grid reference SE196411 Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What matters is if the Ordnance Survey marks it as a location or not, eg Old Lindley is marked as a location, so would warrant an article, while New Scarborough, Bramley may be shown on the map, but not as a location, so therefore would not warrant an article, unlike Old Lindley or Round Maple even though the population of those places is low. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The page was created by indef. blocked sockmaster User:Crouch, Swale. --Kudpung (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have blocked User:Eastleigh 9 as a sock of User:Crouch, Swale. User:Crouch, Swale created the article. I guess that technically we could delete this AFD as CSD G5 and the article as G7 but perhaps that would not be the best approach :) nancy 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... confusing. Why on earth would you create an article then nominate it for deletion? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing notability as well questionable verifiability. Edison (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The place definitely exists - there is a post office named New Scarborough PO, I found a picture of a church with a caption saying it is in New Scarborough, Yeadon, etc. According to some discussion I found online, the area is marked by a sign as "New Scarboro". Brianyoumans (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one of numerous place articles started by this user because it is marked on a map, not because it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear to be a well-defined settlement such as a town, village or even a hamlet. Rather it seems to be more like a neighborhood (these are generally not kept unless there is something to write about them). I am strongly in favor of keeping all articles on real settlements, but I cannot see that this location has any distinct significance, even on a local scale. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swallow Hill[edit]
- Swallow Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not on the Ordnance Survey Eastleigh 9 (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have blocked User:Eastleigh 9 as a sock of User:Crouch, Swale. User:Crouch, Swale created the article. I guess that technically we could delete this AFD as CSD G5 and the article as G7 but perhaps that would not be the best approach :) nancy 16:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail notability: not every name on a map requires an encyclopedia article. Also speedyable as noted above, since created by blocked or banned user, as well as because the author requests deletion. Edison (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one of numerous place articles started by this user because it is marked on a map, not because it is notable.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just an area, not a actual place.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silver Royd Hill[edit]
- Silver Royd Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not on Ordnance Survey Eastleigh 9 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: The page was created by indef. blocked sockmaster User:Crouch, Swale. --Kudpung (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have blocked User:Eastleigh 9 as a sock of User:Crouch, Swale. User:Crouch, Swale created the article. I guess that technically we could delete this AFD as CSD G5 and the article as G7 but perhaps that would not be the best approach :) nancy 16:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail notability: not every name on a map requires an encyclopedia article. Also speedyable as noted above, since created by blocked or banned user, as well as because the author requests deletion. Edison (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not really a separate location in its own right. Tried looking for sources, and found pretty much nothing usable. Maybe - just maybe - worthy of a mention in a larger article, but not a stand-alone one. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one of numerous place articles started by this user because it is marked on a map, not because it is notable.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:51, 26 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wormingford Grove[edit]
- Wormingford Grove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A house/farm, not a hamlet Eastleigh 9 (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree - the aerial view on Bing maps makes that clear, and it's not even called "Wormingford Grove", just "The Grove". JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a house with possible outbuildings. Unless the house is a listed building or has some other notable attributes it does not pass criteria for notability. --Kudpung (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The page was created by indef. blocked sockmaster User:Crouch, Swale. Kudpung (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have blocked User:Eastleigh 9 as a sock of User:Crouch, Swale. User:Crouch, Swale created the article. I guess that technically we could delete this AFD as CSD G5 and the article as G7 but perhaps that would not be the best approach :) nancy 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail notability: houses rarely require an encyclopedia article. Also speedyable as noted above, since created by blocked or banned user, as well as because the author requests deletion. Edison (talk) 21:12, 25 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Scarborough, Bramley[edit]
- New Scarborough, Bramley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a location, not on Ordnance Survey Eastleigh 9 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is, in fact, just on the largest-scale OS maps - click here and then click on the "Ordnance Survey map" option, and you can see the name to the right of centre. But I think it is too small and obscure to be notable enough for an article - see "Populated places without legal recognition" under Wikipedia:Notability (geography) - and I haven't found any "substantial independent comment" about it. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What matters is if the Ordnance Survey marks it as a location or not, eg Old Lindley is marked as a location, so would warrant an article, while New Scarborough, Bramley may be shown on the map, but not as a location, so therefore would not warrant an article, unlike Old Lindley. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unless I'm confused by nomenclature here, New Scarborough is indeed marked as a location on OS maps, both in the Landranger and Explorer series. That's sufficient to suggest it has legal recognition. With regards to Old Lindley, yes... I would agree that it too should have its own article. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Type New Scarborough into Ordnance Survey, no results, when you type Chickney or Round Maple in it takes you onto the location, which is why those places are notable, but none of the New Scarboroughs are. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about the size of the article or the place, it's about if it is registered as a place on OS or not. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that farms are sometimes shown on the more detailed OS maps, but they are not locations as OS does not find them if you type them into the search box. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Old Lindley did once. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that farms are sometimes shown on the more detailed OS maps, but they are not locations as OS does not find them if you type them into the search box. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about the size of the article or the place, it's about if it is registered as a place on OS or not. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Type New Scarborough into Ordnance Survey, no results, when you type Chickney or Round Maple in it takes you onto the location, which is why those places are notable, but none of the New Scarboroughs are. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If all that appears is a name on a map, with no other information available or likely to be available then the article is unlikely to be expanded. In accordance with WP:UKCITIES:
- "Within built-up areas, suburbs and inner-city areas are often difficult to define, lack statutory boundaries, have limited published material about them or little to elaborate on with which to create a comprehensive article. If there is little encyclopaedic material about such places, it may be best to merge these articles into those about the wider area or settlement."
- This seems like very good advice to me. In a case such as this there isn't even anything to merge. If there is decent verifiable information beyond being a name on a map then it could be added to Bramley, West Yorkshire.
