Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 14

< 13 March	15 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was KEEP, as this wasn't really a deletion discussion anyway. I also see no consensus below for a merge, but that's what article talk pages are for, so normal editing begins...NOW. postdlf (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Maryland Route 200[edit]

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

Do not need separate article on history of route. Like the opposition article, the information can be condensed and covered in a section of the Maryland Route 200 article. Dough 48 72 23:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the 2 articles could be merged having a separate article relating to the history of the Road is ok as long as there is sufficient information and sources to do so and there seems to be plenty here. --Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge We don't need a separate history article for a state highway article. No other highway article in the U.S. has this. --Rs chen 7754 01:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Maryland Route 200. --Rs chen 7754 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize, merge and redirect for the same reasons I gave at the previous AfD. Imzadi 1979 → 02:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The MD 200 article is not so large that the content of this article needs to be split out of it. V C 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MD 200 article is 77K long and the History of MD 200 article is 32K long, so the merged article would probably be more than 100K. Racepacket (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if all the fluff was deleted from MD 200, the merged article would be much shorter. --Rs chen 7754 09:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was created when applying WP:SPLIT on July 23, 2009. Recently, I attempted to improve the article by added a proper lead, adding a construction history section and conformed to WP:SS by repeating the lead as the "History" section of Maryland Route 200. I then nominated the article for GA, which drew the wrath of User:Rschen7754. His argument is that highways cannot have their history covered in an article separate from the main article on the highway. He demands that the historical, political and sociological aspects of a policy policy debate that has lasted three decades can only be viewed only through the distorted prism of the "highway buffs" that staff WikiProject U.S. Roads. His remarks on the talk page show a two-step plan: first to merge the the MD 200 article togther with the two daughter articles, and then to drastically edit the combined article back to minimize coverage of the controversy. His comrade Imzadi1979 proposed for after the merger "My serious suggestion is that if anything additional is added from here out to the articles, something minor is removed. For every new piece of information, a minor detail is removed, and transferred to the talk page. Every quotation, especially all of the block quotes, needs to be examined. Most of them should be paraphrased and summarized." This is exactly the opposite of WP:SPLIT, WP:SS and WP:EVENT all of which support in-depth coverage of this topic as a stand-alone article. Instead of bragging that other controversial highway articles give only brief coverage to such disputes, we all should be asking whether there is a systematic pro-highway bias in Wikipedia's coverage of transportation controveries. Finally, I wish to note that WikiProject U.S. Roads frequently applies WP:SPLIT and WP:SS to generate separate state-specific articles for each state's segment of long-distance U.S. roads, even when they don't need to be split on account of article size. Racepacket (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please discuss the article, and not other editors? Thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 06:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify a factual error, it is not the policy of USRD to superfluously split articles, but rather the opposite. See Talk:Interstate 8#Merge proposal. --Rs chen 7754 06:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The main problem with the Opposition article that I saw that made it worth deleting was that the subject of the article was biased. That is not the case here. The question here is whether it is better to put the content of the discussion on the history of the route in the article, or whether the article is improved by summarizing and putting more detailed information in a separate article. I disagree with Rschen7754 when he states that since no other U.S. roads articles have history subarticles that this one shouldn't either. -- Algorerhythms (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to answer the question of why this article should remain separate. --Rs chen 7754 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to expand the article if it is kept. Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not need expansion, it needs the trimming of unnecessary information. Dough 48 72 03:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If editors what to spend their time producing articles documenting Maryland state roads, I applaud them. But other editors want to write about Maryland politics and public policy debates, which should be valued on Wikipedia as well. In most states, a highway of this nature would have an interstate highway designation, but because of the financing and timing of this highway, it was recently given only a state route designation. (The freeway segment immediately to the west of the toll portion is Interstate 370.) So this highway, and its history, is much more complex than the other state highways in Maryland. Given the number of press articles over thirty years, it is clearly notable.Racepacket (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are highways more notable than MD 200 that are not split into several articles describing the history, route description, etc. Dough 48 72 23:33, 20 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. postdlf (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gibb Categories[edit]

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

This article is probably unsalvageable, and seems to be written mostly in support of one person's point of view, albeit with multiple sources backing them up. The article likely unsalvageable, and only contains information from 3 sources. Two of those sources appear to be textbooks, and one of the sources is only cited once. redlock (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't think an article is ever "unsalvageable", but I get your point. For sure the article needs to be rewritten and would be more effective as a well-written stub. I'm not saying I want to be the one to do it :) (although I would be willing I guess), but I think this article can be fixed. MobileSnail 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe the subject might be notable, but this article isn't good. Might not be a bad idea to userfy it while it's cleaned up. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify Gibb categories do appear to be recognized in the field per Google Books, so the concept is notable enough for an article. The current article is badly written but it could be userfied to somebody (who?) or made into a stub pending future improvement. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 20 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. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adirondack Green[edit]

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

Article is on a non-notable cleaning product. It does not contain significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guideline for products. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NN, no 3rd party sources. CTJF83 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. No external coverage found. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 21 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. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metodi Tushev[edit]

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

Not notable footballer, fails WP:ATHLETE Oleola (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable unreferenced Biography of a living person. Fails to meet the notabilityy guidelines for atheletes Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per usual, if this footballer ends up on a national team, or playing at a high enough level to satisfy WP:ATHLETE, then we should reconsider. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and doesn't appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:03, 19 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. postdlf (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xyro productions[edit]

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

Production company of questionable notability. Only significant claim is for winning a local competition. Primary references only, no significant coverage from independent publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage is provided and none was found on search. As an amateur YouTube video producer whose claim to fame is winning a regional contest in the barely notable 48 Hour Film Project, this does not pass notability criteria for WP:CORP or WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While nice that these kids are being pro-active in addressing their future, I suspect COI when article author is Mynameisbryce and the only edit ever made to Wikipedia is an article that promotes the company founded by Bryce Seifert. That suspician aside, lack of coverage fails WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lava (programming language)[edit]

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

PROD contested with no reason given. No outside verifiable significant sources that establish notability for inclusion. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This article might pass as a reliable source (depending on the amount of editorial review the magazine has), but it is written by the author of the language, so on its own does not give sufficient evidence of independent notability. —Ruud 13:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would anyone be interested in starting a Programming Languages Wikia? —Ruud 13:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Might I suggest asking the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Programming languages? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:guenthk[edit]

The Lava home page has been visited by thousands of people from all over the world. Most of them came from the wikipedia article, and many of them have downloaded papers and/or software from the Lava download page then. See also the Wikipedia article traffic statistics. In my opinion this is strong and most objective evidence for the notability of the article.

Although Lava isn't promoted by a powerful enterprise or institution, it may nevertheless play a role as a source of inspiration for other language development projects, as you can see, for instance, from the corresponding links in the article and from a statement of Justin Rosenstein that has reached us recently:

"... Yes!, still a huge fan of Lava, and it was a big inspiration for Luna in many subtle ways. I would like Lunascript to move more and more to be like Lava over time (up to and including visual editing). ..."

So I think it would be a real pity if this source of inspiration would be withheld from the wikipedia users.

guenthk (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE --Cybercobra (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There appears to be plenty of coverage in reliable sources from a Google Books search, e.g. this, this, and this, or is this a different Lava?.--Michig (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't read the first source. The second and third are definitely about a different language called Lava (namely this one). —Ruud 13:57, 6 March 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, Big Dom 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 14 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of most common Major League Baseball postseason matchups[edit]

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

Simply not notable, exemplified by the utter lack of sourcing. And would could be found would just be stat summaries affirming the matchups. The simple count of how often various teams played is of incredibly limited value. MAYBE it's worth mentioning Dodgers/Yankees at their rivalry page or the World Series page. Outside of that the subject is just not notable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although interesting it is not really an article, just a data-base report. Borock (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above CTJF83 21:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no reason for notability provided. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not noteworthy as a stand alone article.Mariepr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 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. postdlf (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tire Kingdom[edit]

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

Advertising. Repeatedly recreated and G11/G12 several times now. (I suspect the article's creator is the same user as TBC123 (talk · contribs) and thus has a COI) OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC) (Note: Twinkle messed up, and I've just now tagged the page with the AfD tag. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Per G11 and G12 Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how it is advertising. I have not included anything in here that is not neutral in content. History info and racing info (which also links to other Wikipedia pages) and that's it. I am not understanding how it is advertising at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgrunewald1 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is all that advertising...the "racing" section could be cleaned. CTJF83 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tire Kingdom offers a variety of services to vehicles such as oil changes and brake services as well as servicing tires and wheels. There's no indication here that this business isn't just one of many, or that it has had significant effects on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article on a company not worthy of notice. Mtking (talk) 04:04, 21 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sollmann[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. The three references provided are from his former team's website (not really secondary coverage or 'significant') the third is from his old high school, which isn't significant either. He retired in 2008, so he obviously won't be getting to the major leagues any time soon. In addition, he only played 31 games at Triple-A, which means he spent most of his career in the lower minors. Alex (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alex says it better than I can. The only thing that could even potentially save this article would be something notable in his college career, and so far that isn't there. Blueboy 96 22:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per college career, not professional. According to the http://www.und.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/sollmann_steve00.html Notre Dame bio], he was a 2nd team All-American, which qualifies him as having received national recognition and passing WP:BIO.--TM 17:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly notable. A high school kid recently shattered the glass and on a backboard and was featured all over the news nationwide. He therefore received "national recognition." Does he deserve an article? Where does the line get drawn? Per WP:BIO any biography: 'The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.' Sollmann does not fit that description. And 'The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor.' Second-team All-American is hardly well-known or significant. Dozens of people are named All-American each year, whether it be first team, second team or third team. It is hardly "prestigious." Alex (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:ATH, which, under the college sports header, states that a biography is deemed notable on Wikipedia if the player has "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team". I would deem a 2nd team All-American baseball player as having passed this high threshold.--TM 01:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Yankees10 00:35, 17 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. postdlf (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrency[edit]

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

Neologism notable only for its association with a single project Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources are provided to show that this even exists, much less is notable. Borock (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay about a Non-Notable Neologism. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 15 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. postdlf (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Olariu[edit]

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

No reliable, secondary coverage providing significant coverage of this assistant professor. There are a few papers, but nothing that would suggest his work is cited enough for WP:ACADEMIC, nor do the other ACADEMIC/PROF notability guidelines seem to be met. A separate search for sources turned up a few references, but nothing both reliable, secondary and providing significant coverage. Unsourced BLP for 2 years, I did add a primary reference to his site at the University. Additional sources welcome, of course! joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional, unencyclopedic. Dahn (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than this person's CV – there isn't even a meaningful claim of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete AP at a university that is not worldwide notable. Nergaal (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. We've already deleted Olarius with more plausible claims of academic notability, from the same set of articles. They didn't meet our standards, and this one is even less close. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for repeated recreation, Essentially a copy and paste of a CV. No indication of passing WP:PROF RadioFan (talk) 21:04, 20 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. postdlf (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Via Egg Donation[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY for WP:CORP, WP:WEBand WP:NOT. previously incarnations were created by the owner Marnad1963 (talk · contribs) as Parents Via Egg Donation Organization and Parents via egg donation which was Deleted as G11; Blatant advertising. Has two links but one is a press releases by the owner and the other is self created blog enty. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement and advertising, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have attempted to find sources and any reference to this organization outside of the organization itself and was unable to do so. It is an orphan article which is not notable in any way, written by members of the organization itself, and serves no purpose other than advertising the organization. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator. This article has no business being on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no doubt that this article needs a great deal of improvement. However, the founder was quoted in the name of the organization in THIS ARTICLE IN NEWSWEEK and THIS ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, indicating (to me at least) that this is an organization worthy of encyclopedic coverage. I took the liberty of pulling down two flags from the top of the article, one of which alleges this piece is "Written like an advertisement" — which I don't see at all — and another which alleges it was "Written by someone with close connection to the subject" — which I don't see as particularly relevant. Improve, don't delete. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC) link fix: Carrite (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see the two articles as the kind of significant coverage that would make this organization notable. In addition, I reverted your removal of the tags on the website as I see no basis for removing them, which according to your edit summary, "skews" the debate here. I don't see that. The article still exists until this discussion is closed, and the tags should remain. I don't think that anyone here is influenced by the tags, and both have solid bases for being there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I Agree with Bbb23 on this matter. Neither articles establsh notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Secondly, A major contributor to this article was the owner, Marna Gatlin whom also created the 2 other articles, has previous blocks for being an "advertising-only account" and has no other edits other than related to promoting Parents Via Egg Donation. Clearly advertising and COI.--Hu12 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There is a spam report made by Hu12 concerning this article and several of the editors who have contributed to it here. Frankly, I don't know how these reports are resolved, but I thought I'd at least link to it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 15 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) 02:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galveston Pirate SC[edit]

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

Men's amateur soccer team; as such, it is not notable per WP:FOOTY and WP:ATHLETE. My hometown alone, which is smaller than Houston, probably has 20-25 such teams. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My home town has a population about 1/6th the the size of Houston an we have upwards of 30 teams. The subject of this article is not notable. per WP:FOOTY and WP:ATHLETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.235.222 (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They no longer and haven't played in the SPSL since mid-February. I agree now - since I'm the one who created the league articlee - that the league wiki article shouldn't be there anymore. The league will fall apart soon since it's garbage. Keep the team(s) wiki articles around. I have confidence that the Galveston Pirate SC is in the Houston Football Association for a short time. Besides, there aren't any amateur, semi-pro, or pro leagues of any sort in Galveston aside from Pirate SC. Treyvo (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local team; even the league they play in isn't worthy of an article! Giant Snowman 13:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails on lack of notability. Zanoni (talk) 08:05, 19 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kubasik[edit]

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

no claim to notability other then he worked on some games.. working on games does not infer personal notability. as the article stands it is so short as to be virtually useless anyway. adds nothing to encyclopedia. Tracer9999 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that the subject is also multi-credited as an actor and writer at IMDB. While the article is pretty light, it's sourced sufficient for what it covers, and it's clearly marked as a stub. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A prolific game designer, editor, and author, working mostly on games from FASA Corporation and West End Games, although to be honest I think Jclemens' findings are even more interesting! Being a stub is no reason to delete an article. BOZ (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the recent expansion show notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Koke[edit]

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

Poss conflict of interest as article appears to have been created by subject. no sourced claim to notability. seems like a personal resume page. Tracer9999 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have sourced the two Origins Awards, which means he meets Wp:ANYBIO clause 1--the Origins awards are the major awards in his field. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as award-winner, yep. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Awards do show notability, but article does currently read too much like a resume. PWilkinson (talk) 19:23, 21 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) 02:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy online[edit]

