Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 20

< 19 March	21 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAGIC Foundation[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources to justify the existence of this article. It was created by Imsomniac2 (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account that has mainly been used to add inappropriate Magic Foundation links to Wikipedia articles. Graham87 15:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- per nom. --E♴ (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete. A quick search pulls up [1] a reference to them at the NIH, so it's clear that they exist and are not truly goofy. The site's history claims that the foundation's been around for 20 years and it looks like they have substantial operations. They're linked as a source for information from MedlinePlus, which is typically a high quality source. The article could use some work, of course, but this looks like a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia article. SDY (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a reasonable topic, but I can't find any substantial coverage in any secondary source, which is one of WP:CORP's expectations of nonprofits. From a pure WP:V standpoint, all I can verify is that they exist and are an active and major player as a support group for some fairly rare conditions. SDY (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The only reference provided at the article is a dead link, but Google News Archive finds mentions in major publications, for example [2], [3], [4]. Someone (don't have time myself) should add some of these links to the article to strengthen it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 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) 01:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep 286 hits for the exact phrase on News, 543 hits for the exact phrase on Google Books. 100(!) hits for the exact phrase on Google Scholar. Ergo CLOSE TO A THOUSAND probable RS. I have a good mind to close this one myself.

Nom, who had evidently done exactly zero research on the subject, also deleted 16 inclusions by this article's author of links to the group in the 21 minutes between 14:30, 24 February 2011 and 14:51, 24 February 2011. MAGIC foundation specializes in treatment of all of the small group of illnesses whose articles were tagged, but removing their links was not enough. Oh, no, nom had to remove the whole External Links section, multiple times. Nom had time to slow down the pace a little and nominate this article another 12 minutes after the deletion spree.

This is exactly why Ad hominem rules like SPA and COI should be shut down like yesterday. Rationale for the true abuses that exist is already covered by default by POV RS etc rules that are their only true justification.

I also recommend edit-over-time limits to make speed bumps for admins who think they are all that but just can't find the time, somehow, to use Google Books, News, or Scholar like the rest of us mere mortals. Anarchangel (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you look at those sources? Here's the text from one:

CBL FABRICON - Girdles, now out of production
CBL FASHION MAGIC - Foundation garments, now out of production

It's a list of clothing manufacturers. What's that got to do with this?

Many of those sources are about magick: "a church built upon a magic foundation..." and "I decided that my earth, my special self-gathered earth, should act as a magic foundation..." and so forth.

Even the ones that are actually about this particular organization frequently say nothing more than "MAGIC Foundation's website says..." or provide a telephone directory listing. We need "significant coverage", not just a hundred passing mentions of the name.

What do you think you could say about them from WP:Independent sources?

So far as my initial search indicates, I could support statements that the group is funded by pharmaceutical companies that profit off handsomely off their frequent recommendation of expensive growth hormones to parents, and that they have a website and an annual meeting. That's not a heck of a lot of material for an article.

I think that the best option is to merge this to Short stature, in a section about pharmaceutical companies' work to have "being short" considered a disease rather than a normal variation. (If the closing admin agrees, s/he can ping me on my talk page; I'm willing to do the merge.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They seem like your average advocacy group. Sure, they probably reflecting the biases of their corporate sponsors, but if we're going to treat them as a front for pharmaceutical companies manipulating medical treatment, that's probably going a bit too far. This is apparently a quite real and influential organization that lacks the third-party coverage required for an article, and dismissing them as corporate goons is inappropriate. SDY (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting the sources, Whatamidoing. Think carefully before continuing down this road. Anarchangel (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anarchangel, please see Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had already read it. I have some interesting reading for you in turn: the Google Scholar results. Maybe you'll see why I recommend them when you see them. Anarchangel (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is completely irrelevant when you are talking about an organization. Google Scholar is used to find out whether an individual's writings are important in the field. The MAGIC Foundation has never written a journal article. Some scholars mention or acknowledge the Foundation in their articles; that's all Google Scholar tells you. That does nothing to add to the organizations's notability.
BTW please note that my !vote above was "weak keep," based on the fact that it has received coverage by major news sources, some of which I cited above. I stand by my opinion that the article should probably be kept. However, your argument here based on counting worthless hits is doing nothing to preserve it. You would do better to spend your time adding some of those news stories to the article as references. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of them actually give substantial coverage? All I can find are things that mention the name, and mentions are not enough to build an article. SDY (talk) 12:35, 16 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, T. Canens (talk) 08:04, 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Okay, let's step back a little. First off, is this a spam page for a commercial concern? No, it is not, this is a certified charity. We may look cynically at donations made by interested pharmaceutical companies to this organization, we may even feel that their cause is not "just" — but the fact is that this is not a spam page for a commercial organization. There should be a different, much lower, bar set for a charity organization than for a commercial organization. Now, is this page useful? Yes, it is. Although weak, it does provide basic information on the group for Wikipedia users and point them towards additional information. There is something to be said for a page having utility, in my opinion. Now, is this organization obscure? No, it does not seem to be: see, for example, this website, "Medicine Plus," produced by the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health, which provides material produced by the MAGIC Foundation as expert background material on "Children's Growth Abnormalities: An Overview." At some point, parsing Google for "reliable sources" needs to be set aside in favor of common sense: this is a useful article about a charity which is regarded as expert on an aspect of public health by the US Government. THAT'S encyclopedia worthy, whether or not the New York Times or Time magazine has ever written a story on the group. Use common sense: Keep and improve... Carrite (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Between Anarchangel's "OMG Google hits!!!" frothing at the mouth and Carrite's assertion that the provisions of the GNG and WP:CORP should be suspended if the subject is worthy enough, there's a lot of chaff here lacking verifiable substance. The core content policy of Wikipedia states, explicitly and baldly, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Show me some reliable, third-party sources discussing the subject in "significant detail," as relevant policies require; something that, for all of Anarchangel's impassioned assault on the nom, neither he nor any other Keep proponent has found and added to the article. I rather think we don't want to get into the business of suspending WP:V just because we fancy that the subjects are nice people. Ravenswing 11:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect of verifiabiity is a problem here? The organization exists... Here's what it does. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more or less per Carrite. There certainly are enough GBooks and Gnews hits to satisfy the GNG's "independent sources" requirement and demonstrate its credibility; the fact that the organization's credible descriptions of itself and its activities are the most convenient or most useful references doesn't somehow wipe out its notability. At a certain point we have to remember that the notability guideline exists is implement Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose, and that when sufficient accurate information is available to write an article about a subject that it's plausible a serious encyclopedia user would turn to Wikipedia for information, it serves no earthly to quibble about the ins-and-outs of the notability guideline. Whatever ends might be served by strictly enforcing the guideline here is outweighed, by about a billion to one, by the chance that someone seeking to aid a child suffering from one of the diseases involved, or the child's family, might come here and be directed to the organization. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not quibbling about notability at this point. I'm invoking WP:V, the fundamental, irreductible core content policy of the encyclopedia. At a certain point we have to remember that the onus on providing sources lies with the editors who desire to save an article; you're quite experienced enough as an editor to know the irrelevance of a "But This Might Save The Children!!!!!" argument. WP:V is not satisfied by fleeting mentions; where are the sources discussing this organization in significant detail? Ravenswing 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing WP:DEL with my hit counts, and the nom's failure to address BEFORE. I don't care about your characterization of me, I despise editors whose wincing and flinching at every slight, they believe will earn them Argument Points, but it does not appear as though you have seen the rationale behind my arguments. Unsourced article content may be deleted at will (a destructive and unhelpful rule), but in proposing the deletion of entire articles, even the misguided Guardians of the Sacred Byte Count (misguided because it is edit histories that take up the overwhelming majority of byte storage, not articles) have allowed that it must be proved there aren't sources (WP:DEL). I have already shown the great likelihood that there are potentially at least a thousand. This is an article that neither "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" nor, while deletors protest that there are none without actually looking, is it an article "for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Whether the subject of the article remains on Wikipedia is discussed here, and content rules are subservient to WP:DEL. Anarchangel (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is subservient to WP:DEL? That's an interesting theory unsupported by fact, as is your assertion that one must prove there aren't sources for an article to be deleted. That being said, you and the other Keep proponents have argued, at some length and with some eloquence, that such reliable sources, discussing the subject in significant detail, must exist out there somewhere. I will reiterate that it is the explicit duty of Keep proponents to provide such sources, not merely to claim they exist or to demand that Delete proponents do the work for them. My vote flips to Keep the moment someone comes up with at least two. WP:V's a very simple requirement, needing neither convoluted rationales nor in-depth rhetoric to meet.