- I am against a redirect for this situation because whilst "Redirects are cheap" they do clutter up the autofill function in the search box so making other, notable articles harder to find. Quantpole (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The page was created by indef. blocked sockmaster User:Crouch, Swale. Kudpung (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have blocked User:Eastleigh 9 as a sock of User:Crouch, Swale. User:Crouch, Swale created the article. I guess that technically we could delete this AFD as CSD G5 and the article as G7 but perhaps that would not be the best approach :) nancy 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail notability: not every name or dot on a map requires an encyclopedia article. Also speedyable as noted above, since created by blocked or banned user, as well as because the author requests deletion. Edison (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one of numerous place articles started by this user because it is marked on a map, not because it is notable.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:50, 26 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiring Field[edit]
- Wiring Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a location, not on Ordnance Survey, cannot find any trace on Google Maps, this sould be deleted Eastleigh 9 (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Agreed, this place is not even found on a simple google search.Delusion23 (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The page was created by indef. blocked sockmaster User:Crouch, Swale. --Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have blocked User:Eastleigh 9 as a sock of User:Crouch, Swale. User:Crouch, Swale created the article. I guess that technically we could delete this AFD as CSD G5 and the article as G7 but perhaps that would not be the best approach :) nancy 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find any proof this place exists. --Kudpung (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail notability: not every name on a map requires an encyclopedia article. Possible hoax, failing verifiability. Also speedyable as noted above, since created by blocked or banned user, as well as because the author requests deletion. Edison (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment certainly seems to have been recorded on OS maps, as a simple google search revealed, see this page for example. I make no comment as to size or notability. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one of numerous place articles started by this user because it is marked on a map, not because it is notable.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just an area, not a actual place.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cowfold F.C.[edit]
- Cowfold F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - currently competes at Level 12 and no evidence that it has competed at a sufficient level for notability. GiantSnowman 12:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - playing at level 12 of the football pyramid definitely doesn't make the club inherently notable, and there is nothing to indicate that it passes WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Bollywood actresses[edit]
- List of Bollywood actresses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just a collection of names which are thrown together to create a list that is based more on personal preference of the creator. Fails WP:V. Shahid • Talk2me 10:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think that there is anything wrong with having a list of notable Bollywood actresses. In fact, I think it is quite a good idea. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 20:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep We have relatively few articles about Indian cinema, and I hate to see this deleted after the improvements that were made by User:Juangill, who took an indiscriminate list, turned it into a sortable table, and added information about a film that the actress was identified with. Granted, I don't understand the stuff about "top" and "raised to fame" or "down the line", but to me, that's the simplest of fixes-- make it a list of lead actresses and films, source it to Bollywood Squares or whatever, and leave out the judgment calls. Mandsford 20:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think that this could be a useful article. Needs more work on it though. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 20:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I don't have a problem with having a list of this sort, but I do have a problem with the fact that this page is very poorly structured. It is not an alphabetical list, it is a list of actresses per decades and the creator also added a POV-based column which includes every actress' "Landmark film". In fact, there already is a List of Indian film actresses. Shahid • Talk2me 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe some type of compromise can be reached. Strictly speaking, Bollywood doesn't refer to all films made in India, just those in the Hindi language, which is one of 15 official languages in that nation of 1 billion people. Mandsford 01:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I don't have a problem with having a list of this sort, but I do have a problem with the fact that this page is very poorly structured. It is not an alphabetical list, it is a list of actresses per decades and the creator also added a POV-based column which includes every actress' "Landmark film". In fact, there already is a List of Indian film actresses. Shahid • Talk2me 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as a list topic, this is suitable. As for structural concerns, I agree that the current organization by time is not a good idea, but changing it to an alphabetical listing is an editting issue which deletion does not cure. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if article has some issues which can be fixed, then there is no point in deleting it. We can always fix it. KuwarOnline Talk 08:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm certain that this article could become indispensable for research purposes, provided a little cleanup work is done through normal editing process. Rudybowwow (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crane Sports F.C.[edit]
- Crane Sports F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'd like to make clear from the outset that I am neutral in this AfD.
Following a series of {{notability}} tags placed by another editor, many of which in turn have been reverted (often but not exlusively by original authors), I'm initiating this AfD to help determine how our notability policies and guidelines should be interpreted in relation to lower league football clubs in the larger countries. I think a focussed discussion from a wide variety of editors should give us a good steer (at the very least for English football). —WFC— 09:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —WFC— 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Club has played in the FA Vase, which in the past has been accepted as a cut-off point for notability for English non-League clubs (see here). Number 57 09:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it was two years ago, that was pretty emphatic. Nonetheless, that club had played in the FA Cup, Trophy and Vase, and had separate claims to the GNG. The intention of this AfD is to examine the more specific instance of only having played in the Vase. I want to stress again that I'm not disagreeing with this rationale, merely playing devil's advocate in the interests of discussion. —WFC— 10:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Consensus on football club notability in the English system has long been that if a club has played at step 6/level 10 or above in the National League System, or has played in one of the national FA cup competitions, i.e the FA Cup itself, FA Trophy or FA Vase, it is considered notable. A reliable source in this article confirms this club's appearance in the FA Vase. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The F.A. Cup should be the cut-off point as this is an internationally recognised national competition which also has top-flight teams competing in it. If a team has not competed in the F.A. Cup then there should be a better reason for keeping the article than simply "in the 80's they played in an amateur cup run by the F.A. that only reaches up to level 8". Many of the team articles on level 11 and lower clubs are nothing more than stubs. Doesn't mean they should all be deleted, but real notability needs to be established. Delusion23 (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as above, this team has played at an acceptable level. GiantSnowman 12:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can we at least have some discussion on whether there is sufficient sourcing available rather than basing the discussion on an arbitrary cut off point that doesn't seem to appear in any guidelines? Quantpole (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. Winning the FA Vase is an arguable case. Competing in it should not be. FA Vase should not confer notability automatically. Crane do not have substantial outside interest. MLA (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Struway. Koncorde (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The team has not competed in the national cup competition, the FA Cup. We should not assume that small clubs playing in sundry amateur tournaments (that's what the FA Vase is) are inherently notable. A Google search reveals nothing that comes close to significant coverage in reliable sources, which is the definition of notability. BigDom talk 11:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If a team meets WP:GNG then keep it. If it plays in a fully pro league, keep it. I would probably add that if it plays in the highest league of that country keep it (maybe with some sort of qualifier - maybe a member of that league has played in the first round proper of their confederation's Champions' League?) If it plays in the national cup competition probably keep it, although bear in mind the Coupe de France has 7449 clubs competing in it this year. My understanding of guidelines in addition to the WP:GNG is that they are there to indicate that a subject will be notable if you look hard enough, just maybe not on the internet (or in English). It isn't safe to assume a club will have notability just by playing in the Vase. I'd also question whether playing in the first qualifying round for the FA Cup should automatically confer notability but I'm in the minority there. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Prior to 2004-05 the Suffolk & Ipswich league would have been at Level 10 of the English football structure, which is the accepted cut-off for notability. In addition, I believe competing in the FA Vase is notable; the competition receives substantial coverage, and a new/reconstituted team wishing to play in the FA Cup for the first time has to compete in the Vase (or FA Trophy) firstly, in order to be able to play in the FA Cup the following season. Eldumpo (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If a consensus is evertually reached it would be a good idea to have it worded out unambiguously for reference i.e. specifically Notability criteria for English football clubs. If any club passes this criteria it should be very clear in the article itself that the club does pass this criteria for example "this club played in 20xx F.A. Cup" (or Vase if it's actually deemed notable) or "this team was at its highest point in English football when it played in X league in 19xx when this was level 10". Obviously this should all have credible references.Delusion23 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hail Purdue![edit]
- Hail Purdue! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability per WP:SONG. Also, article consists mostly of lyrics, so could be moved to Wikisource (was published before 1923, so is public domain). c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 06:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakest Keep Found only two refs with significant coverage: [17], [18]. Edison (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Official university songs typically are subtopics for the university article, where they typically get only a brief mention; the reason they seldom are published in those articles is because most university songs are subject to copyright. This one is an exception to the "seldom are published" situation because it is old enough to be in the public domain. It properly has been split off from the main Purdue University article due to the excessive length it would create in that article. When a long article is split in that fashion, it is not necessary to establish individual independent notability for every split-off topic. Regardless, this song is treasured by Purdue alumni and widely reproduced (audios, videos, ringtones, etc.); I'd hate to be the one to tell a bunch of drunken Boilermakers that Wikipedia deemed their song to be non-notable! --Orlady (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said in my nom, if this is deleted, the lyrics should be moved to Wikisource because Wikisource is for public domain texts.
- Also, in response to your statement, "When a long article is split in that fashion, it is not necessary to establish individual independent notability for every split-off topic," Wikipedia:Splitting, a link you included in your !vote, says the following: "In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully ... but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia" (emphasis added by me). This article does not assert notability in any way. --- c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 23:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article says that it is the official song of a major university. Judging from the size of Category:College fight songs in the United States, there seems to be a general consensus for accepting that as a notability assertion. Brian the Editor (talk) 18:51, 27 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 cut from the team.. The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Vezendy[edit]
- Gerald Vezendy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable baseball player, never reached majors. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO.Did not get his "one minute of professional play" in the majors to be entitled to automatic notability. Edison (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As you stated, a non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 20:24, 26 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) 11:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen[edit]
- Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article, while well sourced, offers absolutely no encyclopedic value, news coverage does not mean that the event has WP:EFFECT (and thus not notable). (This one obviously doesn't). Touching, only if it didn't read like a propaganda piece for the US Army where Scott would carry Alaa into the sunset. Yazan (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Yazan (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Yazan (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep A notable topic that was reported at CNN, ABC, PBS and many other reliable sources. Wikipedia hosts many articles on the subject what went wrong in Iraq. Why not host a single article on something that went good? WP:EFFECT does not apply for this case because the soldiers from this unit are in process of trying to bring many more special need kids to US--Mbz1 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am afraid that the nominator's claim that the article is "a propaganda piece for the US Army" is yet another conformation that the author of this book got most things about European liberalism right please see page 85.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- <sarcasm>I can't access the page, but from the title of the book "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within",
I sense that you're calling me either a radical Islamist, or leftist idiot who's oblivion of radical Islam. I might be wrong though.</sarcasm> - Regardless
of what type of idiot you think I am,I would suggest discussing the merits of the article rather than the editor. Yazan (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not call you anything, and I have no idea why you cannot access the Google book. Here's one more link. I mention this book because it speaks about this very case that is described in the article in the this very content you refer to it as being propaganda for US army. Because you were not able to get to the book I clarified my comment above. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can access Google Books, and I can see the book but there's no preview available for that page 85. Anyway, this is beside the point and I suggest we just wait for other opinions. Yazan (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we made an interesting discovery! It means that google book have different previews for the user in different countries. Unbelievable! OK, back to the subject: in a few words, the author of the book says that for European war on terror means Guantanamo, and US "presence in Iraq" is Abu Ghraib, and no European news agency ever reported on the adaption of Ala'a. --Mbz1 (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- <soapbox>Well Mbz1, in Syria we had around 3 million Iraqi refugees (roughly 15% of Syria's population) because of the war, so you'll have to excuse me for feeling that a US soldier adopting an Iraqi kid as a pitiful act in the great landscape of things (as much as it is an honorable one on an individual level). And to be honest, I feel that the coverage has the imprints of everything that is wrong with how the US deals with this. I truly hope you're not equating this with the horror that is Abu Ghraib, or Guantanamo.</soapbox> Anyway, this is not an easy topic to debate here, nor is this the place for it (a glass of beer comes to mind). I don't think this deserves an article on Wikipedia, and I don't think it meets the requirements for either WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Best! Yazan (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- <sarcasm>I can't access the page, but from the title of the book "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within",
Delete With all respect Mbz1, and I do hugely respect you, I disagree on this issue. The article is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. The issue was taken up by the US media because it placates the guilt many in the US feel about Iraq. Note how suitable the boy was for this purpose; he was not handicapped because of the action of any US soldier. Recipients of the story can be heartwarmed and can be restored to a sense that they are decent and that what happened is right. Yet this is just a media wrought to give such people a temporary sense of relief. Quite aside from patriotism it makes economic sense, because advertisers reward well for mawkish stories that pull in this way on the heartstrings. In another month the story will be dead (unless Sarah Palin takes it up). I know you are working at achieving the right balance, and sensing grief on all sides. But you didn't get it right this time! --Epipelagic (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I have struck my entry above since it has been established that there is significant coverage from reliable sources over a reasonable period of time. Wikipedia is about verifiability and notability, not worthiness. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, "the story" happened in 2003. So far it has been covered from 2005 to 2007.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I search engine tested this
- Googling "Alaa Eddine" adoption - 186 results
- Google news search "Alaa Eddine" - 2 foreign language results (not sure if they deal with this story.)