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

Clearly not an encyclopedia article. A PROD was previously contested. lifebaka++ 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page appears to be primarily intended as a collection of links to various websites that contain fantasy-related material; it also appears to violate WP:OR. Obviously, the page would have to be fundamentally and completely rewritten in order for it to become encyclopedic. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic may be notable, but as it is written the article falls foul of WP:NOT. It cites no sources, is written in the first person, and promises to develop into a directory of internet sites (which Wikipedia is not for). --JN 466 21:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose fantasy on the internet might be an interesting, (notable,) and encyclopedic topic, but this page is just a mess. EL spam, OR, improper tone, etc. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay, and article subject is far too non-specific. —Lowellian (reply) 03:50, 15 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. WP:SNOW Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Constance (1880)[edit]

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

No evidence provided for the notability of this Royal Navy ship, which was one of seven ships of the same name. The disambiguation page, HMS Constance, provides more information than the article. TFD (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another AFD from my own personal wikipedia stalker, how wonderful. I am still looking for sources, currently I am finding and using sources for another article I created today HMS Constance (1846) an am expanding both articles as I find sourcing. Tentontunic (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should determine notability before you create articles. And since you had not established notability when you created the article, you should not have removed the notability tag before you had established it. TFD (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you ought not continue your battlefield conduct in following me around, I am quite sure there is a rule against such. Tentontunic (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability right now. Use your 7 days to find some :) CTJF83 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are probably enough references in Google Books "HMS Constance" 1880 to establish notability: did the nominator check them? And yes, it's probably better to work on this sort of article in userspace first. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MILUNIT (which is an essay but widely accepted) commissioned warships are assumed to be notable. I'd be amazed if sufficent sources didn't exist on this industrial-era British warship to get it across the notability threshold without too much effort. From the way in which the nomination is written it would seem that no check for sources was conducted before nominating this article for deletion - this is really unhelpful conduct. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You have made a good argument for improvement but a poor one for deletion.--Ykraps (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:MILUNIT, furthermore article subject appears to pass WP:GNG via multiple mentions in various reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I grow tired of these repeated AfDs for commissioned warships. They're worthy of inclusion even if they're only a single line stub. A less than ideal situation, but worthy nonetheless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Warships are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MILUNIT says:
As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion: 4.Warships, including submarines, commissioned in recognised naval forces. Examples include HMAS Sydney, USS Enterprise and SMS Blücher....
This ship fails the test. As a small ship that was in service for a short period during which the Royal Navy was not engaged in war, it is unlikely to have drawn any attention. Here is a link to a picture of another corvette commissioned at the same time and now in a museum. TFD (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A poorly thought out nomination, with no apparent attempt to see whether or not any attention was drawn to this vessel. Benea (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "keep" comments above. Notability exists. —Diiscool (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - The ship easily exceeds the WP:SHIPS threshold of 100/100. As a commissioned warship of the Royal Navy, it is notable enough to sustain an article. Coverage in at least two books means it passes WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 15 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.

Moges Mulugeta Amharay[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Consensus is a bit more clear this time around. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Sports League[edit]

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

The previous AFD was closed as "no consensus" by Ron Ritzman. You can see my discussion with him about it here.

The issues from the previous AFD still apply. This is a Round 1 (of 4, with 4 being the National Competition) competition for the United States Academic Decathlon. No other state or regional competition has its own article, as they simply are not independently notable of the main competition. There simply are not enough reliable, independent secondary sources to warrant having this article in my opinion, no matter how large of a competition this is compared to others in the surrounding area. NW (Talk) 04:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I should have said that in the first discussion-- then again, I should have said "donor" instead of "donator" in the first discussion. I think it deserves prominent mention in Erie City School District. Although it seems to be a great program, it has attracted no attention outside of Erie, PA, regardless of the amount of scholarships it generates. This seems to be unique to Erie, and it's unfortunate that it hasn't been a model that's been emulated by other school districts. Still, Wikipedia is not public relations for the school district. Mandsford 21:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 8 March 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, Big Dom 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as last time: Delete per WP:ORG. What little notability it has is both local and by association only. That was also a really poor close on Ron Ritzman's part, by the way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A really poor close? It was up for a month, with three relistings and only three !votes, 2 delete and 1 keep. I would have closed it as a no consensus as well. Mandsford 23:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. RossRSmith (talk) 23:45, 19 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) 02:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Status of Mizo Women[edit]

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

Looks like a personal WP:ESSAY of some sort, and at least WP:SYNTH, or maybe WP:OR. It might also possibly be a copyvio, but I can't find a match online. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yes, this is OR. —Lowellian (reply) 03:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. OR and an essay--Sodabottle (talk) 11:05, 17 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Valley[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Although many famous acts have performed there, there is no evidence that the building itself has received enough coverage to be notable. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 05:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is a stub, and the list of who-appeared-when does nothing to add to the notability of the venue. And most news hits are along the lines of "so-and-so will appear at Legend Valley," which also do not show notability. However, the venue itself has received some independent news coverage, such as when neighbors sued to prevent rock concerts there [1] and a judge blocked the concerts as a public nuisance [2], or when the annual Hookahville event there was busted for marijuana sales [3]. If some of that history is added to the article I think it could be a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 6 March 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, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than directory-style information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per MelanieN. The long list of bands should go, but the evidence is that this is a notable concert venue. In addition to the sources mentioned by MelanieN, here is a 1956 Billboard article about the predecessor Buckeye Lake park venue [4]; and a reference in a book about rock music and Cleveland [5].--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable concert venue.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:29, 11 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the list of bands should definitely go, and without that we're left with a single sentence and not a whole lot of expandability. Maybe it can be mentioned in a local article or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 14 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 merge all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One By One Tour[edit]

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

I can't see how these articles pass WP:NEVENT. No sources, no credible justification of notability. If I'm wrong, the articles should include at least some sources that show there is significant coverage per WP:GNG or alternatively merged to a single article called Foo Fighters concerts (like Rolling Stones concerts). Ingadres (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 7 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to the respective album articles. I don't have any problem with having such tour articles in general, but these have no particularly useful content. Just adding a boilerplate sentence to the album articles like "The band toured in support of the album, playing XX concerts in YY countries over ZZ months" will do. If somebody cares to write a sourced article later, based on reviews and other news coverage, it can always be spun out down the line. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An anonymous user (user:99.139.122.192) is CONSTANTLY removing the Wasting Light World Tour from the list of articles. Admin, please take note to this. Ingadres (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to respective album articles. These "tours" are not notable enough per se. Ingadres (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect One By One Tour to One by One (Foo Fighters album) per the lack of reliable sources. If a contributor can find enough sources for this tour to become independently notable, no prejudice to undoing the redirect.
Merge/redirect Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace Tour to Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace per my reasoning above.
Merge/redirect Wasting Light World Tour to Wasting Light per my reasoning above.
Merge/redirect There Is Nothing Left To Lose Tour to There Is Nothing Left to Lose per my reasoning above.
Merge/redirect In Your Honor Tour to In Your Honor per my reasoning above. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Cunard. I think all the content here could be accommodated in the album articles without difficulty Tom Harris (talk) 17:07, 23 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTC-T Vauxhall Astra Coupe[edit]

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

Complete unnotable jumble of chassis numbers and names. Unreferenced and probably never verifiable. Just not notable. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 28 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) 01:10, 7 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:33, 14 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 and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Valley Juice[edit]

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

Non-notable product line. Unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Suggest redirect to Cadbury Schweppes, the company who owns the line. SummerPhD (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It used to be an independent company. Here's a reference:
Cadbury 'still seeks blend with Orangina', The Telegraph, November 30, 2000 Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, they were. If we have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources about Spring Valley Juice, we should certainly keep it as a separate article. As it stands now, we don't have that coverage, thus the redirect to the well sourced Cadbury Schweppes. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is Articles for Deletion, not redirection. And the topic is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not see which of the criteria for a speedy keep you feel this falls under. Redirect is a common close for non-notable subjects where there is a related subject that is notable. Notability for a product line/former company generally falls under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), calling for "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sourcing for this article is a press release and a single sentence in another source. I do not see significant coverage for the juice line or the previous company, though the current company, Cadbury Schweppes, clearly is. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK #1 states, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action ...". And the source which I cited contains more than a single sentence - it's an article. The topic is also covered in numerous sources such as Australian food: the complete reference to the Australian food industry, Food Australia: official journal of CAFTA and AIFST, Plunkett's Food Industry Almanac, &c. Essentially, it is a major juice brand and so bringing it to AFD was a bad idea. WP:AFD states emphatically, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Please take note. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify. I am specifically suggesting that we delete the article and add a redirect in its place because the juice line is not notable. Thus, not a speedy keep on that basis, thanks. If you feel the article can be fixed through normal editing, and is the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, I would suggest you do some of that, rather than batting around here, then bring up the improved article status and I will withdraw my nomination, which would be a speedy keep. I have not found such coverage. Maybe you have. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as proposed. When it was an independent company it was apparently not notable. The only Google News hits are about its acquisition by Cadbury. As for listing something here when you really think it should become a redirect, I have done that myself if I felt the redirect might be controversial. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 7 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current content, then redirect if necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 14 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. Big Dom 14:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert's Lounge[edit]

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

Delete - Not notable for article by itself, It is mentioned in other articles, does not need it's own page --俄国 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There does seem to be enough secondary coverage to warrant an article. [6][7][8]. I can't verify at the moment, but there might be at least an entire chapter about this lounge in the book Mafia Headquarters:The Motion Lounge, Gemini Lounge, Robert's Lounge, Bergin Hunt and Fish Club, Ravenite Social Club--Oakshade (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable bar lacking WP:RS of substance. The items Oakshade points out are only "trivial" mentions of the location and a brief listing in a Mafia "tour" book. The only notability is inherited from it former owner(s). In addition, the "book" Oakshade cannot verify appears to be a 24 page pamphlet. ttonyb (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The examples cited as "trivial" in WP:GNG are "directory listings" or "passing mentions." The coverage in the sources are way beyond the scope of either of those.--Oakshade (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:GNG neither mentions "directory listing" or "passing mention". What is does say is, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." The cited sources do not meet this criteria. ttonyb (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG in fact states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" and in examples of "trivial" coverage WP:GNG states: "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." It does no longer state "directory listing." The coverage is of this is way beyond "passing mention".--Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Been closed for a long time. The covergage mentions the place in passing mostly.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to James Burke (gangster) or Lufthansa heist. Very nearly notable, but not quite there. The last book listed above is published by Books LLC, who get their material from Wikipedia, so it can't be used to establish notability. The other three cover the Lounge, but not really in enough detail to meet WP:SIGCOV as I read. Google News gives a few reasonable links such as this, but it all feels like passing mentions in pieces about Burke or the heist rather than in-depth coverage about the place itself. However, the sources are enough to demonstrate that this does deserve a few sentences in a larger article. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A gNews search turned up this 1979 Calgary Herald story which itself is from the New York Times regarding the Lufthansa heist. In that story, Robert's Lounge is featured prominently as a connecting point for the heist planners. The lounge appeared in another Calgary Herald story bylined as from UPI in 1980, which focused primarily on the lounge and the uncovering of human remains in excavations conducted in the basement. Though certainly connected with Burke and the Lufthansa heist articles, Robert's Lounge appears to have sufficient reliable, third-party sources to warrant a separate article. The article should be kept (and it could use improvement, of course). Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – With all due respect, the mentions are all incidental to the articles. The mentions are trivial and the sources do not address the subject directly in detail. ttonyb (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above WP:GNG defines "trivial" as a "passing mention" in a work about another topic. The coverage cited goes far beyond a "passing mention." --Oakshade (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I fail to see how you can make the leap from the statement in the WP:GNG reference to state that this article's references are adequate to support notability. Regardless, as I stated above," What is does say (WP:GNG) is, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." The cited sources do not meet this criteria." ttonyb (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no leap as WP:GNG states very clearly: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" and it defines "trivial" as a "passing mention." If you'd like to change WP:GNG to have a different example of "trivial" coverage, then you need to make your case on the WP:N talk page, not invent your own definition in an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Rather than accuse me of trying to change WP:GNG and referring me to its talk page, I suggest we try to stay on point. (Simply put, setting up a straw man argument does not advance either my point or yours.) So here are the examples of the text used as references:

"...and it was not an accident he was in Robert's lounge."
"Robert's lounge has long been the informal headquarters of crime captain Paul Vario..."
"...both drank at Robert's lounge..."
"...the bar formerly known as Robert's lounge, was a hangout for..."
"Manri was reportly a member of the Robert's lounge gang."

Sorry, but I do not see how these are significant coverage. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 04:53, 4 March 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 7 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As no clear consensus seems to be able to be reached I would pressume a No consensus decision for now and re-evaluation in a few month would be appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am not sure how you can say that. There has not been an argument that supports notability using acceptable reliable souces. As pointed out in numerous examples above ("...and it was not an accident he was in Robert's lounge." ) the references associated with the article are trivial. This is not a vote, but a discussion of notability and how it is supported using acceptable reliable sources. Please explain to me how the examples above are "non-trivial". ttonyb (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you that the sources aren't enough to base an entire article on, but a no consensus close would probably be justified. If that does occur, we could consider opening a merge discussion on the article's talk page since the topic might be better covered as part of another article. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alzariuan16 basically described by thoughts exactly.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 19 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 due to insufficient participation; no prejudice against renominating sooner than usual. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adeem Hashmi[edit]