But I don't expect you will, and here's why. Those 286 Google News hits you hotly cited as proof of the nom's laziness, for instance? I'm looking at the same list now. Of the first fifteen hits, the top hit is for an eponymous foundation in India. The second, third and eighth hits refer to the basketball player Magic Johnson's foundation. The fourth hit uses the term without reference to an organization by that name. The fifth and ninth hits refer to an eponymous foundation set up by a political candidate in North Carolina to help the homeless. The sixth and thirteenth hits refer to a "Spread the Magic" organization. The seventh, tenth, twelfth and fifteenth hits refer to a foundation set up by the Orlando Magic basketball team. The eleventh hit refers to an eponymous organization funding other charities. The fourteenth hit refers to a Holiday Magic Foundation in California ...

And this is the list you considered evidence of the nom's egregious negligence, so much so to warrant a Speedy Keep? Did you so much as glance at it yourself to judge whether the hits made any reference to the foundation in question, "Magic Foundation" seemingly being a commonly used term? Ravenswing 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Ravenswing 23:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of what a bad hit is. I assume you know what probability is. I assumed readers would apply it to my statements about 1,000 hits. Why, then, do you refuse to?

DEL is the more functional rule in this case as it pertains to the matter at hand, which is deletion.

If you prefer to spend time writing assertions that there are no sources, and cherrypicking bad sources rather than checking your facts and finding good sources, then you are wasting your time, my time, and not making WP a better place. Two sources to switch? How about ten?

Our Daily Meds Melody Petersen, Macmillan
Normal at any cost, Susan Cohen, Christine Cosgrove
George A. Giuliani, Roger Pierangelo (2006). The big book of special education resources. ISBN 9781412917100.
NORD resource guide, National Organization for Rare Disorders, National Organization for Rare Disorders, 1997 - Business & Economics
Dara Brodsky, Mary Ann Ouellette (January 2008). Primary care of the premature infant. ISBN 1416000399.
Zara Griswold (2006). Surrogacy Was the Way: Twenty Intended Mothers Tell Their Stories. ISBN 9781933449180.
Betty M. Adelson (2005-06-27). Dwarfism: medical and psychosocial aspects of profound short stature. ISBN 9780801881220.
MAGIC Foundation for Children's Growth healthfinder.gov
MAGIC Foundation General Organizational Information, Genetic Alliance
"MAGIC+Foundation"&dq="MAGIC+Foundation"&hl=en&ei=AD6LTZubKpK-sAOqpr2nCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAzgU The Self-Help Sourcebook:Your Guide to Community & Online Support Groups American Self-Help Clearinghouse, Edward J. Madara, Barbara J. White

I can't access most of those sources because Google Books is not accessible to screen readers, but judging by the titles, they probably contain trivial mentions of the organisation. Graham87 13:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we might be able to create a perma-stub article (we know it's not a hoax). Honestly, I think it would be great if we had a list of these marginally notable organizations, but then we'd run into WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues. I know it's been raised with the List of blood donation agencies that I've messed with in the past. Do we have a list of medical advocacy groups somewhere we can merge this to? SDY (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find quite a few trivial mentions and places this organization's staff are quoted, but I do not see any sources that could be used to write the article. - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to the exact nature of the problem and would ask for your assistance. I am a parent co-founder of The MAGIC Foundation. We have helped parents of children from throughout the world who were identified with rare medical conditions via links through Wikipedia to us. If someone could please identify what exactly is wrong, I will try to address your concerns. To the best of my understanding; links to parent friendly articles on our site, written by our physician volunteers is problematic on WP. We are, simply an advocacy group dedicated to identification, education and support to those affected. As there are numerous links to organizations throughout WP, I was unaware of any problem with reaching out to others who may need help. If I am imprpoperly responding in the discussion I apologize in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is one of Wikipedia's more confusing policies, but it more or less comes back to the question "are we sure that the content is right?" Generally we're looking for independent, reliable, and detailed coverage in a source. If we can't get enough coverage and enough perspective, we have no way to know if what we're saying is a fair or accurate, and that's really important to a good article. Are you aware of any books, newspaper articles, documentaries, reports, etc... that cover the history or operations of the foundation that were not written by someone who is part of the foundation? SDY (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have dozen archived which I can scan and make available- we rarely do them anymore because we have been in existance for so long. I can get the scans loaded to our website with the credits to the newspapers etc. Also, the television show Mystery Diagnosis has recently (in the past 4 months or so) done two shows featuring children from our organization. One of the shows did credit "us"- although because of the frequency of the two shows, the second did not. And there are other sources like ABC.com who has recently done some interviews and are coming to our international educational program this summer. How much do you need and is there a direct email address for me to send them to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Just one of several more recent articles which is from what would be considered legitimate news

....is online about one of our volunteers.... you can see the reference in his HUGE effort to MAGIC in this article if that helps.... http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/news/story?id=4665732 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Excuse the sporatic response...these two links will hopefully resolve your questions.