- I think this could justifiably be deleted under the rationale that Wikipeida is not the news or simply that the subject matter is not notable.NickCT (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIn 2007 "CNN profiled Scott and Ala’a’s story in its "Heroes: An All-Star Tribute"". The story got to the final round. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is presented as an event, but it is also largely a biography of two individuals known only for one thing, contrary to WP:BLP1E. As an event, it seems deletable by reference to WP:NOTNEWS as a human interest news item. Edison (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not an authority, though it appears to me there is not enough substance here for a standalone encyclopedia article. Though the human story behind is an impressive one. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I was skeptical initially and would like to change my vote. During previous days additional references were added to this article. Wikipedia:EVENT guides us to reflect on depth of coverage, duration of coverage and diversity of sources. The provided sources include mainstream reliable sources (CNN, CBS News, Fox News even public PBS among others). Those take in depth insight, zooming in into this event, the event continues to be covered for number of years since year 2005 till 2010. Those are clearly characteristics of a notable event. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Emotional story, for sure...but why should *this* be highlighted, and not one of the other, literally *millions*, of other moving human stories? Did it have a wider impact .. beyond those it affected? I cannot see that. Also; Epipelagic (talk) makes some very good point, IMO. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep exactly from Mbz1 reasons: such coverage is very rare. There aren't millions of reports, and this adoption got a lot of attention for such case. Broccolo (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've said already, and I'd like to repeat one more time please:
- This article is not a news article because the story that started in 2003 was reported repeatedly at least from 2005 to 2010 by many reliable sources.
- The story behind the article is not an event because it does have WP:EFFECT (a growing campaign to bring more orphaned and disabled Iraqi children to US.)
- The story behind the article is notable because
- This story In 2007 "CNN profiled Scott and Ala’a’s story in its "Heroes: An All-Star Tribute"". The story got to the final round.
- There's not a single valid reason to delete the article.
--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - received significant coverage from reliable sources over a long period of time. Accusations of 'propaganda' aren't a good enough reason to delete the article: if it was a notable news story, it should have an article, whatever the reason it was initially reported. If it has POV issues, that's a matter to be addressed through editing, not deletion. Robofish (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Edison and nom. Passionless -Talk 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is definitely getting popular with wikipedia readers.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mbz1 and Epipelagic. Given depth and duration of reliable sourcing, opposition to the article seems unfounded. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep There's sufficient sourcing over an extended period of time such that there's more than enough sourcing and clearly isn't running into WP:NOTNEWS issues or anything similar. As Robofish observers, whether or not this first came to attention due to propaganda isn't relevant to whether or not we should have an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roberta Lee[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Roberta Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacking reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. Most references are to blogs, often Lee's own blogs. One nytimes story mentioned but it doesn't even appear to mention Lee. tedder (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is composed entirely of content sourced to unreliable sources—social networking pages, blogs, subject's website, and wn.com. This Google News search yields only passing mentions of Lee. As such, the article fails WP:BIO. Goodvac (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've been tagging the article with primary-sources-needed but there appear to be none, and the WP:SPAs that started the article keep taking down the tags without doing anything. The article is also an autobiography and I wouldn't be surprised if all the SPAs are one person. It is spam. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the individual., so fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She may be popular, but the article fails WP:AUTHOR/WP:ARTIST, and there's nothing notable about being an early adopter of the Internet for promotion, especially if there are no independent, reliable, third-party sources to back up the fact that she is noted for this. I had hopes for the NYT article but she is not mentioned there, nor is "new normal". Valfontis (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of sources is a big problem. The amount of socking taking place on the talk page is another. MarnetteD | Talk 20:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete From a general notability standpoint, I don't think there are enough outside sources to consider the subject notable. With a rewrite, I think it may pass the test, but not in its current form. Udeezy (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of significant independent third-party coverage establishing notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orange County Science Fiction Club[edit]
- Orange County Science Fiction Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not clear how this orphaned article meets notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google searches (news and book) bring up no results on the title. Discussion of notability on the talk page has centered around notability of individual members, or guest speakers which doesn't necessarily extend to the club itself. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If I'm not mistaken it's an uncommonly large and long-lived SF association, it's able to regularly engage notable authors to appear at its meetings, and it's hosted the World Science Fiction Convention on more than one occasion along with various smaller national and state level conventions. Its founder ran for the state assembly in 2004. Third party coverage in the OC Register (here). The Orange County public library maintains a collection of their publications for historical reasons (here). The following index of results from paywall sites suggests further coverage in reliable sources. (here). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this article does not say that the OCSFC hosted the World Science Fiction Convention, just that they assisted with it (nor does the source cited, or OCSFC's website, claim that this club hosted the Worldcon). There have been three Worldcons held in Anaheim, California, which is in Orange County, but they were all sponsored by the Southern California Institute for Fan Interests (SCIFI, Inc.) [19]. No doubt there is some overlap of membership between the two organizations, but it is not the OCSFC that can take credit for the Worldcon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I thought that SCIFI was a shell company created by OCSFC to be the legal host of their first WorldCon, and kept around for such uses. No references, and could well be wrong. htom (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Maybe it needs improvement, but not deletion. BTW, SCIFI (http://www.scifiinc.org/), to any extent that it's a "shell corporation" (which it is not), is more closely associated with LASFS than OCSFC. The parallel case sometimes cited is between NESFA and MCFI, but even there the overlap isn't 100%. Kevin Standlee (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I thought that SCIFI was a shell company created by OCSFC to be the legal host of their first WorldCon, and kept around for such uses. No references, and could well be wrong. htom (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG. The lone source linked above is more about WorldCon than this, and even if that weren't the case a mention in the local news isn't enough. There's also some pretty clear WP:COI/SPAM issues here too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as subject appears to cross both the verifiability and notability thresholds. I have added additional sources to this article and cleaned it up a bit as well. The group's 30-year history and participation in Worldcon organization help offset the relative thinness of the available articles. With the Los Angeles Times behind an intense paywall and most regional sources not online at all, searches in Google News only prove that FUTON bias is a real-world issue. - Dravecky (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the reference to a blog, not a reliable source. The other references are unclear, partly because they are LA Times articles which have only a brief abstract to go on, online, and partly because some of these sources appear to be insignificant mentions of the organization in "whats up" or "community calendar" type items in the newspaper. Even the Orange County Register article mentions the club only in passing, the article is about the convention. Perhaps an article about the convention would be more easily sourced.