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

Likely ~~autobiography~~ conflict of interest by Pretext78 (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. bender235 (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Given that the subject died in Chicago 10 years ago, this is extremely unlikely to be an autobiography. There is a lot wrong with the article, in terms of tone, claims that need referenced etc., but if they can be supported the subject would be notable. I'm adding one external link to a site that seems unconnected with the subject, but has specific pages on his poetry. So this feels like one for rescue, with the help of someone familiar with Urdu poetics, possibly via WP:PAKISTAN. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD's comments and nominator's incorrect deletion rationale. He died 10 years ago, so it certainly can't be an autobiography. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JFYI: WP:AUTO does not mean the subject wrote about himself. It means someone with a personal connection to the subject wrote the article. That could also be a son writing about his father or grandfather, or a doctoral student writing about his mentor. Adeem Hashmi is an autobiography per WP:AUTO. --bender235 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response I disagree with Bender235 about his application of WP:AUTO to an article about a person who died 10 years ago. I've read that content guideline and it simply does not classify articles written by those with a personal connection to the subject as "autobiographies". The guideline only discusses articles that living people have written about themselves. Bender235 then links to a deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin Wang Kim putting it forward as an example of acceptance of his interpretation of WP:AUTO. The problem is that this lengthy deletion debate does not refer to WP:AUTO even once. The article in question here may have problems, but it is most certainly not an autobiography, either by the plain meaning of that word, or by the wording of that Wikipedia content guideline. I suggest that Beder235 re-write his deletion argument. Cullen328 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From {{uw-autobiography}}: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, instead of writing it yourself. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." Do you take my point now? That Jin Wang Kim deletion debate was an example for a similar case. --bender235 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Arguments for or against deletion of an article should be grounded in policies and guidelines. Template messages are designed to make policy points, aimed at specific problems. They are not policy, or authoritative, in themselves. I believe there are issues with the text of the Template:Uw-autobiography. There is a discussion open at WT:UTMwhich seeks to rectify this. Pol430 talk to me 18:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that template, which hadn't been mentioned earlier. I believe that the language of the template is way too broad for the name of the template, and will take that issue to the appropriate area for discussion. Please provide your evidence, Bender235, that the article was written by a relative of the deceased poet and lyricist? More broadly, please provide evidence of conflict of interest, other than the fact that a new user has written an article about a subject they are clearly interested in, which is how new users typically start writing Wikipedia articles. Please let us know if you have discussed your specific concerns on the new user's talk page, or whether you just placed a deletion template there. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to discuss with Pretext78 (talk · contribs)? He didn't even react to the AfD notification yet. Obviously it is a single-purpose account, and he won't return to Wikipedia anyway. Adding that to the fact that we're talking about an unreferenced biography, I wonder what you expect from me. It's not my duty to disprove the subjects notability, it's the original authors duty to prove it in the first place. --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way you discuss it is to go to the new user's talk page, welcome them to Wikipedia in a friendly way, and ask your questions about COI and verifiability. If you receive no response, so be it. What I expect from you is really quite simple: In this case, don't call an article about someone who died ten years ago an autobiography. More broadly with all your AfD nominations, please carry out WP:BEFORE Point #4, describe the subject of the article in a few words, and briefly report on the results of your good faith efforts to find reliable sources. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of WP:AUTO, WP:COI, could we please decide whether this acticle actually meets WP:AUTHOR? I don't think so. --bender235 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that one of his books, Diana: the symbol of love: poetry has been translated into English. I recommend that we await an opinion from an Urdu speaking editor before deleting. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 28 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 6 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:08, 14 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Life[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced, this article has no sources or coverage to establish the notability. The main article FPS Creator got deleted due to lack of sources. JJ98 (Talk) 07:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent and reliable sources indicating that Beyond Life is a notable game. I don't think the Game Dev Competition (sponsored by NVIDIA) is a notable contest. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 27 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think an award from The Game Creators and Nvidia would cause this game to just meet Wikipedia:Notability_(video_games). (By the skin of its teeth, but meet it nonetheless.) Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and list at List of first-person shooters. The award makes the game worth mentioning, but there's not enough content from those sources to justify a whole article. I will err on the side of "delete" if this helps reach concensus. Marasmusine (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It sounds like this game was the winning entry of a competition which basically only served as a one-off marketing tool demonstrating the company's (The Game Creators) products (DARKBasic and FPS Creator). I would argue that the game doesnt meet notability but should be mentioned on the parent page (either FPS Creator or The Game Creators). Bob House 884 (talk) 19:19, 6 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:05, 14 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Nomination has been withdrawn and only one delete !vote, consensus is to keep the item or merge it over, of which the discussion can take place on the talk page of the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward[edit]

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

There is a lack of third party reliable sources to establish notability. Smallman12q (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination...Smallman12q (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There are plenty of available sources that can work as references, but the issue is notability, which this article does not seem to establish. As I mentioned in the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (3rd nomination), these articles should be merged into one of the related article, Zeitgeist: The Movie to cover the 3 movies, or The Zeitgeist Movement/The Venus Project to provide information about the efforts to promote their activities. Monty845 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would be fine...Smallman12q (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is to be merged (and I don't see anything salveageable) it'll be best to put it in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article. Which seems the only article of this kind to actually have proper sources.--Sloane (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge: I'd be okay with a merging. The movies themselves seem to be struggling with independent notability. --Renegade78 (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you share the reliable sources that led you to conclude this?--Sloane (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie. Ravensfire (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~USA Today, The Guardian and BBC, lack of third party reliable sources??~~ I utterly fail to see any issue with the notability of this film (e.g. 5,702 user ratings on IMDb and countless mentionings elsewhere). Most films have their own articles, why merge this one? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (3rd nomination). jonkerz ♠ 01:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Sentence stricken out. jonkerz ♠ 15:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article aren't for the film...rather they're used to source what the film states. As such, they don't assert the film's notability.Smallman12q (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Required per WP:V. And that so many sources do offer commentary about the film IS the independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallman12q: Whoops, you're absolutely right. Apparently I didnt do my homework well enough. I hate to be a stickler, but I'm still standing by my keep !vote. The film has been review by The Wessex Scene [9] and Blogtalkradio [10]. I am aware that these reviews are far from perfect, and actually pretty bad, but at least it is something. jonkerz ♠ 15:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know why merge is needed. Every film has importance and notability by itself. By the way, this last film have had a lot of notability in the press. Gonchibolso12 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(films).Smallman12q (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a radical change of approach, style, content and intention from the other two films. Also, there is enough material to have a dedicated Wikipedia entry. Having the articles merged would only increase the confusion to the reader. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per having sourcable independent notability meeting WP:NF. We do not need to agree to the subject matter, as our inclusion threshold is verifiability, not truth... and independent notability is independent notability. Or will the next such AFD suggest that Rocky 2, Rocky 3, Rocky 4 etal should all be merged and redirected to Rocky 1 ? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The films in the Rocky (film series) have sufficient reliable coverage that they each warrant their own article.Smallman12q (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as does this one. Independent notability is independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good - then show us some reference about the notability of this film. Saying it's so doesn't cut it. None of the sources demonstrate notability. It's part of the Zeitgeist series which is notable, but this film individually isn't notable. Ravensfire (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist Moving Forward returns over 12 million results on Google, how can you possibly say it isn't notable? Buck Bumble returns about 64,000. Why isn't anyone questioning the notability of that article? Because nobody gives a fuck about Buck Bumble. As I've said in the Zeitgeist Movement AFD, this seems to be more of an issue about personal disagreement rather than objective qualification. --Renegade78 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to satisfy the notability objection is to find a few specific examples of coverage (not just passing references) from either the main stream press or from blogs (that are well established, independent and exercise editorial control over their content), and provide links here. Monty845 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade78 - that's ducking the question, see WP:GHITS. Find some mainstream, detailed reviews about the film. Look through the Wikipedia:Notability_(films) for what's needed to show a film as notable. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article returned from a Google Scholar search [11]. There seems to be a published book on it as well, not sure if it's inpedependant of the subject though [12]. I gotta admit, the plethora of sources seem to be of quantity rather than quality. --Renegade78 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link seems to be some guy's blog (never blindly trust Google) and the second link is to an online sale of a book on Zeitgeist: The Movie, not Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. Keep in mind also, that having an accompanying book, doesn't suddenly make a movie notable.--Sloane (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge There's not a single reliable source present. --Sloane (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie, not enough independent sources to sustain notability for a stand-alone article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the reasons for the deletion article to be mainly premature based on notability issue that when people give notabilities they are automatically thrown out without any consideration of the source itself. This article has actually several times been flagged for reasons of being a promotion article, lacking sources for it's claim even though it is a basic summary of the film's content, written from a fans point of view, claims of original research, etc... This I view nothing more and nothing less as a continual attempt at people with a personal vendetta to get the film's notability cut. I have personally talked to someone on Skype and said he would use multiple accounts on wiki to flag this article until it gets taken down. However he did not even bother to give me his account names and this was a month ago so I don't even remember what his Skype name was. I vote we keep the article also because out of time constraints for notabilities of an online film to be had, however for those in favor of merging the film with Zeitgeist: the Movie may also do so and I see nothing wrong with it so long as people are willing to allow a separate article if the notability of the film becomes more so where it warrants a separate article. I do strongly suggest we keep this article due to the amount of unneeded and unwarranted flags that this article has received. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Should remain and be expended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.151.158 (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is WikiPedia an Internet REFERENCE whose purpose is to provide free and factual information on a given subject? Yes

Is Zeitgeist: Moving Forward a movie made by Peter Joseph with the four parts listed? Yes

If someone who has not watched the movie yet instead read this article first, would the article give an accurate summary of the content of the movie? Yes

Is the movie controversial in its content which has created large Internet groups both in favor of and in opposition to it? Yes

Is WikiPedia in the business of censoring information which explains what the subject is about because it is controversial.. ??? Gravitas73 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether it's factual or not. The issue is independent notability, and there really isn't enough to warrant its own article --Renegade78 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge There is quite a bit of coverage of these movies, but they still might not be notable enough to each warrant separate articles. Captain panda 07:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least 4 critical reviews that have been published in print and on the web to my knowledge. There are more than a half-dozen positive reviews that have also been published. It is just a matter of someone creating a Reception section for the article and including this information. It would be nice if those people who want to delete or merge this article could spend some time researching the films notability so the same two or three editors (myself included) don't have to continuously monitor and update the article.86.52.11.235 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as has been asked multiple times, GIVE US THE LINKS TO THOSE REVIEWS! THAT'S what we're looking for that's missing - independant reviews from notable sources that meet the WP:RS requirements. I've looked, and I can find lots of reviews on blogs and the usual Zeitgiest army, but nothing independant. You say they exist - show me. Ravensfire (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There. I hope everyone agrees that the reviews I included in my latest edit are notable enough. There should be no reason to delete or merge this article any longer.178.155.130.195 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:02, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epigenomics AG[edit]

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

Non-notable biotech firm. All references used in article do not at all involve the subject and has been authored by an account with no edits outside of the page (Cf DNA (talk · contribs)) who has an admitted conflict of interest. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 02:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May well need a good cleanup for POV, but passes WP:ORG with coverage by secondary, verifiable sources at [13] and [14], both which have different texts. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Existing isn't a pre-requisite for notability, and I don't think that stock tracking counts as reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do believe Bloomberg to be generally reliable, yes. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Jay. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So we're keeping an article written by an employee?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may need a cleanup, but just because it might have been written by an employee is not necessarily a reason to delete it. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 07:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that it's not a valid article on a notable subject. It just means that we have to be more careful. DS (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:25, 3 March 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously the stock sites are reliable sources and they would be great if notability were independantly established, but they dont give 'significant coverage' but rather just blurbs for traders. I'd assume Bloomberg has similar for every public traded company, but is every plc notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob House 884 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused As the author of this article, I would like some guidance. I saw two reasons posted for deletion. 1) Conflict of interest. It would seem that affiliation in and of itself would not be the sole reason to discredit an entry. As the author I voluntarily disclosed in my author profile that I was an employee of the company to make it clear. When I look at many other profiles I don't see this type of disclosure. I also tried to write an objective description of the company and used articles describing several other companies as comparators. 2) Non-notability - how is this defined? The company has been publicly traded on the Frankfurt Exchange since 2006, is working in the critical area of molecular diagnostics, has introduced a new class of products for colon cancer and lung cancer, and company scientists have published important work in the peer reviewed scientific literature. All of this is verifiable.
As an aside, I presume the conflict of interest part is why other edits I made to information about genes has also been removed - even though my comments were verified by scientific publications. Is this the norm for wikipedia - that affiliation precludes me from providing information even when my comments are fully verifiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf DNA (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something can exist for several years, but it might not be notable per our standards.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:35, 8 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. Being traded on stock markets and listed on stock sites does not necessarily confirm notability. But the publication of methods apparently invented by this business in medical journals would appear to give this business at least potential historical and technical significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 14 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. Fails WP:NFOOTY; disagreement on his WP:GNG status, particularly whether the coverage constitutes "routine sports coverage." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Sterling[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY - not played a professional first team competitive match yet for Liverpool/ another club - recreate if/ when he does Zanoni (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Zanoni (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in British national tabloid/broadsheet newspapers. 12,000 people looked at this article in one day in Feb. Common sense says keep while policy says delete Francium12 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; he might not pass WP:NFOOTBALL but significant coverage among large amounts of British press shows he passes WP:GNG. Brad78 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Although he hasn't played professionally in a first team match, it makes more sense to keep this than many articles about sports people with no coverage who played a few minutes of a league match once.--Michig (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already mentioned, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Routine tabloid sports journalism is not news. –J10S ^Talk 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Joao. I remember there being talk that he would have become Liverpool's youngest player if he played against Sparta, but he didn't even make the bench. Hypothetically, he might not make the grade and not play for a professional club. If that happens then will people remember him ten years from now? No. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note According to Liverpool's website he's been called up for the Under-17 World Cup and capped for the under-16s, and moreover been covered for it, which should be enough to qualify him for WP:GNG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.171.189 (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Youth caps aren't enough. If it was then there would be thousands of stubs about part-time footballers who never made the grade professionally. Liam Head played for England at under-16 and 17 level and was given a professional contract on his 17th birthday, but has not played in a senior match. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - albeit with work done. As of now the article fails certain important tests; this is not in contention. That being said there is information, media attention and public reputation in the national press. This article warrants {{notability}}, and not {{AfDM}}- anything else is hamfistedness; we're supposed to be an encyclopaedia here. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 23:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY (caps at youth level don't afford notability). The independent media coverage is no more than routine sports coverage: he signed for a big club, he scored five goals for their youth team against the youth team of a fourth-tier club, he might have been among the substitutes for a game, but wasn't. Notability is not temporary: recreate when and if he actually does something in the game. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I mention WP:NFOOTY only to confirm that it can't be used to circumvent his failing WP:BIO because of lack of significant media coverage. Struway2 (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:N criteria TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further: Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

The only real criterion to be notable is receiving non-trivial coverage by third-part media outlets. This is what separates Sterling from other players who have not played for their clubs or country - they haven't received coverage from media outlets. Whether he has actually accomplished anything is no longer relevant. (the above was the reasons used by user:Faithlessthewonderboy when preventing Anton Peterlin from being deleted). He cited Lebron James and O.J. Mayo as two similar examples. TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Peterlin, the article was at the time sourced to six versions of the story "Everton about to sign American unknown". That editor may have convinced one other not to pursue deletion once the speedy (for re-creation of a previously AfD'd article) was rightly turned down, but you'll be aware that sources being "intellectually independent of each other" means that multiple sources running the same story doesn't count as multiple coverage. The "in a nutshell" summary of WP:BIO uses the key word "significant" coverage: WP:NTEMP says that "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. I'm the person who "boldly" undeleted it. Later, I regretted having done this: after all, if a case for undeletion were blazingly obvious, then it would be blazingly obvious in a DRV discussion -- a DRV discussion that, if it succeeded, would preempt any further AfD such as this. (Help, I'm drowning in alphabet soup!) Don't take my resuscitation of the article as a "keep", and don't take this comment as a "delete". -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic does pass WP:GNG which trumps WP:NFOOTBALL, not the other way around.--Oakshade (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems substantial enough. 162.83.194.253 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore passes the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yes he fails WP:NFOOTY quite easily. I believe the grey area of WP:GNG comes down to the fact a lot of the articles fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTEMP, and are fairly WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo^[online] 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm going to really annoy a lot of my colleagues at WP:FOOTY, but here goes anyway... the main argument against retention seems to be that the sources found are routine sports coverage and thus don't count towards notability under WP:NOTNEWS (not WP:ROUTINE, part of the guideline relating to events, as someone said above). But I don't think this is the case. Yes, the Sky Sports and Mirror pieces are fairly routine, but this one is more marginal, including a fair amount of biographical content not related to the then-current story. And this, while triggered by a news story, expands its coverage to include family details and discussion about future prospects. Does this really count as routine coverage? I would say not. I'm sure plenty of others disagree. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Will soon become an international star, and play for Liverpool FC, so what is the point of deleting the article, when it is going to have to be created again very soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.104.254 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because most of the coverage centred on something that might have happened, but in actual fact didn't happen (him playing for the Liverpool first team and thereby setting a new club record). He clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and only arguably passes GNG due to that speculative coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't actually done anything remarkable. Most of the coverage of him is due to the fact that he might have broken the record for Liverpool's youngest player had he played a few weeks ago. But the fact is, he didn't play, he hasn't broken any records, and right now he's just another promising youngster. – Pee Jay 16:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously he fails WP:FOOTY for the reasons already given (i.e. he has yet to achieve anything of note on the field), and the only reason he's had media coverage is because he signed for Liverpool, which to my mind falls under the "Subjects notable only for one event" category. —BETTIA— ^talk 10:35, 22 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) 02:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Nutt[edit]

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

Extremely unnotable person fails WP:BIO by a country mile. This person died in 1909, and what are his markers of notability? I read the whole thing so that you don't have to, and take my word for it. This is it:

He was a state senator.
He was a colonel in the army.
He had a somewhat interesting life, being a free soiler in Kansas and a soldier in the Civil War.
He was a solid citizen, serving on town committees, having a solid and respectable law practice, being a public speaker, serving on various committees for the state Republican party, that sort of thing. Mason. Member of the GAR. Chairman of local bank. Sons of Temperance. Board of Selectmen. I'm sure he was extremely respectable.