The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services has an article on us with additional information. http://www.healthfinder.gov/orgs/HR2495.htm

Pediatric Endocrine Society only links to 17 support groups http://www.lwpes.org/patientsfamilies/patientslinks.cfm including very large and notable organizations such as the American Diabetes Assoc. and American Academy of Pediatrics. The MAGIC Foundation on that list and the physicians regularly refer to our organization.Imsomniac2 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsomniac2 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Found an online archive from the St. Louis Dispatch Newspaper which discusses my personal story and the start up of MAGIC.

If you have access (cost/membership) you will be able to download the article for "official verification". http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=jamie%20harvey&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2000%20-%202008%7C2011%7C1988%20-%202000%7C2000&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("jamie%20harvey")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Thank you all for your help and understanding as I am not a computer expert...just a mom trying to help others facing what I have been through.Imsomniac2 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Hello, I'm the person who nominated your article about the Magic Foundation for deletion. I removed the links to the Magic Foundation website, plus other similar links, because Wikipedia's guidelines for external links in medical articles discourage links to support groups. As for the sources that you cited: the ESPN source is relatively trivial, as it focuses on Mr. Chmiel rather than the Magic Foundation. The two sources from health organisations are directories, and are not really what we're looking for (even though they're from respectable organisations). The credit in the Mysterious Diagnosis episode is probably too trivial as well ... it's not like the whole documentary would be devoted to the Magic Foundation. The St. Louis Dispatch Newspaper article is probably more like what we're after, but I can't access it, so I don't know ... but it's only one major source! Also, as the co-founder of the Magic Foundation, you have a conflict of interest in this matter. I fully support the goals of the organisation, but I don't think there should be an article about it in Wikipedia. Graham87 03:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discourage is not exclude. Explain your reasoning. Anarchangel (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discourage means "exclude without a very good reason". Anyway, the actual wording straight from the guideline says "Please avoid links such as these". Graham87 13:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of discourage is gratuitous. Do you actually have no rationale other than resting on the part of the rule which provides no precedent in this case as though it did?

There is a part of the rule that does provide a precedent for this case, however: "If the disease is very rare, then a manageable set of charitable organisations may be of encyclopaedic interest." Anarchangel (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of that. But neutral editors who are familiar with Wikipedia policies (and preferably the topic at hand) should make those decisions, not people with major conflicts of interest. Graham87 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand There are plenty of reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:38, 26 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) 14:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money In the Blank[edit]

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

I can't think of why this (or any other) unsold game show pilot would be notable, and the article doesn't cite any sources to indicate notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no sources outside YouTube. Except in very rare instances, I can't imagine an unsold pilot being the subject of multiple sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A failed game show. It's not even clear if the pilot ever aired. But in any case, there is no coverage about it in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete' per CSD A7, non-notable. An unaired, unsold pilot doesn't need a page. MacMed^talk _stalk 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability. LK (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think game show pilots should have articles on wikipedia to expand wikipedia. I have added some more info on gameplay but I need help.--E2e3v6 (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)move comment[reply]

Articles in Wikipedia need to meet inclusion guidelines as demonstrated with coverage in reliable sources. Are there any newspaper or magazine articles that cover this game show pilot? -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Highway 424[edit]

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

Non-existing freeway proposal created by original research. There are no plans to make Highway 24 a 400-series highway, but rather plans to upgrade the highway (while retaining the current designation). Media and special interest (anti-freeway) groups have created something that does not and was never planned to exist. See [5] and [6] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - The 424 designation appears to be original research, any relevant information can be covered in Ontario Highway 24. Dough 48 72 03:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ontario Highway 24. Certainly the term is being used [7], so a redirect should exist to where information would be found. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 184.144.166.85, [8] might be a reliable source for this (I've not checked fully enough to be certain though). Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No reason a soft delete isn't possible here to preserve the work of this article should something come to fruition down the line, plus a redirect for the wayless reader searching it out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for reliable sources, there are plenty, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing as Highway 424; that coverage should be in Ontario Highway 24, perhaps in a subsection dedicated to the false "plans". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per 184.144.166.85 MacMed^talk _stalk 22:46, 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) 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movement (Trotskyist)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom never even looked for sources. 288 Google News hits for "Trotskyist Movement", for example, which would make a better title. The entire concept of this article is flawed, attempting to stitch together two groups related by category, so notability never need come into it. However, it does bring up the point that there is no Trotskyism movement article (to which this would not make a good redirect). Anarchangel (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know whether I looked for sources or not? I have looked through the list of sources above, and while there are numerous results for "movement" and "Trotskyist", none appear to concern this particular grouping. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Anarchangel misunderstands - this is not an article about the Trotskyist movement in general, but about a specific agreement between these two groups. Warofdreams talk 11:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found. My suspicion is that it isn't notable, but a search turns up some possible sources in Spanish which I cannot fully interpret for relevance and evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 11:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization is mentioned at broadleft.org (See: "Movement (Movimiento)"[9]). While neither member party has an article on WP, the the Mexican party is mentioned in the article about the Socialist Alliance (Mexico). If someone wants to find reliable sources and write about the organization, it could be an acceptable article. In the meantime, I would recommend deletion. I would suggest however writing articles about the two member parties first. TFD (talk) 19:02, 25 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) 16:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liaison Committee of Militants for a Revolutionary Communist International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No sources besides those associated with the organization. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find any sources for this, beyond its archived web page. Warofdreams talk 11:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 26 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 redirect to 2011 World Cup. Speedy redirect to 2011 World Cup. Keeping the page will a) stop misguided attempts to page move (see log) and b) it seems a well searched term, I suspect predominately from India Ged UK 21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WC 2011[edit]

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

ashwinikalantri ^talk 19:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. No reason proposed for deletion. Pburka (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable redirect for all of these World Cup events. Nate • (chatter) 04:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What you are talking about is 2011 World Cup, the page that WC 2011 redirects to. ashwinikalantri ^talk 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? your nominating the disambiguation page for the 2011 world cups for deletion in a year which has both cricket and rugby? Bob House 884 (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Nev1 redirected this to 2011 World Cup which is perfeclty reasonable,and I support it. However, I've undone the redirect while this AFD is in progress as it assumes an outcome that has not gained formal consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect No reason given for deletion and I honestly can't see anybody objecting to Nev's solution - it seems to do more elegantly and effectively what the article as created was supposed to do. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect The page views show that people are using this as a search term, but it should redirect to 2011 World Cup rather than deleted. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to 2011 World Cup. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:12, 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 redirect to Manowar. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Hymns Tour[edit]