--RadioFan (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The blog entry you deleted as a reference would have been a fine reference for verifying the event it mentioned, an appearance by the blog author (who is a published sf author) at an event sponsored by the club. There was no cause to delete it, though I agree it was not a reference that should be pointed to in order to establish notability. The LA times article references, however, you should not discount simply because you do not have access to them. That would be like asserting that a book is not a decent reference because it was not posted online. Wikipedia would be substantially less useful if it was only used to document material that was already well documented in online sources. Netmouse (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the reference to a blog, not a reliable source. The other references are unclear, partly because they are LA Times articles which have only a brief abstract to go on, online, and partly because some of these sources appear to be insignificant mentions of the organization in "whats up" or "community calendar" type items in the newspaper. Even the Orange County Register article mentions the club only in passing, the article is about the convention. Perhaps an article about the convention would be more easily sourced.--RadioFan (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I think it's been fixed up enough to keep, but just barely. Meets general notability for having multiple news stories about its activites, including a WorldCon that I missed. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not seeing those articles as being about the club or even about the clubs activities. They are about notable events that the club participates in and that notability doesn't necessarily transfer to each participating club. Still not seeing coverage in reliable sources where the club is the subject of the article, only brief mentions of the club.--RadioFan (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even though I am a member of the club and a major contributor to the page, I have done my best to be non biased. Many problems have been pointed out to me over the last few days and I have been working to correct them. I have updated the reference section so that it is better than before. I have removed the links to news articles and have replaced them with links to other clubs or people who at least mention the OCSFC. I, and others, are working hard to make sure that we present the best possible article on Wikipedia. I believe our club deserves the Wikipedia page and hope that you will allow it to continue. Wesomniman (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not seeing significant change in the article. Only the Orange County Register reference mentions the club and that is only in passing in an article about a related topic but not about the club itself. All of the LA Times articles fail verification, mostly because of the WP:PAYWALL. That could be overlooked in deference to avoiding WP:FUTON but the abstracts provided for the article and the headlines dont give much confidence that the article will help establish the notability of this subject. The article still reads fairly promotional as well.--RadioFan (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:PAYWALL says the opposite of what you are suggesting; specifically "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment." You can't reject online sources just because you personally haven't paid to read them, any more than you can reject print sources because you don't own the relevant book. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand what paywall says. I'm not saying the references are invalid because of the difficulty in verifying them, only noting that it is a challenge. I'm expressing concerns in the references based on what is available online. It doesn't inspire confidence that whats behind the paywall will provide much help in demonstrating the notability of this subject. I'm assuming good faith that the editors in question have read these references and would like to hear more about them.--RadioFan (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:PAYWALL says the opposite of what you are suggesting; specifically "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment." You can't reject online sources just because you personally haven't paid to read them, any more than you can reject print sources because you don't own the relevant book. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must apologize because for some reason all my edits have disappeared and what you are seeing is basically the old page. I don't know what happened to my edits, but I will try and replace them later. I hope that you will stand by until I can fix what was lost and figure out why it was lost. Thank you. Wesomniman (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep but needs better sourcing. Some folks are missing the distinction we make here between mere mentions (even in notable and reliable sources), and substantial coverage of an organization. Also: notability is not contagious; you don't achieve notability by have famous speakers or even famous member(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - any argument for having articles about community organizations must acknowledge that most news coverage about them will be about their activities and not about the organizations themselves. I think this sort of 'behind the scenes' article is very useful, and this appears to be a very active, well-established group. Netmouse (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Josh's Law[edit]
- Josh's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. The one citation provided is to a regional newspaper that only uses the phrase once, in passing. —Ute in DC (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed, no notability of this actually being a phrase in common use. Delusion23 (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant or notable coverage in many mainstream media, only one citation. --Takamaxa (Talk) 13:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable quote from a non notable person. MLA (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Encyclopedias are not made up of every phrase someone is quoted as saying in a local newspaper. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. FieldMarine (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like a non notable person attempting to start a notable quote via social marketing/media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.98.53 (talk) 17:47, 27 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yusleynis Herrera[edit]
- Yusleynis Herrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Rachel Sánchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Anniara Muñoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dulce Téllez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Marta Sánchez (volleyball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Maybelis Martínez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Emiko Odaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Keiko Miyajima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sachiko Otani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Yoko Kagabu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kyoko Ishida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kimie Morita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stefana Veljković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sanja Malagurski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jovana Vesović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Brižitka Molnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Yukari Kawase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Miyako Yamashita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Reiko Takizawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ikuyo Namura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Michiyo Ishikake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Song Nina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Zhang Ping (volleyball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chiho Torii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kiyomi Sakamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Aki Nagatomi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kayo Hoshino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Even though the Olympics events might be notable, these living people only made a single appearance each in said events covered in reliable sources, and our policy on such biographies do not permit articles that cover persons notable in only one significant event. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per WP:Notability (sports)#Generally acceptable standards point #1, in particular gold medalists Song Nina and Zhang Ping and a bunch of bronze medalists. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Clarityfiend. Studerby (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, these people are notable, we've covered that. But their notability only extends to one event in their career. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand WP:BLP1E. It is intended to cover, as an example, someone who gets in the news for being in a car accident with someone famous - Lindsey Lohan, Berlusconi, the Pope, whoever. Even if there were suddenly detailed news articles giving biography about them, unless something else happens to reinforce notability (they get on a reality TV show, have car accidents with 3 other celebrities, something anything that raises them above the transitory news) it's a one-time incident, that's not even going to be a footnote to history. On the other hand, competing in the Olympics is forever. Studerby (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, these people are notable, we've covered that. But their notability only extends to one event in their career. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe that the nominator, TeleComNasSprVen, is misunderstanding our policies on biographies of people notable for only one event. Our notability guideline for athletes presumes notability for Olympic competitors at least partially because competing in the Olympics is not at all one event - it is a high point or the culmination of a long and successful athletic career. The assumption is that these athletes have been covered in reliable sources many times as they advanced, competing in regional championships, national championships and in many cases world championships before reaching the Olympics. Is the nominator claiming to have made an unsuccessful but serious and complete good faith search for reliable sources for each and every one of these athletes as described in WP:BEFORE? I sincerely doubt it. Keep these articles, and instead of nominating them for deletion, work on sourcing and expanding them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that all these athletes come from non-English speaking countries. Before deleting any such Olympic athlete, a search for reliable sources in the athlete's native language should be completed. My guess is that Prensa Latina, Granma, or Juventud Rebelde may have something to say about the Cuban athletes. This is the English language Wikipedia of the entire world, not the Wikipedia of the English language speaking world. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per reliable sources and notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all as much as I don't agree with WP:ATHLETE one Olympic appearance satisfies the criterion. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Olympians unless there's a reason not to. MLA (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfies the applicable notability guideline WP:ATHLETE. Edison (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. Any athlete who competes in an Olympic Games, whether s/he wins a medal or comes in last, passes WP:ATHLETE. As mentioned, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to Olympians as much as it does to one-shot media sensations. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:SNOW Studerby (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All - I haven't gone through all of these, and am taking teh nomiantor at his word that all of these individuals have made appearances at the Olympics. Per our inclusion guidelines for athletes, this qualifies them as competing at the highest level of their sport. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 28 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. (non-admin closure) —GƒoleyFour— 03:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Bikont[edit]
- Piotr Bikont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a bit of a jack of all trades by the look of it, but with no evidence of significant coverage. There are a few brief mentions in Google Books results which have been recently added to the article. The (unsourced) Polish language article doesn't really indicate notability either, claiming him to be "Co-founder and participant in multiple World Championship Throw a hammer to a TV screen" and film appearances as an actor playing "security guard" and "nurse". Michig (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The nominator is right that the sources added don't paint an effective picture of notability, and that's in good part my own fault. Nonetheless, I'm still going to argue that there's some there, centered around his Solidarity-era journalism. Noting that I'm working with the limitations of automated translation, and that the Polish newspaper that dominates his Gnews hits is coughing up 404s on old articles that presumably used to exist, I note the following. First, a 1999 interview on NPR's All Things Considered appears substantial (note: "purchase this transcript" suggests a paywall it coughed up a full transcript for me for free.) The 1998 interview exerpts a 1991 Fresh Air appearance but that looks hard to track down. The Gdansk videotaping event is also covered in pages 1-3 of this book as well as this book (but it's hard to tell how deep the latter books' coverage goes). There's a journalistic award for that or another film in 1988, mentioned here and explained in the less reliable but consistent source here (yes, the Polish Journalists' Association is abbreviated SDP.) Gdansk shipyards aren't the limit of his documentary existence, I note with mentions in the New Yorker and this book on crime. Looks like the article has been stubbed, and that's entirely sensible in my own view, but I lean to the belief there's notability here, and (eventually, with the assistance of someone who can handle the Polish sources more adequately, track down and link his other translation work and, if appropriate, culinary career. (There are a few hints, there, too, Fodor's drops a """one of Poland's renowned food experts" on him in passing at here, for example, but by itself that's not proof of notability.) *shrug* --j⚛e deckertalk to me 23:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 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, 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, Logan Talk Contributions 00:17, 18 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, NW (Talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator's reasoning. The article as written doesn't assert notability (or much of anything really) and the links appear to just be passing mentions that aren't enough to support an article and especially not a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 25 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Academic Sports League[edit]
- Academic Sports League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This competition is a spinoff/scrimmage event of the United States Academic Decathlon, which itself is a notable competition. I would argue that the National Championship is a notable event, but I would doubt that any of the lower-level events would be independently notable, even the much longer running and intense California competition, as they don't have sufficient independent reliable sources to justify splitting them off from the main article.
This article might better belong at the Acadec Scores wiki, which doesn't have the same requirements for notability that we do. NW (Talk) 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, may I point out that the ASL is the largest league for AcDec east of the Mississippi and the biggest donator of scholarships in the country. That is certainly notable.Cssiitcic (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a great achievement on the part of the Erie City School District, and the Erie Times-News is to be commended for giving this the same attention that it provides to athletics in the area. On the other hand, it seems to be unique to Erie, and doesn't seem to have gotten the coverage from multiple independent sources to even meet WP:GNG [20], and the claims of being the largest donator of scholarships don't seem to have attracted national attention. It should receive prominent mention in the district article, and, if redirected, the title should first be moved to something a little more Erie. Mandsford 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 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) 00:07, 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, Logan Talk Contributions 00:15, 18 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, NW (Talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG. What little notability it has is both local and by association only. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 25 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) 01:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Dickason[edit]
- Harry Dickason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person is not necessarily notable, because it was just him but his team who won the bronze medal, which would warrant an article about them or a move of this page to theirs. And even if he were notable, he only participated in one significant event (albeit an Olympic event) so this article would fail our biographies criteria. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Per WP:NSPORTS, a subject is deemed notable if they have "competed in the Olympics or senior World Gymnastics Championships". This person competed in the Olympics. End of story. We're done here. SilverserenC 01:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree 100% with Silver seren and explained my thinking in greater detail in regards to a long list of Olympic athlete deletion nominations by this same nominator.Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Olympian. Competing in the 1912 Olympics is more notable than doing so in recent times given the substantially larger numbers that are involved these days. MLA (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Olympians pass WP:ATHLETE even if they come in last - and even if they competed as a member of a team. We need more and better articles on historic Olympians, not fewer. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:56, 26 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gemma Moraleja Paz[edit]
- Gemma Moraleja Paz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can see no notability per WP:AUTHOR. bender235 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 18 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) 01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I searched under her full name and found nothing. I searched under her pen name and found sites controlled by the writer and a few fleeting mentions, but nothing that convinced me that she is notable at this stage of her career. I will be happy to change my decision if reliable sources are provided. Cullen328 (talk) 16:07, 25 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toni Verde[edit]
- Toni Verde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP making questionable claims of notability. Plenty of puffery to go around, nothing to back it up. bd2412 T 14:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 19 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) 01:13, 25 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) 01:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seven Worlds Index[edit]
Not notable, thanks to Kuyabribri to completing this nomGnevin (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven Worlds Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination on behalf of Gnevin (talk · contribs), as it appears Twinkle broke. I assume the nomination rationale is along the lines of unverifiable and/or lack of notability. I will ask Gnevin for clarification.