That is is. I kept expecting to find something he had done that millions of other solid, respectable citizens with nice careers hadn't done, but there's nothing there. I would say the highest marker of notability for this person is "Was a Massachusetts state senator in 1871-72". If he had pushed through a notable law or something, fine. But he didn't.

We don't have articles on people whose highest notability was being a state senator, and the fact that is guy is a hundred years dead only makes it worse. Slam-dunk delete. Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. State senator is notable enough for me, and an obituary of that size is a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously saying that we should have articles on state senators? You understand that this is not a United State Senator, it is a person who served in a state legislature. For parts of two years. In the 19th Century. And as far as cleanup: the article is a data dump and needs a massive labor-intensive cleanup and paring down. No one is likely ever going to do this for an obscure state senator from 1871. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet current standards of notability, and by extension those approriate to historical characters. There would be many people in 1909 newspaper obituaries about whom similar things might have been said, even if not necessarily in Massachusetts. AJHingston (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are many people whom "similar things might have been said", and it is possible that they deserve, or don't deserve, a biography in Wikipedia. That is more a comment on the incompleteness of Wikipedia and the bias towards WP:recentism than on Nutt. We are here to discuss Nutt and Wikipedia states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". We have two full page biographies of him and I can see a third on Civil War people behind a paywall. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets #1 of WP:POLITICIAN as a State Senator. The fact that he lived in the 19th century is irrelevant. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errrm well. It is true that WP:POLITICIAN. However, he doesn't the meet the primary criteria at WP:GNG or WP:BIO, multiple third-party refs. Then, allowing that says "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" but also says "Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" we have WP:POLITICIAN: "Former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" - but with a footnote for that precise sentence, which says "This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." So on one level the people writing WP:POLITICIAN don't really envision a case where a person is a member of a state legislature but doesn't have any actual coverage, but on the other hand they are saying "One of the goals of Wikipedia is to eventually have an article on anyone who was ever a member of a state legislature". Hmmm, I had not seen that.

Well, its a good point. I'm not sure I agree with that, or why state legislators in particular should be singled out, but it does say that. It's a guideline and I don't know how carefully it was considered, so I'm going to say that since the person doesn't meet WP:GNG to begin with I still think the article should go. But it's a good point. Herostratus (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Exactly how does he not fit that? Instead of just saying he doesn't meet GNG, try and express an exact requirement of GNG that is not met and quote it the exact rule. All your doing is giving a vague wave to GNG without quoting it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does go to what we intend by notability. We struggle with contemporary politicians, because without clear rules Wikipedia would be subject to articles from those who want to enhance their own or a favoured candidate's profile and ensuring NPOV becomes almost impossible. But I wonder if everyone realises just how wide those criteria now are. For example, if we apply the WP:POLITICIAN rules to England as an example at the end of the 19th century then we can include all members of the London County Council, mayors of larger local authorities (an office held for a year), probably city aldermen, etc etc. Remember that the population of some cities in England was greater than some US states. And then there are vast numbers of people of equal standing on county councils and larger borough councils and all sorts of other posts, including colonial. Most will have had an effusive obituary, and I would prefer to have some other, objective, measure of notability than holding office locally. Otherwise it becomes very difficult to hold the line against other people who were at least of equal standing in their community at the time but we would also want to challenge for notability. Just having things written about them during life cannot be sufficient without looking at content as well as context. Maybe Wikipedia is too fussy about notability? AJHingston (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have consensus on a notability guideline for politicians which says that state legislators are presumed to be notable. Those who disagree with this guideline are free to try to change the consensus, but until then, the consensus stands and should guide this debate. Sources are presumed to exist for such individuals. For example, a search of the paper archives of newspapers published in his district at the time he served would almost certainly have in depth coverage of him. Local historical societies may have archives of reliable sources describing him. Sources need not be readily available online, or produced at this time. The article has several sources now, and other sources almost certainly could be found. There is no reason to delete this article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets the criteria set at WP:POLITICIAN. Even if there were no consensus as to whether state senators are sufficiently notable, the subject still passes WP:GNG by receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (Disclosure: I was made aware of this Afd through the nominator's unofficial Rfc at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).) Location (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ahem. WP:BIO states "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." WP:POLITICIAN, below, gives "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" as one of those standards. Yes, indeed, Herostratus, we are seriously saying that articles on state senators pass muster. And far from this "not meeting current standards of notability," as another editor alleges, this has been part of the consensus-accepted notability criteria for several years now. Whether Wikipedia is being "too fussy" about notability is a debatable point, but AfD is an unacceptable stalking horse for making that argument. Hit up Notability (people)'s talk page, gain consensus for your POV, then we'll talk. Ravenswing 05:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination fails what should be The First Rule of AfD Challenges — "Use Common Sense." Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. A beautifully-done piece, may I add... Carrite (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have started several articles involving Wisconsin State Legislators and I feel state legislators meet current standards of notability-Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we can only get five facts about a person like in Political Graveyard we can always combine them in a list as they do. But there will always be ones with full page biographies. Nutt is just as notable for his banking career as his state legislator membership in 1901. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All state senators are notable, per WP:POLITICIAN. That's how we've done things for years; browse around the State Senate articles, and you will find a lot of blue links. The fact that it was in the 19th rather than the 21st century is irrelevant towards notability, because notability is not time-bound. If anyone disagrees with the inclusion standards, centralized discussion on the policy page is the best way to address that, rather than randomly nominating one of our thousands of equally notable state legislator articles. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State senators are notable, and notability is not temporary. The fact that not many news articles from 100 years ago are available online does not detract from his obvious notability. I added this reference to the article to establish clearly that he was a state senator. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 21 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 - After reading the article and the below debate I feel compelled to close this promptly. Peripitus (Talk) 07:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

Tosha Thakkar[edit]

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

Subject seems to fail WP:NEWSEVENT and WP:BLP1E. Was not notable prior to demise. Circumstances of death don't seem notable either, whether as an example of a particular type of crime or criminal psychology. LordVetinari (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with LordVetinari. This article is fit for deletion. Not an encyclopedic entry. Veryhuman (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously an unfortunate event, but no evidence of notability presented, despite oblique reference to attacks on overseas students.--Grahame (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WP:BREAKING section of WP:EVENT recommends waiting to create articles such as these, but it also recommends waiting to nominate them for deletion due to the potential for further developments. The crime has received substantial coverage in India and Australia so I'm going to follow that guideline's recommendation for now, even though it's likely I'll end up agreeing with the nom. Location (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I nominated it as I doubted there would be notable further developments. The discovery of the crime is no longer breaking news, the arrest of the alleged offender has almost closed the case as far as newspaper headlines are concerned. The crime was not a long-term unsolved mystery. The crime does not appear to be racially motivated (and this raises questions of the relevance of this link). The victim was not notable. The alleged offender was not notable. The crime did not appear to provoke any notable incidents (large-scale protests, war between India and Australia etc). Even though my opinion of the article's notability hasn't changed, I agree with your suggestion, Location, of following the guideline you noted. I hadn't read that section so thank you for bringing it to my attention. LordVetinari (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#NEWS Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 15 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) 02:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Pink (ensemble)[edit]

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

Non-notable a capella group. No reliable coverage found--the only reviews appear to be self-published blogs, so fails WP:MUSIC. Blueboy 96 12:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined speedy deletion of the article because there are some assertions of notability made, especially with their performances at Edinburgh Fringe. However, I agree that sources in reliable sources are not showing up. (Not all the links in the article are currently blogs; however, a site which bills itself as "student media" leaves itself short of the reliability standard.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:ORG and WP:BAND. Probably could have been speedy deleted but if an AFD will make it stick better that's fine too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 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) 02:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne feminist collective[edit]

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

Fails WP:CLUB. No supporting sources LordVetinari (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as group with no notability presented, which isn't too surprising for a brand-new local club. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanted to speedy it but was reluctant to do so as I suspected others may contest it. There may be a verifiable claim of notability that I, not living in Melbourne, don't know about. LordVetinari (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. New organisation and a Google search doesn't indicate that it's notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 17 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) 02:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Adediran[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the general or biographical notability guidelines. Receives only passing coverage in just two Google News results, and I cannot find any other independent sources that may indicate notability. -- Lear's Fool 12:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 12:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a CV for a solicitor. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobiographical. No evidence to indicate notability in either news items or law journals. Quite a few self-written articles on the internet, but none I could find are peer-reviewed. Subject only indicates involvement in one minor law case that received scant news coverage. Subject is using Wikipedia as his own personal web space to advertise his business with a poorly written CV. 83.243.58.158 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising - just two references: the first is a broken link and the second is for a web page selling his book. The two external links are for his own website. 78.149.91.252 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG — I found only one story about him in Google news and it mentioned him only trivially, as the solicitor in the case the article was actually about. And for an article with so little in the way of sourcing, it seems very puffed up with detail. As the editors above already state, this comes across less as an informative article on somebody that readers might already have a reason to seek out information about, and more as a piece of advertising. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 19 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. per WP:NOYOUDONTGETTOKEEPYOURINJOKEONWIKIPEDIAFORSEVENDAYSJUSTBECAUSETHATSWHATTHERULESSAY Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Futbol Club de Real Bigone[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}}.