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

I can't find a single reliable source that suggests this is even remotely notable as a tour. At best, this deserves a redirect. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 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) 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manowar. No evidence of independent notability. Merge any relevant information to the appropriate section at the main article. Jujutacular ^talk 14:07, 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:08, 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) 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massage For Relaxation, An Instructional Video[edit]

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

Self-promotional article about a commercial video, just barely scraping by a WP:CSD#G11 speedy. No apparent signs of notability, no independent coverage except routine commercial reviews and endorsements (of which the author has collected as many as she could, not for their information value but to bolster her case against deletion). Sole author of the page is the author of the video. PROD was removed by author. Bringing this here to ensure at least some additional pairs of eyes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is a film called "Klunkerz" more notable than "Massage For Relaxation?" I would appreciate any constructive criticism in regards to my entry. Thank you. Pattymooney (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your sourcing seems almost adequate, specially if one removes those that are not in reliable sources. But to answer your questions: First, there is a grave concern when a user account "Pattymooney" writes articles about the projects of Patricia Mooney. See WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. Seccond, because of this concern Wikipedia has an even geater worry about any article seemingly set to advertise a product. See the closely related WP:NOTADVERTISING. With respects however, and though I think these two serious concerns may have doomed the article, I will myself attempt to clean up the article style, sense of advert, and neutralize the article's POV. My efforts may not result in the article being kept, but I invite you to observe them as they are made and note what I do and the why listed in my edit summaries. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 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) 00:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep and continue cleanup. Yes, the article needs more work, but finding "g-news" sources about a pre-internet special-interest documentary on massage will not be as helpful as a search at my local library for hardcopy sources and books. It can certainly be sent to AFD again if Nexus Magazine and Billboard Magazine are not improved upon. As the author has COI, userfication is problematic, but I would not be adverse to its being incubated for continued work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Not finished, but beginning to look better. What was reasonably nominated as overly promotional with author's COI, is looking better than it did. I had cautioned the author of COI, and as a result, she has not edited it since March 7... and my additonal work addressed those edits. Not perfect yet, but better than it was. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. She did not listen. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit now dealt with,[10] and information placed in another more suitable article.[11] Author's edit was in good faith, but she has promised to back away.[12] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If kept, this will require a move to its proper and sourcable name of simply Massage For Relaxation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:27, 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the awards and reviews. Pburka (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the video equivalent of a self-published book. The one "award" is unimpressive, as are the non-mainstream "reviews".--MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The film was created at a time when home video market was filled only with big-budget studio mainstream films, and Betamax and VHS were video formats fighting for supremacy. Yes, the internet has made available numerous self-published "books"... but this film was created 26 years ago... in pre-internet 1985, when all such direct to video self-help films were made by independent filmmakers. So we need to consider what it was for when it was. While big studios were understandably pandering home sales of their blockbuster films, their marketing departmants were only just beginning to consider the possibilities inherent with lower cost, direct-to-video films... and they had not yet even begun to consider the home video market for self-help instructional videos. That mainstream reviewers were spending their time speaking toward the various major studio video releases of mainstream box office hits is thus understandable. So we might then reasonably look toward those reviewers who critiqued videos intended for the smaller demographic. Though their dollars do speak louder, should we fall prey to the major studios ability to generate press coverage through wider release and greater advertising budgets? Minimal notability established as being among (if not THE) the first of its kind should be acceptable to Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I'm keep at the moment, but am open to being convinced otherwise. The coverage/award is the primary reason, though I'm also taking notice of the fact that this is among the first of its kind.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now contains reviews of it found in reliable sources. Dream Focus 04:35, 27 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. Peridon (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ White Shadow[edit]

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

As a person, DJ White Shadow is not notable. Yes he might have co-produced one of the most successful singles in recent times ("Born This Way") but as a person his own notability cannot be inherited solely from that one song. There is no information of a biographical nature and thus an entire article based on his production work for "Born This Way" is not required. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 04:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 04:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, the DJ himself, is not notable and in wikipedia notability guideline it says that any influent person in any scenario that has only one contribution to that relative scenario, this person's article probably does not meet the criteria to be kept Wikipedia, unless he is a upcoming producer with many upcoming projects and productions, otherwise the article should not be kept. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He does have a project of major importance coming up, an album that happens to be one of the most anticipated albums of 2011. And he is a pivotal character in its creation. As for biographical information that will surface as he gains recognition. If you delete this page it will be up by the end of the year, so you might as well keep it and let it develop as the year continues. Comment by Logicalfoundationisdoubt ^[talk] 01:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't create pages in advance or in expectation of notability. Read WP:BLP. As for working on a notable project you need read my concerns very ... information about "Born This Way" is not that relevant to him as a person. Articles about people must specify why they are notable. A whole article stating he produced a number-one single is not relevant or notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete it. It's going to be on here by the time the year is over anyways. Jeez. And do you mean, vary? Comment by Logicalfoundationisdoubt ^[talk] 08:24, 12 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Let me get this straight ... the fellow's notable because of a projected album that is not, in fact, by him? I don't think so. What part of the GNG or WP:CREATIVE does he fulfill? What reliable, third-party sources discuss him - not other artists for whom he's worked, him - in "significant detail?" Ravenswing 11:27, 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 Deleted by User:Jimfbleak at 19:01 on 21 March 2011 and possibly by User:Zzyzx11 at 6:02 on 22 March 2011. Mandsford 12:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage in the world[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I repeat the reason behind the PROD: Copy paste from Conservapedia and opinion based information. –MuZemike 18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article is nothing but a POV fork describing the article creator's views on marriage. The title is misleading - my first impression was that it would contain various cultures' views on marriage, but I landed on this copy-paste job from Conservapedia. I don't see any way this could become useful for Wikipedia. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Article is POV and copy paste from another site. Xionbox^₪ 19:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10; "duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic ... and does not expand upon, detail or improve information." 28bytes (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, opinion piece in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete POV copy paste with a misleading title. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely unsupported list of assertions. Francis Bond (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence that it's a copy and paste job from anywhere, but this needs to go to Conservapedia, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" or some other site where POV is okay as long as it's a conservative POV. Mandsford 18:18, 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) 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmania official football team[edit]