For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:17, 18 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) 01:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because Google searches of books and scholar do not show the expression, or the index, being used. It does make sense however.Wolfview (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. & Wolfview. The only source listed is a print reference that provides no page number(s). Completely fails WP:V.--JayJasper (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ryder Scott Petroleum Consultants[edit]
- Ryder Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is promotional article for an oil consulting firm. Sources do not provide significant independent verification of notability. Restar32 (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no claim of notability. Advertisement. MLA (talk) 10:33, 19 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) 01:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete (or fix). Since the last time it was listed, no independent reliable sources have been provided. In the meantime, Wikipedia has collectively raised their standards regarding sourcing. The company appears to be an important, albeit niche, player in the petroleum industry; there might actually be some decent reliable sources out there, but they're likely tucked away in industry publications like a Society of Petroleum Engineers newsletter or in specialized industry books; the kinds of thinks that only a specialist editor is likely to have easy access to. Personally, I'd rather have no article than a piece solely sourced by the subjects materials. Studerby (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree it should have better sources. But as the main author of the article, I can assure you it is not promotional: I work for a competing company and have no interest in promoting Ryder Scott. I was just trying to describe what this company and others like it do, in what I still think is an interesting (if minor) role in the industry. As I said last time it was nominated for deletion, although few third parties are likely to report on Ryder Scott itself, their studies are quite frequently used in publications by oil companies and media. For example, here and here and here and here. Anyway, I'm not really torn up about it either way. TastyCakes (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the sources do not establish any kind of notability. Being "used in publications by oil companies" is routine business, not notability. Notability means significant coverage in proper news journals like WSJ. If this can't be found, delete the article. Perchloric (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg[edit]
- Carl Lindberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This character is admittedly notable because he meets the Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Notability_guidelines_on_sportspersons, but since he lost in the second round and only made his appearance in the Olympics, from what I can discern from sources via Google etc. then he fails the policy on biographical articles about persons notable in only one event. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Olympic athletes are presumed to be notable per our guidelines, and competing in the Olympics is not "one event" - it is a high point in a long athletic career. Cullen328 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The apparent lack of sources is an example of WP:Recentism (in reverse). We should not consider Olympic boxers from 1924 less notable than Olympic boxers from 2008 because Google doesn't yield a lot of hits. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Olympian. A boxer from the 1924 Olympics is more notable than one from recent times when the numbers involved are substantially larger. MLA (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Olympian passes WP:ATHLETE. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:01, 26 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amin Shokrollahi[edit]
- Amin Shokrollahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article doesn't say anything about the person except that he invented the raptor codes, about which there already is an article. PROD was contested: "that might be a reason for redirection, but certainly not for deletion". I see no reason to redirect - searching will find the person's name in the article about raptor codes. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Search is not an adequate way to find things, and a redirect to an article that says what he did is certainly a reason to keep a redirect. Until there is more in the article a redirect and merge to the raptor codes article is reasonable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 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) 01:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I extended the article a bit. Shokrollahi is a notable figure in graph-based coding theory. Nageh (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: This AfD should have been put into the "Science and technology" sub-category so I don't stumble across such deletion attempt by pure chance. Nageh (talk) 12:47, 27 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) 01:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irena Lipienė[edit]
- Irena Lipienė (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The artist (based on the Lithuanian version) appears to be a commercial stained-glass artist. I find no evidence of notability based no matches in GNews and only incidental mentions in GBooks. There is only one source quoted in the Lithuanian version and that is to a Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia. Unprodded without any improvement or rationale given, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, & no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - definitely not notable AndrewvdBK (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One would think an article in a national encyclopedia would make it notable. Obviously not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been pondering your comment and I can think of no current consensus that automatically confers notability to all entries in all Encyclopaedias. Such a third party source would be considered reliable, however the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia has a distinct political mission - visuomenę su pasaulio kultūra, užfiksuos šiuolaikinį mokslo lygį, propaguos žmonijos humanistines vertybes, padės Lietuvos žmonėms įveikti sovietų ideologiją - which may well be ethically worthwhile but makes the focus of the publication non-neutral due to potential weight issues. The fact that Lipienė appears not to be mentioned by any other sources we can find so far should be of concern considering that 2 years have been given as a grace period for this otherwise uncited stub. Fæ (talk) 07:34, 26 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, Logan Talk Contributions 00:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing in gnews. google just reveals mirrors of WP. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 27 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) 01:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anoka Abeyrathne[edit]
- Anoka Abeyrathne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not a deletion request per se, but I am unable to come to a decision and I feel the community should reach a consensus. The article has been speedy deleted four times, most recently this week.
- 12:47, 5 February 2011 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted "Anoka Abeyrathne" (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH))
- 23:01, 16 December 2010 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "Anoka Abeyrathne" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
- 19:26, 7 July 2009 Closedmouth (talk | contribs) deleted "Anoka Abeyrathne" (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSD G4))
- 16:08, 4 June 2007 Ais523 (talk | contribs) deleted "Anoka Abeyrathne" (AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anoka_Abeyrathne))
I have significantly cleaned this article up of all self promotion and puffery before tagging it (see history) but still feel that on checking the sources, the question of notability may not yet be entirely resolved. Some of the references appear to be duplicates, some do not do not contain the subject's name, while others basically repeat the same embedded YouTube movie. The article was written by the subject herself. Kudpung (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete essentially per first AfD discussion. Winning a youth award does not confer long term notability on its own. Planting trees is very noble, but again doesn't not confer notability. Neither does participating in a youth forum or being the great-grand daughter of someone. Who knows - this university student may become notable in the future but at the moment she isn't. It may even be time to salt this a it's been re-created (and subsequently deleted) 5 times now.