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

Either complete fabrication/nonsense, or else a non-notable amateur/kickabout team. Either way, does not meet any WP guidelines ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a very elaborate hoax; "Real big one" indeed. Even it is factual, the club is non-notable. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is an official competitive club playing regularly against a variety of teams in the dartford area...if you had been anywhere near where the club is situated you would of heard of them...the club has even held discussions with the company nestle about their sponsorship...but i'm sure 'daemonic kangaroo', a man who clearly has nothing better to do with his time other than try to end the publicity of a blossoming grass roots football club, is a more reliable judge of what constitutes a notable football team, than those who run nestle, one of the most successful companies on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.254.10 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — 86.25.254.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- I live in the Dartford area and I'm well aware of this club and their current success. They field a multi-national team, and are ambassadors for non-league English football. If this page were to be deleted due to apparent 'fakery', it would be a complete disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.166.50 (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — 136.148.166.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- I am a nearby Dartford resident and have heard of the club too. There is no justifiable point in deleting the page. — 92.29.180.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - The page has relevant citations & factual content. Other teams such as Deportivo Wanka & BSC Young Boys have amusing & could be interpreted as inappropriate names but these pages are up for deletion. Indulgent Author (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Indulgent Author (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - As a member of the club & a supporter I can confirm the reliability of the page & that it is a worthwhile entry upon Wikipedia. The club may not be known worldwide, however it is especially notorious in the Dartford area as well as other areas such as across parts of South London & North Kent. It'd be a shame for the page to be deleted, especially considering the number of supporters, especially those from the Dartford area that this page has as you can see from the posts above. BurtsyWurtsy (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2011 (GMT) — BurtsyWurtsy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - This team have been setup from the ground up and just because someone has not necessarily heard of them yet does not mean that they shouldn't get the page they deserve. Nestle clearly feel that the team's community-based aims and agenda are inkeeping with how a modern football club should be run as they decided to sponsor the club, and as they say on their website: "Nestlé aims to invest mainly in partnerships and programmes which make a positive difference to young people's lives." I feel that websites like Wikipedia should encourage the development of clubs such as this and for this page to be deleted would not be a step in the right direction — 152.78.23.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I moved the above comment here, as the IP put it in the article itself rather than here..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been involved with the club from its formation, and whilst circumstances may have led to my departure, I can vouch for its genuine existence. It is a club receiving sponsorship that provides a service and sporting outlet for the youth of Dartford, who, lets face it, don't have much hope otherwise. The article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.196.8 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — 213.205.196.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - seems non-notable. Not playing in a league? Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - The league that the team were playing in disbanded last year, so we are currently awaiting confirmation from the F.A to join the current league system in place in our area. Also, we have just received our invitation to the F.A. Cup Preliminary Qualifying Rounds for next year's tournament, commencing on the 13th August. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.23.144 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote more than once. Also, that last part is patently not true, as the FA does not invite teams to enter the FA Cup (rather they have to apply), and a team has to have competed in either the FA Cup or FA Vase in the previous season to be eligible anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations seem to back up. After a quick read the page seems relevant & factual and I for one enjoyed finding out about the club, we have a lot to learn from a multicultural club such as this. Dirk Valentine (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure how you can claim that the citations back up the content, when there are only two citations, one to a Tweet (!!!) saying simply "Real Bigone CF's new kit represents the clubs passion and desire to achieve great things" and one to a random PDF on FIFA's website which contains nothing whatsoever to do with this team...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Footballs a funny old game, but I have edited and created lots of football teams pages & to me this one seems valid & genuine. Quite a chip on your shoulder to see this gone, Chris. I assume the word 'dude' in your name refers to the reproductive organs of a camel and not the informal way of addressing a well-liked gentleman. Dirk Valentine (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - This article made me laugh and the club may even exist, but it is well below the bar in terms of notability. As far as I can tell from the article, they have only played one match (against "Athletico Ladrid") which hd an attendance of just four (4) - hardly well supported. I have deleted the incorrect reference that Chris refers to - the twitter page belongs to BurtsyWurtsy aka Anthony Burton/Anthony Burtinho. The whole thing is just oone big joke. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another SPA has popped up, this time posting the following on the article's talk page:
Keep - As a father, its nice to be able to find sports teams in your local area for your children. I stumbled across this page today whilst searching for local football teams for the possibility that my son (who is a keen upcoming footballer) may be able to get a trial. I contacted the club and they were very friendly and helpful with our request. I feel it would be a shame if this page was deleted, along with many others i'm sure, as it provides a pathway into exercise and enjoyment for the upcoming generation. Our Dartford community cannot afford for such windows of opportunity to be taken away. Kenny90 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Kenny90— Kenny90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - this club falls well short of the relevant notability standard for football clubs and the general notability guidelines. —BETTIA— ^talk 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a Port Vale fan, I'm well aware that there is only one team of note who play at the Princes Park stadium. This mischief has gone far enough now, mirror sites are beginning to pick up on this article, and it will now doubt be immortalized forever in wikibin.org anyway. For this team to be notable they must apply for membership of the Kent County League, then win promotion to the Kent League. If that happens then I will eat my own head.--EchetusXe 17:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We currently play on the community pitch next to the stadium. However I would add that Millwall F.C. Reserves play at Princes Park & find it preposterous that being as a Port Vale fan (I assume you're from the Stoke area?) you have more knowledge of Dartford F.C. and the club than a number of people who live in the town. Care to explain how you do? --BurtsyWurtsy (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Usual business of a bunch of students or somesuch thinking it'd be a great idea to create an article about their kickabouts. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (EC) Is it April 1st yet? Not notable by any standard, whether you look at WP:FOOTYN or WP:GNG. Only existing reference is to a tweet. I'm relatively confident, given the explosion of single-purpose IP !votes above from purported members of the club, that the club exists, but it's plainly non-notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fantasy is great; but let's keep it to the bedroom, guys. Jared Preston (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the club already has support from charlton athletic's simon francis, he will be posing in a bigone kit in support of its community work...the club also has support from FA cup finalist Gavin peacock, photos of francis in the kit will be available when the clubs kits (paid for by nestle...not very notable) are deliviered...at the end of the day lads if you are willing to donate this much time trying to close down a community club that is supporting teenagers then thats your problem...comic relief soon...lets all close that down next shall we!!! damn do-gooders! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.254.10 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bettia. FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this page is the sort of thing that really needs to be left to its own devices. It is clearly made by an up and coming football team that are trying to put their name out there, just because the team has not been around for as long as Arsenal for example, it does not mean that it isn't worthy of a page. I for one have not seen them play but after a few quick searches on local video sharing websites and forums managed to find many threads pertaining to the club and their aspirations. Moreover, by applying to be a part of the Kent League, which they stated above, they automatically apply to become a member of the Football Assosciation, and as a result gain an entry spot into the Qualifying Rounds of the F.A. Cup, so Chris you should really get your facts right, because I doubt your credentials are better than mine in this field, having just left the Football Assosciation after 22 years as their Football Development Administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.120.176 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for teams that are "trying to put their name out there," nor is this article problematic because it "has not been around for as long as Arsenal." It is problematic because it doesn't come close to passing the guidelines at WP:GNG. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as the former mayor of Swanscombe and Greenhithe (two towns outside of Dartford) i can tell you that these boys not only deserve a wikipedia page but your support as well, for a group of teenagers to start what is essentially a charity project to see it blossom into a team hoping to enter the Kent league is astonishing. And whats more, the club has recieved awards and funding for it's community work and success not only from myself (while i was still mayor) but the mayor of Stone Village as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.254.10 (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You already voted Mr Mayor. Note that it matters not who votes, or how many votes are on each side, but on the quality of the argument presented. I can guarantee that there is no argument fathomable that can save this article seen as it is a textbook example of what should not be on this website. By the by the location of this mythical match was at the astroturf community pitch, not Princes Park itself.--Echetus Xe 18:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The astroturf community pitch is on location at Princes Park, it is owned by the stadium & on the stadiums ground. Secondly your claim the match was mythical is outrageous, especially considering we have camera footage of said match. --BurtsyWurtsy (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems a bit rich claiming that a match (one which actually did happen) is mythical...coming from a man who, judging by his profile, prides himself on being rewarded virtual (some might say mythical) 'barnstars'. Even when this page does get deleted there will only be one side who really wins, the side who goes out with their friends and socializes, has fun, meets new people and put there efforts into living some sort of a life...while the moral losers of this outrageous debacle are those that were tragically sad and bored enough to find this small, and legitimate, wikipedia page amongst probably about a million other articles (not sure on specific numbers i have better things to do than spend my life patrolling a website for no real gain) and dedicate so much of there time to trying to get it closed down...you sir, and everyone else campaigning to get this page closed down, need to get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.254.10 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your muddling the concepts of both myth and virtual existence Mr Mayor. Anyway it may surprise you to learn that both myself any many others here have played football before, yet only you and your friends found it necessary to tell the world about your kickabout. Please do go out and socialize with your friends. Only don't create pages here telling us all about your adventures because nobody is that interested. With that I am finished with this discussion, thank you.--Echetus Xe 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a newly founded club that has not achieved a notable level of achievement using wikipedia for promotion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete schoolkid nonsense (see also WP:NFT). Not to mention a swarm of sockpuppet IPs/SPAs showing up to a debate is never the sign of an encyclopedic article likely to be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the quasi-hilarious name which gave the kid in me half-a-second of mild chuckling, this article is absolute nonsense. Can't believe an admin hasn't put an end to this charade yet. Giant Snowman 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Up the Bigone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.89.16 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant team with a growing fanbase. Aiming for Champions League qualification; need a Middle Eastern financial backer first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.239.189 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 March 2011
Delete. It would be great if "Real Bigone" were sufficiently notable, but sadly they're not. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I lol'd, but utterly non-notable, and that is assuming it even exists. Possible (probable?) hoax/joke. Reso lute 22:21, 14 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 per consensus; no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-administrative closure. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football club rivalries by country[edit]

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

This is a list which cannot ever be completed, and for which there can never be full or reliable sources. Its purpose is better served either by:

Replacing with individual articles for countires (eg List of association football rivalries in England)
Replacing with a category
Writing a prose article on football rivalries.

Any of these could be achieved without this list as it exists; as it is it harms Wikipedia by being inherently flawed. Pretty Green (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major football rivalries, where consensus was firmly that the topic is notable and should be covered. Nothing has changed since then, except that the inclusion criteria for the list are better defined as required by WP:LIST. The points made this time round, while reasonable, are not valid policy-based reasons for deletion. The fact that the list can't be completed is not a problem, nor is the lack of full references: sourced material goes in, and anything else is removed, as WP:V states. With 92 references already, lack of sources is not an issue. Per WP:CLN, the existence or otherwise of a category does not affect whether a list should exist. In this case, a category would be useless as many of the rivalries here have no separate article. Splitting it into lists by country would be an editorial decision and not require deletion. A prose article on football rivalries is a good idea, but it does not need to come at the expense of the list. And how exactly does a fully sourced page with clear inclusion guidelines on a clearly notable topic harm Wikipedia? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But remove unsourced info and add atleast 1 sentence to all subheadings. Should think about dividing to each continent and keeping it protected from anonymos users. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've long warned that that article was getting out of control, and advocated making a second article of the most major rivalries which would actually be more meaningful. However, this is beside the point. I vote keep because, simply put, none of your ideas are feasible, and I think that this article deserves to exist if it cannot be improved. Replacing it with individual articles for countries is absolutely no different from what we have now, except that it will be broken up into a hundred different pages. Some will be stub length and will be deleted for being 100% unsourced and irrelevant. Others will fill up with extra info about very minor teams just as this one has, and that's absolutely no different from what we have now, so what's the point. Replacing with a category is, if I may say so, an even worse idea, because then you actually need articles about individual rivalries, and you can bet that a lot of the actually significant rivalries would not have enough exposure for an article - they would be deleted and you would lose all information. Not to mention, people would start adding any page about football matches whatsoever into that category, and lo and behold you have an even worse problem. Finally, writing a prose article about rivalries simply wouldn't work because, frankly, that's what this page was supposed to be in the first place really. What you get is a load of casual editors coming and writing "extension" edits about their own favourite team, completely unsourced, and eventually the number of casual edits swamps the main article and you're back with exactly the same article we have right now. Falastur2 ^Talk 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly not the prettiest list on WP, but its parameters are defined. Could be properly sourced (newspapers do like writing about football). One improvement I could see is to set a cap in the prose length for each entry, especially when there is a main article to link to. The other proposed solutions don't seem to be an improvement over the current setup. The most desirable would be the prose article, but it would get so large it would have to be split. The Interior (Talk) 00:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - article needs a major overhaul - more prose, better referencing & organisation - but probably deserves its own article. Giant Snowman 13:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I can see the benefit of having an article like this, but it needs a lot of work. Some sections have a paragraph of prose or more and others have nothing. Just because a list is extremely long doesn't mean it needs to be split or deleted entirely. This is a great example of what can be achieved with the right layout, prose and referencing. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:11, 16 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) 02:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naqus[edit]

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

no content, not verifiable. The Arsenal Fan 08:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It always had content, albeit minimal. It now has more content and two refs. Easily done. I suggest it was WP:BITEy and inappropriate to AfD this article 29 minutes after its creation by a new editor, with no apparent effort to improve it. See WP:BEFORE. PamD (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article now seems appropriately sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes content, yes verifiable. -- Y not? 17:01, 15 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 by User:Lear's Fool due to "Identification of a minor who has not been identified in published sources" (ie WP:BLP concerns). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Cooper[edit]

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

No significant info, no content The Arsenal Fan 08:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor dude from Facebook.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The event has been documented by the Sydney Morning Herald, and could eventually meet notability. CR4ZE (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have declined the nomination of this article for speedy deletion under A7. -- Lear's Fool 12:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate speedy deletion This is a 16 year old girl who HAS NOT BEEN NAMED in full (only referred to as Jess) by the reference supplied and I doubt will be named by any reliable source. The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. I guess that the article doesn't technically meet the A7 criteria, but perhaps an IAR deletion per something like WP:BLPDEL would be appropriate? Reminds me a little of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Worthington (2nd nomination), which was deleted under WP:BLPDEL. Either way this article needs to be deleted and I just can't see how waiting seven days will help anything. Jenks24 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted it per The-Pope's concerns above. -- Lear's Fool 16:03, 14 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 speedily deleted. TN X Man 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jobcast Asia[edit]

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

Possible product advertising considering the low number of members The Arsenal Fan 08:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - db-spam or db-web. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:32, 14 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) 02:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gulam Rabbani Abu Bakr[edit]

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

Article is a about a name found on a primary source list of 645 names of people hold in Bagram Afghanistan. This source does not tell us anything about this individual apart from the name. This is followed by Andy Worthington's two sentences speculation about who that person might be. The fact is we do not know. Article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Note: Article almost entirely written by one editor. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Geo_Swan IQinn (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has not been widely covered by reliable scondary sources, and fails notability requirements.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yachtsman1--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search of this name produces nothing but Wikipedia-clones and passing mentions on other websites so notability isn't established. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources. As such its not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:32, 15 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 keep. Discussion has revealed that it is not entirely OR. Any necessary shortening or tagging need not be discussed here. No delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling water reactor safety systems[edit]

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

Significant original research -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 06:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are problems of verifiabilty, as the banner already warns readers. But this is not a novel topic which the author is launching on the world, and people have spent careers working in the field. If there are things that are wrong, or incomplete, others can improve it and provide more sources that are in the public domain. If Wikipedia is to improve its coverage, especially on technical topics, contributions cannot simply be a rehash of something somebody found through Google. AJHingston (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Significant original research" isn't a deletion criteria, unless it can be shown that it is impossible to write a verifiable article using reliable sources - something which is hardly the case here. The article can, and should be improved though. henrik•talk 15:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Clearly notable and with enough RS material for its own article. Any suspected OR should just be tagged. It needs more inline citations. Rod57 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. It is clear that the article was written by a technical expert who did not feel the need to cite references. However,that is not a criterion for deletion. The content of this article can be referenced, it will just take time and effort. Lwnf360 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With expanded interest in the topic arising from incidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi, the article has become vital. It needs more (referenced!) details about reactor safety systems, along with their successes and failures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.129.130 (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this. More citations would be nice, yes. But a deletion of such a solidly constructed article? No. --Dancraggs 20:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely needs some cleanup, but a notable topic and a good fork of Nuclear safety systems. Shadowjams (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this even flagged? And especially right now? The safety systems & operation of a BWR are not discussed elsewhere, deserve their own entry and are very relevant right now. It could use more sources, but it doesn't have any glaring flaws beyond that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.25.252 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs a POV marker, not a deletion vote. There's no original research here, it's just short on citations and presents with an unnecessarily nonchalant, pro-manufacturer tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.30.6.168 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid topic. In this case the deletion reason given in the nomination could probably be better solved with a rewrite. VQuakr (talk) 07:30, 15 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. withdrawn by nominator Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of instant messaging clients[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to this battleship AFD and this aircraft carrier AFD, this is a comparison article. While all the material in this article may be verifiable (just like the AFDs above), Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a collection of statistics. The previous AFD was back in 2007, and all the respondents based their reasons on verifiability (which I addressed above) or places not covered by policy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This article is obviously not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is a stand-alone list and is perfectly allowed in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in WP:LIST or in stand-alone lists does it mention comparison articles? I don't see any mention. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a the wrong question. The correct question is: Where in WP:LIST there is mention of adding auxiliary useful information to lists being prohibited? The answer is: nowhere. Comparisons are perfectly allowed. What? Don't you like it? Fleet Command (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Article is well referenced. Likewise, the article is well maintained as shown by the revision history statistics which shows that the article goes no longer than one (1) day without an individual editing the page as shown here [15]. In addition the page shows 22,905 views within the last 30 days, as shown here [16]. Finally, looks like we have a 153 Wikipedia’s watching the page, as shown here [17]. All-in-all looks like a well maintained – useful list and not just; ..." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability arguments were countered in my nomination, and your other points have no basis in policy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets all criteria for both WP:List and WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in WP:LIST does it allow "comparison lists"? I don't see them mentioned in the "types of lists" section. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A list is a list is a list. Where specifically are they disallowed? It is just more compact to display a list as a matrix. If you want to lobby for banning comparative lists, start a campaign at WP:RFC. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. Indeed, Wikipedia is not a place in which every new innovation (such as adding useful comparison data to raw stand-alone lists) or content type must be authorized by a higher authority. Fleet Command (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's comparisons to the other two comparison articles do not constitute a good argument to delete. The battleship AFD compared just two battleships, whereas this article is attempting to compare all the most widely-used clients. As for the aircraft carrier AFD, the decision was to keep. The article does not present indiscriminate information, but rather exactly that information described by the article title. The clients mentioned therein are notable, with many having articles. The information is also verifiable. —Lowellian (reply) 03:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? Fleet Command (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it appears consensus is against my view – I can accept that and will withdraw my nomination. :-) Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:34, 15 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) 02:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Kings (Middle Ages)[edit]

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

User:Quuxplusone already stated the problems with this stub pretty well on the article's talk page, so I'll just quote him:

This stub article was created by an anonymous user. I have not found any online resources that refer to a medieval "Age of Kings" (although admittedly it's difficult, what with the computer game). This article smells strongly of a student extrapolating a definition for a chapter title in some high-school history textbook. Can anyone provide a reference to a reliable source using the term "Age of Kings" to denote a time period in real human history? Can you provide two sources, to show that the term has a somewhat recognized, non-idiosyncratic meaning? --Quuxplusone 08:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was made four years ago, and in the time since, the article has not since been improved with any references to support that this is an actual term used in any consistent way by historians or as anything other than a non-precise, non-technical, dramatic-sounding synonym for the Middle Ages. The first sentence of the article defines the term as "The Age of Kings was an age in European history in which nations were ruled by kings." That...pretty much describes the Middle Ages, and is also fairly imprecise, as even today some European nations remain monarchies. As User:Quuxplusone remarked, "This article smells strongly of a student extrapolating a definition for a chapter title in some high-school history textbook."