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

Article had been PROD'd for a second time. Opening up debate.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's very bad form to nominate an article for deletion without giving reasons. St Anselm (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty neutral to it to be honest so I didn't want to sway any argument. It was most likley nominated as it isn't a national football team and they've played a very limited number of games. Then again they represent a large number of people. All I know is someone placed a PROD and someone else removed it so there's obviously a discussion needed on it remaining on wikipedia. Hope that explains its nomination. Delusion23 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:KEEP #1. St Anselm (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changed mind from from neutral after considering other similar cases. Team is not notable and has done nothing of note. It has played very few games and does not represent a nation, only a state. Precedent set in similar cases here: Saint Croix official football team, Nevis national football team, Saint Eustatius official football team and Bonaire official football team. Delusion23 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see List of non-national representative teams in men's football? You can't argue for precedent without implying that everything on that list should be deleted. Not that this other stuff has anything to do with the article under discussion. St Anselm (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anselm seems to be right regarding WP:KEEP #1. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe was at the time, but it appears at least one other editor thinks the page should be deleted, so fails WP:KEEP#1.--ClubOranje^T 10:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Association football in Tasmania; I don't think that 'official' teams from areas deserve seperate articles, but this info is probably worth having somewhere. Giant Snowman 12:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's an independent football team. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I PRODed this article but had not yet got round to opening an AfD. I have been nominating these articles for deletion for the last couple of weeks in the hope of pruning away the unverifiable and/or unnotable teams that can be seen on the list cited by StAnselm. The article does not meet the general notability guideline. Representative teams are not self-evidently notable entities. Aside from this, we have no idea what this team is, or if all teams named 'Tasmania' have any relation to each other beyond their name - for example, how are players selected? Have they played for a Tasmanian team? Are they born in Tasmania? Are they just using the name to drum up some publicity? Stu.W UK (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a national team, merely a representative one. My county of birth has a representative team, but having a separate article for it wouldn't be justified because it just isn't notable enough. There is a section for it here which I think is acceptable. I'd recommend a similar arrangement for this team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:59, 16 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Procedural nom or no, I prefer my AfDs to proffer a reason for nomination. The original prodder is free to nominate the article in his own right. Ravenswing 11:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what possible difference will that make to the discussion? I'll happily nominate again but I'm pretty sure the debate will be copied and pasted from here Stu.W UK (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the nominator did provide a reason for nominating (see first delete !vote). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This team does not represent a nation, and has done nothing of note. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, does not represent a real nation, only a region of a country. The team is ineligible to compete in official international tournaments and is therefore not noteworthy. There is very little coverage of the team so it doesn't pass the GNG. Big Dom 14:39, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Silverstein[edit]

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

Created in 2005, tagged as unreferenced BLP since 2009. Doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people). A search for sources found a company press release and a few one-line quotes in newspaper articles, but no substantial coverage in secondary sources. I suggest delete or merge to WXXI Public Broadcasting Council. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with WXXI Public Broadcasting Council. Pburka (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 17:04, 26 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. Deleted along with the individual number-one hits by year articles Big Dom 21:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits (WorldWide)[edit]

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

article is little more that a list of other lists, the other lists being "unreferenced piles of original research" WuhWuzDat 18:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend closing as entirely dependent on other ongoing discussions. This page is essentially an index to the per-year lists (which may or may not be suitable for Wikipedia, but which are referenced). At the time of the nomination two such lists exist and both have been nominated for deletion. If the individual lists get deleted then there is no point in this page and it could be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8 (entirely dependent on deleted pages). If the individual list are kept then there is no reason to delete the index to them, or at least none given in this nomination statement. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1999 (WorldWide) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000 (WorldWide), although I am about to propose merging those discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See past discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, of where these numbers come from (not from Mediabase as said in the article, which didn't even exist until 1985 and did not gain traction until 1988), and has been specifically discouraged as a source per WP:BADCHART. No real sources or discussion of where the numbers came from at all. Nate • (chatter) 04:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based solely on the United World Chart, which has long been listed at WP:BADCHARTS as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. I'm adding two subarticles to the AFD.—Kww(talk) 21:08, 24 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 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000 (WorldWide)[edit]

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

unreferenced pile of original research WuhWuzDat 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know whether this is something that has sufficient notability, etc for inclusion, but everything does appear to be referenced, although all to the same mediaweek.de site, which claims copyright (although whether that is over the data, the design, or what is not clear). Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. It would seem sensible to me to merge the discussion of this article together with the only other extant article in the set, currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1999 (WorldWide). Which page is used is esentially an arbitrary choice as they are identical at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See past discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, of where these numbers come from and has been specifically discouraged as a source per WP:BADCHART. No real sources or discussion of where the numbers came from at all. Nate • (chatter) 04:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and especially not a WP:BADCHART archive. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BADCHARTS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. Merging parallel discussions as well.—Kww(talk) 21:19, 24 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 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000 (WorldWide)[edit]

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

unreferenced pile of original research WuhWuzDat 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know whether this is something that has sufficient notability, etc for inclusion, but everything does appear to be referenced, although all to the same mediaweek.de site, which claims copyright (although whether that is over the data, the design, or what is not clear). Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. It would seem sensible to me to merge the discussion of this article together with the only other extant article in the set, currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1999 (WorldWide). Which page is used is esentially an arbitrary choice as they are identical at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See past discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, of where these numbers come from and has been specifically discouraged as a source per WP:BADCHART. No real sources or discussion of where the numbers came from at all. Nate • (chatter) 04:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and especially not a WP:BADCHART archive. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BADCHARTS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. Merging parallel discussions as well.—Kww(talk) 21:19, 24 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) 14:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Caso[edit]

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

non notable bit part actor WuhWuzDat 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the one who originally tagged this for speedy deletion. Being a stuntman or bit player in notable movies does not make the person notable in their own right. This actor fails to recieve any in-depth coverage that would make them pass WP:GNG. Ravendrop 02:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability as a gymnast at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Gymnastics. Syracuse hall of fame reference in the article list gold medals, but they were not at events that meet notability criteria. Also induction into Syracuse Hall of Fame falls short of another criteria of a "major hall of fame". Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Bigger roles might do the trick, or increased coverage of the roles he did have. The Syracuse Hall of Fame might serve to document some of the subject's accomplishments; the trick there is that those accomplishments don't themselves grant notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:05, 25 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) 16:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Dillon[edit]