Travelbird (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've said what I would have liked to have said in my AfD rationale which I deliberately kept as neutral as possible. I didn't foresee that the subject would be so non notable that nobody would even bother to come and comment here. The blatant puffery, and the persistent recreation practically proves that this is a deliberate self promotional page by a MySpacer.(apologies for all the alliteration !) Kudpung (talk) 09:31, 17 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, Logan Talk Contributions 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability not established by independent third party sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete nothing in gnews fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if additional/better sources are found. The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tsai Rong Tsang[edit]
- Tsai Rong Tsang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No third party reliable source evidence of notability. Google search shows up reduplications of this WP article and a few blog entries. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Deleteper nom, more or less. GNews, GScholar turn up zilch in terms of reliable sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm striking my delete until someone with Chinese language expertise who hasn't edited the article extensively voices an opinion. Icetea8 below raises a valid rebuttal. Those characters appear quite a bit in a Google search. I probably shouldn't have voted in the first place. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- i will also strike my vote, because i have been a contributor to the article.
- Comment It would be great to have someone else with Chinese language expertise weigh in. Again, an English Google search shows up reduplications of this WP article and a few blog entries, but no sign of notability. The article itself has six references/external links. Four of them are self-published/non-independent, e.g., they are from his own college or institute. There is an article on Taipei's Philosophical Tea Masters, where he is interviewed in one paragraph, as the third of four interviewees. Interestingly, this article refers to his Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute as the "upstairs of a shop." Finally, there is a short article in Chinese--one paragraph. I don't see how this meets WP:BASIC or WP:PROF. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per Logical Cowboy's comments. The sourcing and interest is just not there to verify from an English speaker's standpoint. RayTalk 19:24, 22 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, Logan Talk Contributions 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources need to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 28 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) 01:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Khalid Abdulwahid[edit]
- Khalid Abdulwahid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable junior hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY.Deproded with given reason that he “played on the algerian national team”, however I am not able to verify that he has played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship) as required to meet the criteria of NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The reference currently on the page is the National Team's website, if you click on Men's team on the menu it lists the roster. National team roster. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Alegerian national team has only played a handful of exhibition games and has never competed in an IIHF tournament. In any event, the reference given by DJSasso above is not an independent source, and does nothing to verify that this teenage player has played on a senior national team. Dolovis (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And? The requirement does not mention that the team has to have played in the IIHF, just has to be a senior national team. The Algerian team is new so of course it hasn't played alot of games. The reference above does verifiy that he is on the national team. Does it go to GNG, no it doesn't. But it certainly does verify he is on the team. As for this teenager playing on a senior team, Algeria doesn't have a junior team, so he clearly plays on the senior team. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He has yet to play a game for the Algerian national team, thus does not pass WP:NHOCKEY. The link above clearly mentions: "Below is the Mens Squad from which the roster will be chosen for the next upcoming game." The only international fixtures Algeria has played (and none in the World Championships/Olympics), according to nationalteamsoficehockey.com were at the 2008 Arab Cup. He was not named to this team, and thus could not have played. (Issue of playing on national team v. playing on national in the world championships/olympics probably needs discussing, but at this point is moot as he has not played on the national team.) Ravendrop 21:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 00:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 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, Logan Talk Contributions 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The pertinent criterion is clear: it isn't that someone is a member of a national team roster, but that he has played on a national team roster. Without evidence that he has done so, the article can't be sustained. Ravenswing 15:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, in agreement with RG. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if this Algerian team was a member of the IIHF, I would say keep, but they are not ([21]). ccwaters (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cubic chess[edit]
- Cubic chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created in April 2007. It has been marked as unsourced since August 2007. It is also marked as possible Original Research. There are still no sources and it is not in the main reference of chess variants by David Pritchard, Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (2nd ed.). (added:) It is also essentially an orphan. No mainspace articles link to it except index of chess articles, which links to all chess articles. And it may be WP:MADEUP. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, he's some sources I found on the subject.
- "Chess in Three Dimensions" - The Independent, Volume 64
- Chess, Volume 35
- "Chess Played on Eight Boards" - Technical World Magazine, Volume 9
- The "Chess in Three Dimensions" reference (Independent, Vol 64) is about Dr. Ferdinand Maack's 8x8x8 chess, which is a completely different game (different rules) than the article's game. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second has no relation - just the words "cubic" and "chess". The first and third are at least superficially similar. I don't know how similar. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the third ref is vague description, and "Cubic chess" seems to be a generic descriptor not a game name. But it's not the article game. Cubic seems to be someone's creative spin-off of 8x8x8 game (e.g. diagonal movers include triangonal movement - now that is different!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Three-dimensional chess, and specify which "cubic chess" this is, since there are several with that name. If the Star Trek chess isn't notable enough for a separate article, this doesn't seem to be even close to as notable as that one, or "space chess" of 1907. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since there are no known references for this particular variation of chess, I suspect that it is something that someone made up one day. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if none of the sources are clear enough to support the material, then a simple redirect will do, per the finding of other 3D chesses called "cubic chess". 65.93.15.125 (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since there are no known references for this particular variation of chess, I suspect that it is something that someone made up one day. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources are present. Merging does not solve verifiability concerns, it merely moves them to another article. I have not seen any evidence that the game has actually been played. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I applaud User:Ihardlythinkso for finding the article from The Independent. However, this page has all the signs of "creator made it all up". It's not that original an idea-- the rooks would go vertically, the bishops in steady slope up or down, etc. I'm not sure why one would need pawns below pawns, 48 in all, unless there was a sale on them somewhere-- maybe at a pawn shop... Mandsford 20:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:MADEUP. No objection to a redirect as long as it happens after deletion of the current content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sjakkalle. SyG (talk) 08:49, 26 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 Bushranger One ping only 06:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Morse[edit]
- Stephen Morse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable poet, doesn't appear to pass WP:AUTHOR. About the time I prodded this, the subject died, so I decided to wait a decent interval to take this to AfD. Note that this was largely an autobiography, and most els are self-referential. I searched for news stories at the time of his death and came up with nothing. Valfontis (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Valfontis (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the article creator can't defend the article now, Mr. Morse lacks sufficient WP:RS to establish WP:BIO. Based on gnews and gbooks searches, it appears there are a few other Stephen Morses who are more notable (yes, I recognize this is a poor argument- but it's harder to find things about this Stephen Morse). tedder (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while it's sad that he died, he doesn't appear to have passed our author guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, 25 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.