—Lowellian (reply) 05:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons outlined in my nomination summary. —Lowellian (reply) 05:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a legitimate Age of European history. Most likely to be a reference to Age of Kings the computer game. Not a reasonable search term so not worth a redirect. MLA (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've not come across the term used in this way except in the context of the computer game either. It isn't a useful way of understanding Eurpoean history, even for school-children. AJHingston (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs, no el. This is indeed from the game AoE.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phrase is used entirely within the game context, although it is likely to be a nod to the use of similar phrases by historians such as Age of sail via phrases by less formal history students such as 'age of cannon'. I disagree with AJHingston;s assertion that it not useful; it is not too bad a definition. More to the point is that only AoE uses it. Not notable. Sorry AoE, fans, and article creator, WP does not work that way. Anarchangel (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine that the Age of Kings title might appeal to the makers of a TV series as it did to a computer game. But as an historical epoch it is fraught with definitional problems - does it begin with Charlemagne? Does it end in 1789 or 1918, or some other date? How does it relate to the history of Italy, or Germany, or Britain for that matter? The definition is not inherent in the name, and would have to be established by usage, which is why notability is important and on which we have a consensus. AJHingston (talk) 11:34, 18 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. This is an old cut and paste version - Sherlock4000 is working on the proper version in his user space. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine people of European descent[edit]

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

Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 5. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What the heck is going on here? There was a perfectly good discussion on this, and the article was userfied. If some nit-picking procedural argument is presented that this was incorrect, I can't see how this justifies dragging the whole issue up again. What exactly is this supposed to achieve? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was not a consensus in the DRV on whether G4 applied to the new article (i.e. is the new version different enough to escape deletion?), so that is why it is being presented here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd dispute that, but in any case, the 'new' article still contains substantial amounts of text copy-pasted from the 'White Argentine' article with no edit history - a clear breach of copyright terms, as editors contributions are unattributed. I am going to put a note to this effect on the article talk page, and if the issue is not resolved promoptly, blank the article per Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also confused. This was userfied so it could be re-worked to be re-submitted. Why is it back with no history? I'm also fairly certain somebody should have informed me of the DRV as I was the closer of the original AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete This is ridiculous. The current article should simply be deleted. It should then be replaced by moving User:Sherlock4000/White Argentine to this title. The DRV was done under the radar while the same issues were being discussed at ANI and a userfied version was being worked on. This is a mess, at the very least we should have the version with the history, not this Frankenstein version of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Beeblebrox says, this looks the best way out of this mess. I think that moving User:Sherlock4000/White Argentine to this title would be premature though, as the consensus was that any article on the subject needed not just revision, but more general input from those involved in the discussion - It is being worked on, but as it stands, I'd still have real concerns with OR, sourcing etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. just to add to the confusion, Sherlock4000 has started copy-pasting from the user-page article into this one. I've reverted this, as again it doesn't maintain article history, so breaches copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Andy says, substantial amounts of text copy-pasted from the 'White Argentine' article and now from somewhere else. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such a gargantuan clusterfuck has been created by a bad but well-intentioned DRV decision. Unless the two frankenstein's can somehow be merged, seems the best way out is to nuke this one. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with former article's history): To begin with, I was as surprised as everyone else when I logged on and noticed this. I've stated before that the former article's history must be preserved. Whatever happened, we should keep this article as it shows causality between the six million European immigrants who arrived in Argentina and Argentines of European descent today, including influences both African and Indigenous. I should note that this subject has been treated by some with the kind of fear and apprehension that one would expect from, say, a Nazi-related subject, when other articles about similar communities in the region have raised no objections at all, despite not having anywhere near the research this one did, and blatantly calling their respective groups "white" without including the genetic research this one does to give credit to African and Native contributions. White Latin Americans, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Colombians, Mexicans of European descent, Peruvians of European descent each have a page, and so should this one. Afro-Argentines, Arab Argentines, Asian Argentines, Indigenous peoples in Argentina, and other communities each have a page, and so should this one.

I empathize with the argument that "ethnicity is a social construct." If none of these pages should exist, try starting with one of these thinly-referenced, one-sided entries, instead.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 19:38, 14 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. Coldplay and "cheap place to stay" are poor arguments for retention, but the awards and other sources may be indicative of notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsay Hall[edit]

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

Promotional article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry. Mtking (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this place is not notable itself, then we should merge it to University College London. –BuickCentury Driver 07:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely should not have an individual article on a dorm (famous people having lived there does not make it notable). I think a merge may lead to issues of WP:UNDUE, and a redirect seems weird for what's likely a common name. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I speedy deleted this as promotional, but then it was pointed out to me that the Speedy tag had been deleted and re-added, so it was technically ineligible for speedy deletion, and I restored it. User:Rangoon11 appears to believe it is of architectural importance and wants to work on it - so can we perhaps allow a little time for that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - A large and architectural notable building right in the centre of London.[18] Also one of the oldest and most well-known student halls of residence of a major university which has seen notable individuals stay there.[19], [20] Also used as a hostel outside of term time, for which further third party coverage is easily found: [21], [22]

A natural break-out article from the main UCL article, which does not have space for a detailed treatment of the topic of this article.

I should add, to follow up on the comments of Boing! said Zebedee, that Mtking has over the last 24 hours shown a desperation to get this article deleted, repeatedly re-adding a speedy deletion tag and then immediately recommending for deletion. The 'promotional' comment is highly curious when one looks at the actual content of the article, and in any case that is a clean up issue rather than a notability one. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to say you're wrong about its notability, I do have to take issue with the links you presented. 2 and 3 are just articles about Coldplay that mention that the band met in the hall. 4 and 5 are travel guides, simply mentioning that the hall is a good place to stay for cheap. These are all unacceptable as sources to assert notability. The first link is certainly much more usable; however, it seems to simply mention the building on a list as an example of a type of architecture. It looks like it's just a mention in a footnote, not coverage in the main text. I apologize if I'm being too frank, and I'm not trying to say you're wrong in your claims, but you're going to need much stronger links to prove them. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which I have provided above in my view more than demonstrate notability when taken together. Why are travel books not acceptable sources under WP policy? I never claimed that the articles in the Guardian and Times Higher Education were solely or even mainly about Ramsay Hall, that does not mean that they are not capable of being used in combination with other sources to help demonstrate notability.

The recent refurbishment is also noteworthy, as the builiding is in the Bloomsbury Conservation Area and the project won an award: [23], [24]. The building has been the subject of artistic interest: [25]. It has undoubtedly been mentioned in other architeture books than the one linked above, but it is not easy to find these simply from google. However the reference in the above book is rather more than a footnote and demonstrates that the builiding is of architectual interest, beyond the interest which it has through its purposes and history.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said all of these sources could not be used; rather, I said that they could not be used to assert notability. Travel guides can be fine sources, but "this is a good cheap place to stay" is not an assertion of notability. Likewise, multiple sources with incredible trivial mentions do not combine together to create overall notability. In regards to your three newest links, I have some other issues. 6 is from the Camden London Borough Council, basically the equivalent of a local city council, and it is a list of projects from the past two years recognized as being sustainable. While this would be noted in the article, it in no way establishes notability, as it is a minor recognition. 7 is the page for the project on the architect's website; I'm not sure why you linked that one, as it obviously doesn't count as outside coverage. 8 is better, but seems to be a page listing a photograph in the Conway Library at the Courtland Institute of Art. This is a collection of thousands of architectural photos, designs, and other works. While the collection as a whole is incredibly significant, the individual photos that comprise it do not automatically have subjects that are notable. I'd suggest reading up on the notability guideline for what types of coverage would be considered more acceptable. Once again, I apologize if I'm coming on too strongly, but I'm just trying to be clear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction reference 6 is from SiteLines, a magazine published by the LABC, not by Camden Council. And coverage in travel guides is perfectly acceptable as reliable third-party coverge. 7 was more for interest but the architects' practice is independent of the subject and would be perfectly acceptable to provide details of the project for the article (as would this for another project on the builiding: [26]).

It is important to note that with this article we have the additional important factor that it is a natural break-out from University College London, a very long article about a subject of undeniable notability. It is simply not practical to properly cover the subject of this article in that article. And there is much to say about the subject of this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's the Camden Council's report published on the LABC's ~~site~~ magazine. Point still stands, it's not significant coverage. In regards to travel guides, I basically can't be more clear; a guide saying "stay at a dorm like this one, it's cheap" absolutely does not give any sort of notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not right, it is a magazine published by the LABC. The point does not stand, it is completely counter-factual and irrelevant. Travel books are absolutely acceptable as sources for demonstrating notability. Period. Unless you can tell me where it says here that travel books are different from any other type of book: Wikipedia:Notability Rangoon11 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I struck site and changed it to magazine, but this minor mention still does not give notability. And honestly, if you can't see why the mentions in the travel guides do not count as more than trivial coverage, I give up, there's no convincing you of the obvious.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's a reason why "your dorm" one of our listed bad article ideas. This is a pretty good example of why. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, not policy. And this is not merely a 'dorm' but a notable building in its own right in a conservation area in the centre of a very major city, with multiple uses.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an essay, but articles of those types are very, very likely to be deleted unless the subject is truly extraordinary. You've yet to prove otherwise to anyone's satisfaction but your own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true I am convinced as well using WP:GNG. Subjects do not need to be "truly extraordinary", they need to be notable (which is POV of course), especially as Wikipedia expands. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to note that the article has been completely re-written from an architectural standpoint, so the "promo" and "only claim is that famous people stayed there" concerns appear to have been addressed. (I'm not familiar with the community's general feel on notability of buildings, and don't have any strong opinions myself either way, which is why this is only a Comment). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the UK, which has countless buildings hundreds of years old, and quite a few older even than that, a dorm built in the mid-1950s is of no particular historical value. Hell, the house I grew up in is older than that, as are dozens of others in the same neighbourhood. This is simply a random, unremarkable building that someone made an article on because they thought it would be fun to put their dorm on wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The age of the building is irrelevant and has never been mentioned as a factor for its notability. And, to reply to your posting above, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy stating a requirement for a builiding (or anything else) to be 'truly extraordinary' to merit an article. The motives of those who first created the article are also completely irrelevant. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient notability in reliable sources, including the LA Times, with enough information for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this building on any Heritage or Important building list ? Has it won any design awards ? Because if the answer to either is no then I fail to see what is so special about this that it warrants an encyclopaedia entry. Mtking (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the article as rewritten since you made the deletion nomination then you will see that the building has won an award. However the criteria which you have given for yourself are not Wikipedia criteria for notability. Notability is demonstrated by the citations now in the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was looking for something more than an award from the local council. And the Wikipedia page on Notability says "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." and if this building is not on any Heritage or Important building list or not won any major design awards I don't see how it can be "worthy of notice" for an encyclopaedia. Mtking (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's your own criteria, but it is not Wikipedia policy. Many listed buildings in the UK, of which there are over 350,000, would not qualify for a Wikipedia article because there is no third party coverage. However many buildings which are not yet listed, would. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lets look at it the other way, what (other then being the meeting place of a English alternative rock band Coldplay, BTW the authors of that entry don't even find that fact noteworthy) makes this building in your opinion worthy of notice ? Mtking (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The award to which he refers is the borough council's recognition of the "most innovative and sustainable construction projects completed in the borough over the past two years." By no stretch of the imagination is being on this list considered a prestigious award giving automatic notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Local awards do not demonstrate wide notability; they can be sourced in a notable article but don't demonstrate why the whole of mankind should know about this. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While several third-party sources, they don't provide significant secondary coverage of the building outside of the local level (name-drops are not appropriate for this, nor are, effectively, advertisements for its accomodations). Do we even know why it was named "Ramsay Hall"? This seems like an appropriate section in a larger article on the architecture of the university, but doesn't work as a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'they don't provide significant secondary coverage of the building outside of the local level' - I've no idea what this means, none of the sources are from local media. There isn't currently an article on the architecture of UCL, if there were then I agree that this could perhaps be merged into it. Merging this into the main UCL article would be ridiculous. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University College London - the building is "note worthy" but not "notable"... in other words, the building is worth mentioning (noting) within in the context of our article on the College, but it does not reach the level of notability we require in a topic for an article on its own. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not practical to merge this article into the main UCL article, the level of detail in this article would be completely undue in that article and almost all of the content would be lost. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The merge would not be to the level of detail that this article gives; it would be enough so that the information that fits without an undue weight would be added, and no more.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - 90% plus of this article would be lost in a merge with University College London. A more realistic option is the conversion of UCL Main Building into a 'Buildings of University College London' article with a merge to that. My firm preference, which I personally feel is more than justified by the sources, remains for this article to be kept stand-alone though. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the building has won an award and is well-referenced with historical information. There is enough worthwhile referenced information for a standalone entry that would not be appropriate in a merged article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what notable history you're referring to? Being designed? Being constructed? As for the award, I really hope that it's triviality has already been addressed above. As nice as it was for Rangoon to personally ask you to come here and argue for this to be kept, I would hope you'd be a bit more specific.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear, I have never had any contact with Jonathan before today and it was quite possible that he could have come here and voted to delete, or not come here at all. I had no real way of predicting. Or indeed he may well have come here anyway. It is a perfectly normal and appropriate thing to let an editor know about a concurrent deletion discussion on a very similar subject, particularly when the editor who commenced the AfD was the same in both cases, and there are similar concerns in each as to process followed. And I didn't actually ask him to vote one way or another, anyhow.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe this article passes WP:GNG. This is a judgement call of course and the fact that there is such a discussion on this AfD indicates that there is no consensus. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've created Halls of residence at the University College London. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A review of the sources listed in the article has convinced me that this article passes WP:GNG, and to top it off - Coldplay met whilst living at the hall! Totally notable. Onthegogo (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A different building by that name in London got coverage over a hundred years ago for a place where musicians gathered. [27] Was the new building named after that? Are the awards and mention of it notable for a building? Times Higher Education says "Archetypal of the modern era is Coldplay, one of the biggest bands in the world, who happily admit that they first met and jammed in the stairwells of Ramsay Hall after enrolling at University College London." [28] Sounds like a notable event took place there. The most evidence to its notability, are the links Rangoon11 found to reliable sources that cover architecture that give it full coverage. Dream Focus 04:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No decent sources establishing notability. "Coldplay slept there", is probably one of the worst arguments I've ever heard in an AFD. As stated above me "there's a reason why "your dorm" one of our listed bad article ideas".--Sloane (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't just sleep there, they lived there, met each other, formed their band, and created their first music there. Dream Focus 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, still not impressed. If you want to include that factoid in the Coldplay article go ahead, but further it doesn't lend any notability to the building.--Sloane (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. WP:INHERITED. It's a perfectly good factoid, but not one that gives notability. Otherwise, we'd have countless "Band X's basement" and such.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Coldplay citations are just two of many in the article.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:54, 23 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) 02:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Wood[edit]