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

Not all a notable person. Don't know who it survived the first AFD JDDJS (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: It survived the first due to the vagaries of AfD and who showed up. The backstory is that this article was created by a fervent deletionist trying to make a point by creating articles about people he felt were non-notable. The world did not end as a result.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, it appears the closing admin acted a little too early. He/She didn't relist it and closed a day early. If the original creator only made it as a joke, why wasn't it deleted earlier? Also are you in favor of deleting, keeping or neutral? JDDJS (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still for deleting it, as I was in 2009. I was and am an inclusionist. There are just not enough reliable sources to prove her notability, and quite frankly, she has not done anything notable. Lots of people gets lots of YouTube hits, so it becomes run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If she was notable, she would have coverage from more than just local, Ireland media. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is it that the combative, talk-to-the-hand, QQ-some-more, battle-of-who-cares-less pain junky WP:DISRUPTive behaviour of User:Otterathome has not been brought to task? He even creates POINTy redirects, for heaven's sake.Anarchangel (talk) 14:30, 24 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) 14:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APOS Systems Inc.[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A7 by User:Jay-Sebastos without additional comment. I've looked at the article and the verbose hang-on reason on the talk page, and while it is largely advertising in tone with little indication of notability, it is claimed that the company has "over 850 customers in 37 countries". This combined with all the information in the article and the difficulty in immediately determining the amount of independent coverage due to the generic company name is enough that I cannot be certain speedy deletion is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must have missed the bit about "850 customers in 37 countries": at any rate you were right to remove the speedy template. I'm going to say delete, however, because firstly the only claim of importance is not referenced, and secondly because I can't find anything else asserting notability on the web. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jay-Sebastos, and speedy criteria G11. WuhWuzDat 18:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another business intelligence (BI) and location intelligence (LI) software solution provider. I like how they helpfully supplied the acronyms. Docked -25 notability points for "business intelligence" and -50 for "software solution provider", a phrase that in itself qualifies any article it appears in for G11 speedy deletion. GNews finds only press releases announcing routine deals, nothing for the history books. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 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. Big Dom 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Keys to Paradise[edit]

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

This is an URBAN myth, not a fact. Wikipedia is not a place for such encyclopedic content. Wayiran (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if a myth, it's notable given how widespread coverage of it was in the media. Should probably be renamed to Plastic key to paradise or Key to paradise per WP:Article titles. Pburka (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a fact, and therefore not an Encyclopedic topic. It's a war-time propaganda myth created by the Iraqi regime and their Iranian allies MKO. Former BBC director and scholar , Bagher Moein, who is an Iran expert, makes it clear that the whole thing was a myth " A copy of a common prayer book known as Mafatih ul-Jenan or 'Keys to Paradise' was given to each volunteer during the Iran-Iraq war, a practice misinterpreted by the opponents of Khomeini and fed to the gullible Western press as a gift of the 'plastic key to heaven'" Kurdo777 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It doesn't have to be true, it only has to be true that it was said, which it clearly was. We've got a whole category for articles about propaganda. Pburka (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is going to sound strange but Truth does not make Notability, not WP:N notability. If enough major news sources buy your propaganda, then they can make it notability. We do not judge, we simply ask for multiple reliable sources. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete This article should be deleted and a small sentence should be written in the Iran-Iraq war. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many photos and films from the war. How come there is not even one single picture of such keys ?!!! It does not deserve to have its standalone article. Just a small hint in the Iran-Iraq war would be enough. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am sympathetic to the arguments made for deleting, the topic is notable whether or not it's true. We have many articles on myths, such as the Tooth Fairy. This story has been repeated in so many books over the years that its notability can't be disputed. Here are a few examples:

Arabists: The Romance of an American Elite
Confronting fear: a history of terrorism
Origins of terrorism: psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind
The Mirage of Peace: Understanding the Never-Ending Conflict in the Middle East
Blood and rage: a cultural history of terrorism

It would be good if the article could include a two or three sentence quote from BBC journalist Baqer Moin, summarizing his argument that the story is a myth. Additional reliable sources stating that it is a myth would be helpful as well. Then, readers of this article can have a balanced view. Cullen328 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - subject of article passes WP:GNG by leaps and bounds with mentions in multiple reliable sources as well as a few scholarly mentions, and multiple books. Therefore, significant coverage that is independent of the subject of the article has been attained and can be verified. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cullen328. Plenty of sources exist and no valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is basically an Urban Dictionary dicdef given a "let's debunk an urban legend" spin. Merge the info to some encyclopedic discussion of wartime propaganda if someone feels it is warranted. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 27 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) 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cross college of sasa[edit]

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

Non-notable college, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Virtually no G hits Pol430 talk to me 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a high school in the Phillippines that in 2010 added college courses. Even if it is not notable yet as a new college, established consensus is that secondary schools such as high schools are presumed to be notable, and it continues as a high school as well. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now offers post-secondary courses so is clearly notable. I am in the process of cleaning the page up. It should be noted that Filipino schools and colleges invariably have a poor internet presence and a lack of sources found in Google searches does not equate to lack of reliable sources. To avoid systemic bias, time should be given for local sources to be researched and added. I would add that AfDing such pages within a few hours of creation neither allows time for such research nor does it encourage an inexperienced editor in his first article creation effort. Such editors benefit more from guidance than rushing their pages to deletion discussions. TerriersFan (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we are really scrapping the barrel on this one! As far as "established consensus is that secondary schools such as high schools are presumed to be notable" goes, I assume you are getting that from here which is an essay and not a policy or guideline, and therefore lacks established consensus. Notability guidelines make it quite clear that educational establishments must be notable as we would expect any other organisation to be. @Terries - When you made that comment the article had no references at all, so I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that the subject is clearly notable!? Anyhow, whilst I would be happy to IAR to save a net gain to the encyclopedia, this article isn't one (IMO). Pol430 talk to me 09:23, 27 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) 14:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rico and Nelly's Great Adventure[edit]

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

This cites no sources to indicate notability; Wikipedia is not for drinking games made up one day. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as the editor who originally nominated it as a PROD candidate. Strikerforce (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This game fails all measures of notabilty. Any card game that is new enough to attribute creators would need to appear in a card game book and be distinct enough not to be a variant to have a page based upon being a card game.Tetron76 (talk) 13:09, 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halyvourgiki S.A.[edit]

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

Quite a non-neutral article (e.g. "one of the main steel producers in Greece") but more importantly claims made are not substantiated, and although there is a mention of its existence here at Bloomberg Business Week, no other secondary source coverage appears findable. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we are not kidding here. An article about Greece's largest steel plant, one of Greece's largest corporations, is considered for deletion ? If anything, this article should be expanded, and this notice should be added (my focus is on other industries, but I hope somebody will work on it soon). "No other secondary source coverage appears findable"??? About Halyvourgiki ??!!! Are we talking about the same company ? Anyway, answering in good faith, see here and here (look at letter "H") for example. Skartsis (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of reliable secondary sources is an endemic problem in Greece and plagues many articles. Halyvourgiki is one of the few major steel mills in Greece. In the past they operated two blast furnaces (the brightly colored facilities) but nowdays they run their electric furnaces on scrap steel. The article can be improved somewhat. The text can be toned down a little to avoid POV statements, as it does not contain extreme or inaccurate claims. Some basic info can be included from the company website. However without independent sources the article shall remain a stub. SV1XV (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't find many English-language sources, but I do see a few that indicate that this company is one of the largest steel producers in Greece, or even the largest. Therefore, the article should be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major steel mill. Bountiful references on Greek google. Should not have been nominated. Added a reference from the top newspaper in Greece. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:20, 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) 14:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. Liegh McInnis[edit]