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

non notable self published comic strip author WuhWuzDat 04:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication on Google or in the article that the subject meets the general, biographical or author notability guidelines. -- Lear's Fool 04:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary source coverage established. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published author and illustrator with no evidence of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 15 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) 02:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flutter (the comic)[edit]

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

non notable self published comic WuhWuzDat 04:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication on Google or in the article that the subject meets the general or book notability guidelines. -- Lear's Fool 04:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely zero notability whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found that discuss this self-published comic in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary source coverage established. Non-notable. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 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 keep. Nomination Withdrawn per WP:KEEP#1 (non-admin closure) Enfcer (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbert (TV series)[edit]

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG, as well as any relevant parts of WP:FILM. Google fails to turn up any relevant results other than youtube videos and the site's own website or other unrelated results. nn123645 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn, obviously with the sources at the newspaper archive and it running on PBS this is notable. I'll leave the closing to someone else. --nn123645 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Program aired on several national cable networks and PBS member stations for a long run and continues to air on religious networks today. Notability is sealed on that alone, and as usual, Christian children's series always need a lower threshold of notability than other children's programming due to a smaller audience pool. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first sentence of Mrschimpf's recommendation. I note that this article has been around for years, but apparently was recently vandalized. However, I disagree with the idea that Christian children's series should be subjected to lower notability criteria than other television series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only said the lower criteria because there has been an odd bias among television series articles to nominate Christian kid's series for AfD that I've noticed because the nominators sometimes don't bother to go beyond the first page of Google results or use Boolean terms to dig deeper for notability, while they just let secular series float by even if the writing is a fannish unsourced mess. Nate • (chatter) 06:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Even on the second and third page of google search results (I have my settings set to 100 results per page, so that would be the equivlant to pages 1-30 on the default of 10) there is little other than blogs and similarly unreliable sources. Maybe you can find more stuff than I can but I'm just not finding stuff on the web. That of course doesn't mean that sources don't exist, but still notable things will generally have third party reliable sources covering them in most forms of media, including the web. As far as the secular series floating by thing that sounds to me like a perfect case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --nn123645 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In that it was a puppet show for toddlers, the persons who recall it are parents (and perhaps older siblings) of toddlers in the late 80s and early 90s. However, it ran for several years nationally on cable TV and received the requisite coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources [29]and [30]. I was surprised to learn that it had been picked up by PBS tations as well, yet apparently it did [31]. Largely forgotten, but it was notable in its time. Mandsford 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I couldn't find any mention of this series in McNeil's Total Television, but a quick search of Newspaper Archive pulled up over 900 newspaper articles. Clearly notable in its day. The first article I clicked on mentioned that the producer, David Frayss, had previously won an Emmy, so I added that detail to the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:06, 15 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) 02:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relativist fallacy[edit]

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

tagged since over two years, not a recognised fallacy. Tallard (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia fallacy. MLA (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google books search indicates numerous uses of the phrase. The article needs to be sourced and re-written to eliminate original research, but can be saved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If kept it would need renaming as it's not a recognised fallacy. In that sense, the "phrase" (as you aptly named it, whether intentionally or not) is generally fallaciously used by religious dogmatics to undermine the validity of other viewpoints. How does one name an article to indicate the opposite, I am not sure.--Tallard (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The following articles, and others, indicate is to me it is a phrase on which we need an article. Law, Stephen (2005) Thinking Tools: The Relativist Fallacy, Think: Philosophy for everyone 3: 57-58 (A journal of the the Royal Institute of Philosophy) and Tomass, Mark (1998) On the Relativist Fallacy of the Impossibility of Value Neutral Inquiry in Political Economy Volume 20, Issue 03, Journal of the History of Economic Thought (1998), 20: 279-298. Perhaps problems with the phrase, from the point of view of logicians, might be made more prominently in the article. Msrasnw (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: A quick google search shows that the phrase is frequently used. Article clearly needs some work, but still keep. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article about a concept that appears important. Needs editing, not deletion. Tchicken7 (talk) 06:11, 19 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. Big Dom 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of disasters involving Canadians by death toll[edit]

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

Highly redundant with List of Canadian disasters by death toll; most disasters involving Canadians happen in Canada. As for disasters outside Canada, what does it mean to "involve Canadians"? I'm pretty sure there are Canadians living in Japan who were affected by the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. Should we include that? What about a plane crash in which there was one Canadian on board? Clearly an indiscriminate list with a trivial association with Canada. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to List of Canadian disasters by death toll, which actually does include disasters that "involve" Canadians, not merely those that happened in Canada. I don't see that as a problem, given that a stand-alone list has no impact on other articles, so that we shouldn't be concerned if events known for other consequences are listed if they fit the list's criteria. If it turns out that 5,000 Canadians died in the Sendai earthquake for example, then why wouldn't that be of import to Canada and therefore of import to a Canada-related list? Listing it thus (hypothetically) would be completely different than categorizing 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami by Category:Disasters involving Canadians, which I hope we can all agree would be inappropriate. But I digress... postdlf (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NotList. KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as WP:NOTLIST. Judging from your comments in other AFDs, it seems that you would like to see all lists done away with just because they are lists. That view obviously is contrary to consensus, so it would be more constructive within individual AFDs to address the specific content at hand based on recognized standards. Phrasing your comment in the absolute as you have also incorrectly implies that your view is accepted policy. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it's redundant to the much better List of Canadian disasters by death toll, and can't figure out what's the difference. I got a laugh out of "fails WP:NOTLIST as well"-- not a policy, but certainly there are people who wish that there was such a thing. Lists are a very efficient way of organizing certain information, and in those cases, preferable to feeble attempts at prose. Mandsford 23:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Postdlf, actually, WP:NOTDIR, #1 is what I was referring to. Yeah, I messed it up. Thanks for the catch ! KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 17:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being a good sport about it, better than I would have been. There are differing opinions about what constitutes a directory, just as there are about what constitutes indiscriminate information. Although #7 might be argued also, I think that an article describing particular events in a particular nation (in this case, mass fatalities in Canada) would be encyclopedic, and a sortable table does things that a narrative can't. In this case, it's already been done. Mandsford 18:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename to List of Canadians killed outside of Canada by disasters, keeping the current organization by death toll, move the non-Canadian disasters from the other article to here, and the Canadian disasters from here to the other article. I would accept a merge, but the distinction between those that actually happened in Canada and those that did not must remain.

The arguments to delete are either poor or obtuse. Hmm... Redundant with [[List of Canadian disasters... well, that is true, it turns out, inasmuch as that list has entries that do not belong in it: disasters that happened elsewhere. A good point for keeping the article, thanks, a terrible one for deleting it.

It is absurd to argue that determining the limits of content is a problem, therefore we should default to [[List of Canadian...; the same problem exists for both articles, no matter how highly you recommend one of them. Nom asks a rhetorical Camel's nose / Boiling frog / Slippery slope question: where do we draw the line? Ignoring the rhetoric for the sake of argument, the answer is, we don't. Not here. This is a discussion for the talk page, where people who actually work on list articles draw the line.

Anarchangel (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just adding to our poor and obtuse comments here, but I don't see the point in removing what you refer to as "non-Canadian disasters" from the other article when a simple rewording would do just as well. The sortable table pretty well shows where they occurred. It's preferable in any reference to have information in one place, rather than creating multiple articles. If someone wants to put an asterisk on the ones that you think "do not belong", such as the 24 Canadians killed in New York on 9/11, or the 280 who were killed after the Air India jet left Canadian airspace, that's fine. For the people who lose loved ones, it's no less tragic if it happened outside territorial limits. Mandsford 14:49, 21 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. There is substantial and well-argued support for a merge and redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but TerriersFan makes a good point to counter that, and I suggest that discussions continue on the relevant talk pages. What this AfD has decided is that there is insufficient consensus to delete the article. As usual with no consensus outcomes, there is no prejudice against subsequent renomination at AfD. NAC—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Sightings of Madeleine McCann[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedic topic on its own. ScienceApe (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might actually be a WP:NOTNEWS violation. The sightings are worth a summary paragraph in Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but this level of detailed coverage has no lasting value I can see; each purported sighting made headlines when it happened but no impact after that except in the aggregate. postdlf (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with postdlf - worth a mention in the main article, but this much detail is completely unnecessary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Supposed sightings of a crime victime are not independently notable. MLA (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll simply quote what the article's creator Terriersfan wrote on the talk page - "This article was created following discussion on the talk page of the main article in order to reduce the size of the main article. Through substantial coverage by reliable sources compliance with WP:N has been separately established but the article should be read in the context of the main page." Notability is not temporary, what was the case in 2008 is still the case today.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of notability; no one here is disputing that the article topic of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is notable. The point is that there is not an encyclopedic value to giving such detailed descriptions of each sighting because that aspect of the topic was just daily news. Why can't the sightings be trimmed and summarized down to one or two paragraphs in the main article? What understanding is gained by the reader now by going into such detail here? If a news agency were to report on this story today, which sightings would they even mention or describe in detail? postdlf (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holy crap, 47 references? A notable topic with signficant coverage. Stickee (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily write an article with 47 references on sightings of Britney Spear's bald head, that doesn't mean I should.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or keep - The article is definitely on a notable topic per WP:GNG, as is evidenced by all the references. However, it does appear to be a split off the topic of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and substantially duplicate it, so I propose a merge. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I understand it, the whole point of this was to reduce the size of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann article, so merging/redirecting would defeat that purpose. The information meets Wikipedia standards for notability (as a split-off from an unquestionably notable topic for reasons of length) and verifiability (see the sources in the article). —Lowellian (reply) 03:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it was spun off from an article that was notable, and encyclopedic, doesn't mean the spun off article is notable or encyclopedic itself. What they should have done was trimmed down that section. An article just about where she may have been seen doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. It's a WP:NOTNEWS violation. ScienceApe (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a compilation of sightings going back several years. As such, it is a historical record, and thus not news, and not a NOTNEWS violation. —Lowellian (reply) 20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ScienceApe (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, and this article is not an indiscriminate collection of information in any way.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A list of sightings of a missing girl certainly is an indiscriminate collection of information. ScienceApe (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A list of media-covered sightings of a not-just-notable, but famous, across international boundaries, missing girl certainly is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course it is. The girl is notable, but not a list of sightings. ScienceApe (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what your definition of "indiscriminate" is ScienceApe but over on Wiktionary it says "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless." That does not apply here. There is care and distinction - only those sightings as reported in reliable sources are included.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're arguing semantics. It's just a random list of sightings, we don't have an article on a list of sightings for any other topic. Should we also have a list of Elvis sightings? I'm sure we can get reliable sources on that too. Should we have a list of UFO sightings? A list of Bigfoot sightings? Should we have a list of sightings of other missing persons too? A list of sightings is not encyclopedic at all. `ScienceApe (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And the semantics came up because you're misusing the word "indiscriminate". Also, we indeed do have a list of UFO sightings. —Lowellian (reply) 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lowellian. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see no reason to delete or merge this article at all. keep it.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguments that this is sourced and notable aren't enough - we already have an article for sourced and notable content at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - the fact this was too long to remain in that article should have caused it to be cut down to an appropriate length - splitting is often seen as an easy way to deal with excessive detail that it would be too much trouble to shorten. This is a cop-out not an encyclopaedia article and someone needs to summarise it in a couple of paragraphs and put it where it belongs.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, cutting it down, which takes much less effort, is the real cop-out, the easy but wrong way out from developing a properly split-out article. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting an article usually involves a simple copy and paste. Reducing 22 paragraphs and 47 references to an appropriate length takes time and effort, especially as it is often controversial and opposed through reversion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And splitting an article means having to do the same summarization/reduction to write a proper intro. Effort involved is a bad argument to delete. —Lowellian (reply) 22:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my argument was against using WP:SPLIT as a reason not to delete something. My delete rationale is that we already have an article for this subject at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this article in any case be called Supposed sightings of Madeleine McCann - it's actually misleading to suggest she has been sighted after her disappearance.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we're heading down that road it should be Alleged sightings of Madeleine McCann. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because some of the people reporting the possible sightings are not necessarily alleging that the girl they saw was McCann, but simply that they saw a girl who looked like McCann. Maybe Reported sightings of girls people thought were Madeleine McCann or girls people thought might be Madeleine McCann, which just shows how ridiculous this whole thing is.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I dont buy that argument Pontificalibus. Most of the people says they saw McCann herself and not another girl However investigations later on has shown most of them to be wrong but all the observations of the girl were all made in good faith I pressume.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of missing persons, the word "sightings" is understood per common sense to mean alleged sightings. Adding a descriptor word (such as "supposed" or "alleged"), which should already be implied, to the article title is unnecessary. —Lowellian (reply) 22:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - by virtue of the references this page easily passes WP:GNG. It doesn't duplicate content in the main page but supplements it; the material in the main page is the minimum necessary to provide context. This was split off, by consensus after discussion, to relieve the pressure on the main page which was getting too large. Of course it could be merged back, but there is no good reason, and all that would happen is that we would have to agree another class of content to spin off. TerriersFan (talk) 22:23, 20 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 DELETED, A3. postdlf (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL CONTROVERSY[edit]