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

Although on first glance McInnis looks like he should pass WP:PROF as a journal editor, Black Magnolias is a self-published journal that he founded, and it doesn't appear to be a "well-established" academic journal. Likewise, all of his major works are self-published through his own publishing company. Google Scholar does not show him to be widely cited or published outside of his self-publishing. There are few articles about the man himself in the mainstream press. He fails to meet the bars of WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and any claims to WP:PROF notability run afoul of WP:SPS. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's been quoted a few times in newspapers, but the lack of in-depth third party coverage means he fails WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per well-researched nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. While I suspect the subject may one day warrant an article, there simply isn't enough supporting information to have one at the moment.Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom has already done all the legwork here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dániel Sváb[edit]

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

Having never played for a fully pro team, this person fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the moment. He does fail WP:NFOOTBALL, having never played in a fully professional league or for his nation's senior team. I was unable to find any coverage in English sources, but perhaps someone would be able to find some significant coverage in Hungarian sources? Anyway, my !vote is delete for the moment, but I'm willing to switch to support if someone more skilled than me can prove he passes the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appeared in a League Cup match in July 2010 according to Ferencváros' official website, but doesn't appear to have played in a league match yet. He has played in Nemzeti Bajnokság II for Ferencváros II, but that isn't a fully professional league. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per argyle and giantsnowman MacMed^talk _stalk 22:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence article satisfies the GNG or other notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 22:41, 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 Discussion closed because article has been speedily deleted. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imsogb[edit]

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

Page lacks WP:NOTE. It reads like an advertisement. It is only 2 sentences long. Suggesting Delete due to any real substance. Maybe in the time it takes to come to a consensus the author can shore it up. Golgofrinchian (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice and willing to change if sufficient improvement arrives. Peridon (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of any coverage in third party sources. Pburka (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability--Shrike (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 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. Big Dom 21:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circle The Sky (Band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. They have only released a demo EP Pol430 talk to me 13:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete band with no notability presented. No album and "As of April 2011, they will begin touring". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not Speedy I detagged it for CSD because in my opinion the touring claim is enough to raise a question as to possible notability. If it could be referenced that they were really touring in April, that it was more then just an aspiration, and that they had serious venues lined up, they would have notability. That said, the article does not go that far, and so should properly be deleted unless additional support for notability is provided, just not under CSD A7. Monty₈₄₅ 18:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It Happens Only In India[edit]

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

No references. Unable to find references to back up claims of being aired on Fox. Other secondary source coverage not found. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily verifiable, e.g. this article in The Hindu. Pburka (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep notable TV program in a major TV channel. --Sodabottle (talk) 14:53, 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canopus EDIUS Pro[edit]

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

No sources given at all apart from a link to the website. Secondary source coverage limited. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Note that the subject is a video editing software package. Unambiguous advertising: ...it can handle nearly all HD and SD video formats on a mixed timeline and output to most modern delivery formats... designed for any broadcast and post-production environment, especially those with newer, tapeless forms of video recording and storage. Article contains nothing other than a feature list and a link to the business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no evidence of notability, probable advert. Dialectric (talk) 19:03, 25 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) 23:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatoeba[edit]

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

May well be of notability, but current sources bar one are primary; multiple secondary sources need to be found for this article to be kept. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I refer to Tatoeba.org in several peer reviewed academic papers. In one (unfortunately in Japanese) it gets a couple of paragraphs. I think they should count as multiple secondary sources. I have added some of them to the page. Francis Bond (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added a few more sources as well. Papabearrr (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Hans W (talk) 10:31, 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) 03:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moto Roma Virage[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It's hard to find evidence Moto Roma even exists, let alone enough to satisfy WP:COMPANY or WP:PRODUCT. Most likely the Moto Roma Mirage was the name that some nearly anonymous Chinese knock-off bike was marketed under in come countries, although without good sources even that can't be verified. Dbratland (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. At least this page [13] and Moto-roma roadrunner show that the company exists. Google shows also some hits for the Virage model, mainly vending offers. --Cyfal (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that. --Cyfal (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those links were the only (weak) evidence I found that they exist. But in what sense do these links meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Existence is a start, but we don't make a page for every company. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability," etc. --Dbratland (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 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) 03:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a strange thing. There aren't that many of those companies, so that suggests that the ones that are there are probably notable--but there isn't a damn thing on this company and these bikes! Nothing useful in Google News, and Google Books does not produce any reviews in magazines either. Now, it is entirely possible that there is coverage, just not online: the motorcycle magazines I used to read aren't online. Still, it's weird, especially since the sell trail bikes for under E 1000. How about some boldness: I'm going to create Moto Roma and propose that the closing admin and redirect the stub thattaway. As things stand right now, the articles ought to be deleted, and the company itself doesn't stand much change, but who knows. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, Moto Roma is nothing but a brand used in the UK for Zongshen motorcycles -- which, if true, would mean that it is incorrect to have said that Moto Roma is a Chinese motorcycle manufacturer. Lacking any good sources, I don't understand why anyone would take one unsourced page that fails the notability guidelines, and go and create yet another page with zero sources which also fails the notability guidelines. This seems to have made a bad situation worse. --Dbratland (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the friendly comment. It's not a bad situation, and it's not made any worse. (An unreferenced article! the end of the world??) If it is true that it's another name for Zongshen, then merge and redirect it to that article! "I don't understand why anyone..."--well, you're sitting here with an AfD for over a week now, and you have yet to generate a 'delete'. So instead of criticizing me for doing something useful, go and do something yourself: withdraw the nomination, merge and redirect the article to Moto Roma, and then figure out if you want to merge and redirect to Zongshen--and if that's what you think is right, be bold and just do it. Leave the redirects instead of asking for deletion, since they may well be useful search terms. You could have taken care of all of this in as much time as it took you to compose this AfD, and you can take care of it in the next two minutes--that's all it takes. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Sorry, but I'd rather see Wikipedia say nothing at all than perpetuate guesses, hearsay and misconceptions. The fact is that nobody knows for sure what Moto Roma actually is, and the best way to express that fact would be to delete Moto Roma Virage and Moto Roma. The existence of these pages misleads readers. Spreading rumor, conjecture and hearsay is what the entire rest of the Internet is there for; Wikpedia should aspire to be just slightly better than that. --Dbratland (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about redirects here. A redirect is not a rumor, it's a search term. I could vote 'keep' just to be an ass and your AfD would go nowhere, and the rumor, conjecture, and hearsay would remain. Instead, I offered you an easy way to take care of your problem, which is perfectly in keeping with our policy. But have it your way. Merge and redirect to Moto Roma. Make and model seem to exist and redirects for individual models to the parent company are acceptable, and given the relative scarcity of motorcycle brands, I'm going to assume some measure of notability, to the point where I want the search term to continue to exist. If nominator wants to take issue with the primary point, then nominate the redirect target. What would be appreciated more is if nominator would attempt to write a sentence or two into Moto Roma or Zongshen to explain the relationship--that would be a genuine effort to improve the encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my AfD, and it isn't my problem. The AfD, and any problem if there is one, belong to Wikipedia and I'm only contributing my opinion in order to help other editors work through the process to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I honestly don't know if redirects ought to be allowed to meet a lower standard than WP:GNG. Judging by Wikipedia:Redirect and the principles at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, a user whose search led them from Moto Roma to Zongshen is going to be baffled as to why, which would fail the goal of redirects. Unless we add an explanation to Zongshen based on guesswork, since we lack a reliable source which would let us explain factually what the relationship between the two is. So with redirects to Zongshen, we are making uncited assertions of fact about Moto Roma, but by deleting the pages, we explicitly say we don't know. And I say we don't know. And of course, if good sources ever to turn up, they can be cited, and the pages can be recreated if needed.