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

This article runs afoul of WP:NOTFORUM, and is possibly a POVFORK of California High-Speed Rail as well. Feezo (Talk) 01:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not appropriate and makes no sense. Dough 48 72 01:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 01:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes no sense, and the title is wrong. It also is very unencyclopedic. --P C B 01:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is absolutely clear. User:Chief Officer Alex and/or their teacher may find a way forward by initiating a discussion at WT:TRANSPORT or one of the rail-related projects. Haus^Talk 01:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE PER NOM OR MOVE TO CREATOR'S USERSPACE. –FREDDDIE ™ 01:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I give this a D...for delete. Need much be said here?Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 01:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CALIFORNIA HIGH—SPEED RAIL CONTROVERSY (with mdash in "HIGH—SPEED") created by the same author; that article moved by author to LLLLMMMM, marked for speedy deletion as no context and duly deleted. Tonywalton ^Talk 02:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and appears per [32] to be a poor attempt to use WP as some sort of a school assignment. Tonywalton ^Talk 02:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the author's contributions is something odd going on here? Nothing for three years then something "getting a grade for this"? Might this be a compromised account? Tonywalton ^Talk 02:17, 14 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) 02:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Laney[edit]

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

Delete. Just an ordinary radio announcer. No indication of notability. This seems part of a series of genealogical bios, but the least noteworthy of the five. Student7 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 March 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, Big Dom 00:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few mentions of her here and there, none seem to establish notability though Bob House 884 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability seems to be lacking. Her own resume is unimpressive. Becky Sayles (talk) 09:13, 14 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Giovinco[edit]

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

A few promotional exhibition write ups and a personal bio page. Subject doesn't appear to be a particularly notable photographer. I am not finding via searching or seeing something that would pass WP:ARTIST, no assertion he has won any notable awards or that his work is exceptional or any different from the thousands of other photographers that have their pictures in exhibitions. Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 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, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the use within Wikipedia of the concept of "notability", he indeed "doesn't appear to be a particularly notable photographer". Perhaps a total of just a dozen or so living photographers obviously do, though we might add two or three dozen more via careful (and tedious) searching in web pages about museum collections. (As for the question of whether he's notable in the normal sense, I'm not qualified to judge, and of course WP doesn't care.) ¶ After careful editing, the article now says very little, but what it does say is scrupulously sourced. This is in marked contrast with the flatus that's typical of AfD (see Kim Jew as an example). My own gut feeling is "slightly informative, sourced, non-promotional, and harmless; therefore keep". I haven't yet looked in any of the commentary on paper that's been proffered; perhaps there's more in it too. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 14 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Djamil Suherman[edit]

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

Someone tagged this with {{db-bio}}, which was subsequently removed. It is not obvious to me what makes this poet notable. Has no reliable sources, and I cannot verify if any of those publications are real or not self published. -- Selket ^Talk 08:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis would indicate they are real and probably not self published, given that he has three books in the National Library of Australia. This source mentions the author and his works as an example of his genre (it is written in Indonesian). This, also translated, seems like a good source indicating notability. Given Wikipedia's WP:BIAS against third world and non-English biographies and topics, I think these sources indicate a strong enough level of notability.--TM 12:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 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) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 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) 02:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack & Joy[edit]

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

Unremarkable musical artists. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Does not meet WP:BAND, no indication of charted recordings, not signed with a major or significant indie label, no indication of any awards, no indication of notability of either member. Collaborations mentioned might be worth mentioning on those artists's pages but do not do much to demonstrate notability here. RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 16:48, 21 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) 01:18, 28 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) 01:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note – The nominator did not place an AfD tag on the article at the time of nomination. I've added one just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:23, 8 March 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, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Article was not tagged until 8 March. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate notability, totally unremarkable it would seem Bob House 884 (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 14 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) 02:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits 2012[edit]

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

~~Speedy~~ Delete on the basis that this article has no context and is completely WP:CRYSTAL. It is not sourced .. a search of international retailers such as Amazon, Play.com, HMV, Barnesandnobel.com etc. do not show the existance of such a compilation. Neither Google News nor Allmusic have articles or listings for the album. It is completely and purely speculation. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's clearly not completely speculation, because there's an album cover there that (on first glance) doesn't appear to be photoshopped. Definitely don't speedy. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmm but there's no source provided for where the cover came from and it appears to be a self-made scan. Equally without confirmation or even sources for the tracklisting and release date it is speculation. Supposedly this album is due out next week yet there's no information, no press release and no mention on the artist's website. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a side issue its incorrectly named... should be Greatest Hits (Shakira album) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The album is not official. The sticker on the cover says Star Mark Records, something Shakira is not associated to, and equally a quick search shows that this 'album' has been available to download illegally since 2010. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 8 March 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, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either a non-notable pirate album or a non-notable compilation release unauthorized by Shakira's label. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No evidence it exists, some positive suggestions that it actually doesnt exist, no sources, no official information, no listing on reputable market sites, I think we need to get rid of this ASAP Bob House 884 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally unacceptable! Who made this? No sources are listed, how is this possible? This can hurt many people including Shakira and Sony Music, we need to get this down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashwithin (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 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. postdlf (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ColorIURIS[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article about a copyright management tool. Despite winning some minor awards there's no good evidence of notability - which in this case would mean widespread and growing adoption. In fact this search yields only 251 results, mostly irrelevant. andy (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 March 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, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing notability, sources all seem to be in Spanish Bob House 884 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources in Spanish can still be RS - and I'm somewhat concerned, given that the article seems to be a fairly straight translation of es:Coloriuris, that no mention has previously been made of this or get the opinion of Spanish-speaking Wikipedians. PWilkinson (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Non-notable and appears to be intended as advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 14 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. Big Dom 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ColorIURIS License Agreements[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article about a copyright management system which cites no independent sources. No good evidence for notability on the web either - this search yields only 250 or so results, mostly irrelevant. The author insists that references exist but has consistently failed to provide them. Fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. andy (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 March 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, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, note that the article seems to be written in the first person in parts, i.e. its probably been written by the company or else copied from the company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob House 884 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons as the main article. This belongs in a brochure, not an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can barely understand what this article is about. In any case, no sources to verify the content in the article, so it fails WP:GNG. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 20:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can understand it up to the Special Colors section - at least I think I can. While the operability of a subject is not really a part of this debate, I feel that the complexity of the system would render it useless in practice. You would need to memorise the code or have a crib sheet to know what each site displaying the code actually meant. However, I feel this is somewhat academic, as the main part appears to be a copyvio of http://www.coloriuris.net/en:codigo_colores anyway. I'm slightly surprised no-one checked for this before. Peridon (talk) 23:14, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mihalis Safras[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}}.

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

Originally prodded with the reason: DJ. Claim of being on DJ Pole 2008 list is false. No 2006 poll exists. (Assuming DJ Mag is the source, no other poll could be found). This was contested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#mihalis_safras_2 after a clumsy recreation without the controversial claim was speedily deleted. Brought here after Restoration for wider review. Tikiwont (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dj pole was for DJMAg magazine in greece in April 2008. We deleted the part of the article. Reason for importing the article to wikipedia is that the artist is the label head of Material Series (shown in discogs.com), a label that had hosted and released the biggest names on techno music (almost all of them are in wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihalissafras (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a number of references for this techno musician/DJ on both English and Greek Google. He certainly is notable in his field. Article needs more work and more references. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.beatportal.com/artists/mihalis-safras http://www.housefloor.de/frameset/housefloor.htm?http://www.housefloor.de/hthema2/interviews/080801-mihalis-safras_housefloor-interview-english.htm

Weak delete Not sure if my vote counts since my PROD rationale is used in the opening AfD. However, if it does count, one of the new sources is first person. My rationale wasn't that the DJ Mag poll was inaccessible, it was that from what I could tell, the first poll was in 2007 and the article was confusing on whether it was a 2006 or 2008 poll. I looked at the DJ Mag 2008 winners and subject was not amoung them. Since 2007 was the first poll, there couldn't be a 2006 poll. Mihalissafras's keep rationale is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:INHERITED in nature and Nipsonanomhmata's comments are WP:GHITS. I've looked at sources on google and I can't find anything of substance.--v/r - T P 16:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The DJ pole was og 2008! The dj pole was not the DJ Magazine top 100 DJs but the Greek DJ magazine pole 2008..There are different since once is global and other was regional. We can providfe the magazines scanned but we removed it to be more accurate. But for the record was of 2008. Other refferences will be added to give reason for submitting this article

— 193.92.239.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he seems to have enough notability.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm seeing some minimal coverage, but not enough in my opinion to pass WP:GNG. Coverage needs to be from multiple, reliable, independent sources. —SW— ^communicate 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs cleanup, but the article currently contains 3 sources that appear to be independent of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 15 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. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Flynn[edit]

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

Minor character actress with no indications of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to get some minimal coverage in older newspapers, see Gnews archive search. I think she passes the notability bar. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 20:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps you could elucidate with a few of the hits you consider "significant". If I perform a GNews archive search with the terms "Gertrude Flynn" +actress; I come up with 15 hits which appear to consist entirely of reviews in local newspapers of plays in which Ms Flynn appeared. Hardly enough to base a biography on. Remember that the bar is not "brief mention" in independent sources, but rather signficant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prolific verifiable pre-internet careeer spanning 58 years, and her having named roles in multiple notable productions of stage, film, and television meet WP:ENT. The fact that her Broadway stage career ended far before the internet was ever conceived does make finding online sources difficult, but her body of work can be verified and we do have at least a few online sources that speak toward her performances, even if minimally. Yes, the GNG is a wonderful guideline, but WP:NTEMP grants that not all sources will survive in perpetuity. And worth noting, a newspaper theater review of the 1920s, 30s or 40s (or even today) will never be about any one actor, but rather will be about the play itself and the director and mention the players in relationship to their overall performance. We need keep in mind that 1) hardcopy archives of per-WW2 news artcle may well have been destroyed in the various salvage drives that supported the war effort back then, and 2) the ones that did survive from 70 to 90 years ago may well not all be available through a google search. We can also look toward more in-depth reviews and comentary and book coverage of the more major films she was in through the 50s and 60s to see how critics addressed her (again - pre internet) characters. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability did not begin with the Internet. She appears to have had many supporting roles in many major films, starting with Barefoot Contessa, as well as a long Broadway career, when that mattered. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 22 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 redirect to Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pillow[edit]

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

Minor actor with only one role of any significance. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to Superman IV, as that's the only film he's in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dispensable person; per his IMDB article, he acted in three films, including Superman IV, some TV-series called "Alaska Kid" and the TV-series "Wiseguy", a well-known TV-series back then, but he acted only in one episode. Delete in my opinion.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in his one and only role of any significance his voice was apparently dubbed in by someone else, so that doesn't exactly count for much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. —SW— ^gab 20:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this stub to Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, as the one place where this actor has sourcable context[33] for his role as as "Nuclear Man"... just as the existing redirect for Nuclear Man already sends reader to that same article. His career and essentially one-event coverage does not merit a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 17 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. Created too early and fails WP:CRYSTAL. If anyone wants me to restore the article if/when it becomes notable, just leave me a message on my talk page. Big Dom 14:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Marilyn Manson album[edit]

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

No confirmed title, no confirmed track listing, no confirmed cover art, no confirmed release date. Delete/Incubate per WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should not be deleted. There were other albums like Kylie Minogue's Aphrodite that started this way, with less information. The article features a lot of information about the new album which is set to be released this summer, according to Marilyn Manson. It features three section which provide information about the album, like the style of the album, the "change" of the labels, etc. User:Salgado96 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The production of the album is finished. User:Salgado96 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources say the album will be out this summer, which is only a few months away. More information will become available. No point deleting only to bring it back in a few weeks. DrMotley (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Drmotley is right, its only a few weeks! by the way, the album might be released before that! because in the promotion section it says the "summer LEG of the tour..."... so, i suppose the album will be released before that! User:Salgado96 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources & coverage to indicate notability. This is one occasion that the policy of WP:GNG beats the eassay of WP:HAMMER. Lugnuts (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. It won't kill us to wait a few more months as more information becomes available. WereWolf (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate per WP:HAMMER. Nothing appears to be known about this album other than vague speculation and elusive quotes. The material is already incorporated into the main article which is better suited to carry it. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NALBUM. Any relevant encyclopedic info can be kept in the appropriate section of the band's article until there's enough non-speculative material to warrant a separate article. The current content is nothing but puffery.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it says it will be released in "Summer - Autumn 2011", what is not really a long time to wait. I don't think it is against WP:CRYSTAL, as it has sourced information, many to reliable sources. We can simply wait until Autumn or Summer this year. If there will be no changes, this can be deleted.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Very few (if any) of the sources cited in this article are reliable, they are mostly blogs, rumor sites, and fan sites. Delete at least until an official announcement is made that is covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Some editors above have said that there is no point deleting it because it will be released in a few months. The contrary viewpoint is that there is no point in creating the article until its eventual release gets significant coverage. This was created far too early. —SW— ^chat 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG because it fails WP:RS and WP:V. Also fails the well-respected WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snottywong, the article was created too early. On the otherside of that, deleting the article that in potentionally 2 to 3 weeks will be re-created seems unnecessary. DrMotley (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is too much of a problem, since when information is available, this page is going to have a totally different name (presumably) and the current content (which consists of a few vague quotes stretched out to an article, will likely just get wiped. I'd liken it to creating a page which lists events which happened in April 2011 - if it existed now it would just be a speculative list of scheduled events etc, and the 'no point deleting it only to recreate it in a few weeks' argument wouldn't have any traction. Bob House 884 (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, but an article about events in April would be purely speculative, whereas this article has a base in source that there will be an album released this summer. DrMotley (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Incubate – This is a subject that likely will be notable down the road, but not today. If you sift through this article and remove all of the tentative and speculative information, you're left with the group's departure from Interscope Records and two conflicting statements on what the album will sound like (death metal and punk rock are entirely different genres). WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL are all looking for concrete verifiable details about an upcoming album, of which there are very little for Marilyn Manson's next album at this point in time. Also, User:Salgado96, I can see you worked very hard on this article and it would be a shame to just delete it entirely. You can create a user subpage with a title such as User:Salgado96/Sandbox1 or User:Salgado96/Marilyn Manson's upcoming album, or whatever you see fit, continue working on the article, and once the album meets the guidelines for upcoming album, it can easily be recreated. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:51, 20 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Joos[edit]

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

This person does not seem to meet the rules on notability Mtking (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see why it should be deleted. A chemist, who invented a medicine and was the founder of a company, is notable enough. He is not well-known (Google proves it), but that doesn't mean he is a petty chemist 'round the corner, who sells medicine or intends to a university. No need to delete in my opinion.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that discovery of a new drug, (though others will comment on the signficance of Pyridizal) should be enough for automatic notability but there is more in the Cilag article about Joos. As with others living before the age of the internet the problem is finding the sources, but he may be notable. AJHingston (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the founder of Cilag (still a big brand 80 years on) he's notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the drugs he discovered, he won a lawsuit in Australia which resulted in a significant change in British Patent Law. I have added the reference to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources in the article and improvements since nomination, meets WP:GNG. —SW— ^comment 19:58, 14 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.