If there are flaws in my reasoning that I'm not seeing, I'm sure at some point sooner or later other editors will help sort it out. --Dbratland (talk) 16:34, 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, Acather96 (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Dbratland. Do not redirect unless a reliable source confirms that Moto Roma is a Zongshen brand. Pburka (talk) 17:42, 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) 14:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doudou N'Diaye Rose[edit]

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

Unsubstantiated, non-neutral claims comprise this article. No evidence significant secondary source coverage. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this [14] is significant coverage. The article does not mention what I think is this guys most notable accomplishment: he is the composer of Senegal's national anthem (at least according to the link).--Banana (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i think that most of the musicians on the Real World Records label qualify as notable. Article needs improvements for sure.(mercurywoodrose)76.234.120.238 (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A concert of Doudou N'Diaye Rose and his orchestra was reviewed by The New York Times [15], another review by the same newspaper starts with: "Doudou N'Diaye Rose, the chief drum major of Dakar, Senegal, and an internationally known percussionist, leads the Drummers of West Africa, a 35-member troupe that has brought native rhythms to audiences around the world." [16]. Clearly a notable musician. The bad shape of the article is a reason for improvement, not for deletion --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:09, 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 merge to Banquet (song). Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banquet (Phones Disco Edit)[edit]

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

Non-notable song by itself. Merge to artist's article instead failing WP:GNG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is merged/redirected it's not clear to me whether it should be to Bloc Party as suggested, Paul Epworth (aka Phones, who remixed it), or either of the other recordings it appears with: Little Thoughts/Tulips and Bloc Party (EP). However, as the nominator's proposal is to merge, the discussion should take place at Talk:Banquet (Phones Disco Edit) - AfD is for deletion discussions. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Banquet (song). No need for the disco edit to have a separate article, any more than covers of far more notable songs are almost always included within the original song's article. Rlendog (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Banquet (song), per Rlendog. Unlike the redir targets I considered above, that's clearly an appropriate one. And, again per Rlendog, different versions of the same song do generally live together in one article. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 27 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) 14:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam T O'Rourke[edit]

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

Unsubstantiated claims in article. No evidence of significant secondary source coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a reliable source can be found showing that he played for the South Africa men's national ice hockey team. Pburka (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~as Hoax~~ Fails WP:NHOCKEY. I cannot find a single source for this guy. If he played ice hockey in Canada as the article claims, he would have a hockeydb entry, which he does not. No hits on google either -Pparazorback (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no sure it's a hoax. This seems to confirm that he played for the LCC Saints, a junior team in Australia, or possibly in some summer program organized by that team. Pburka (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected, still !vote for Deletion, the player does fail WP:NHOCKEY, also appears to fail WP:GNG -Pparazorback (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did some digging, and could find no evidence that this fellow ever played for the South African team in international play. No other credible source exists that would allow a pass on either NHOCKEY or the GNG. Ravenswing 03:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:47, 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Horne[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable writer. References are to his own works only. Sitush (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tidied the article a bit and added a first reference to a 3rd party publication. Leaving it open whether this is sufficient to meet WP:ARTIST criteria though. AllyD (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this he's had at least three solo exhibitions. Pburka (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - aren't such exhibitions usually for the purpose of sales? My French isn't great, sorry. I'm fluent in gibberish and nothing else. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That depends. The McGill University School of Architecture Gallery is a university run gallery, so it's definitely not commercial. La Chambre Blanche is a co-operative; it's not commercial, either. I can't find much info about the third gallery, the OO Gallery in Halifax. Exhibition at the first two galleries is almost certainly by invitation, and having a public gallery dedicate space to an individual exhibition is a strong indication of notability for an artist. Pburka (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, it is not my intention to be obstructive, I'm merely ignorant. Why is a co-op unlikely to be commercial? Here in the UK there are plenty that are just that - they need to live somehow. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I made that determination based on their website, which I linked to. Their primary focus appears to be on education and their internship program. There's no evidence that they operate a commercial gallery at all. Pburka (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. I looked at the link and, like I said, I'm useless with French. This is going to be an interesting AfD - I'm sort of half-and-half now. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Update: I looked at something and it was in French. Not your link. I'll start over. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An Article on En:wikipedia should be capable of at least one English source to demonstrate notability to an English spealing user. Mark^Dask 02:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops I should acknowledge AllyD's good source - in English - but is it immediately accessible? For the average reader is it enough to assume AllyD's good faith - one reference in a book is not in itself notability - how notable is the book?Mark^Dask 20:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from a Google Books search: page link. Like I said above, I'm not advancing an opinion on whether it is sufficient to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bibliography on that link given above amounts to 2 reviews in 1996 from small mags, which isn't really enough. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 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. postdlf (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Possessed (2009 film)[edit]

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

By all appearances a non-notable film with no secondary source, independent, significant coverage. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it isn't WP:N, then it does not need an article, yet. Phearson (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This movie is an amazing one about a true story of paranormal incident.it is television documentary movie which is produced by spooky television.this company mostly focuses on horror and super natural subjects like the hunted boy or the grave children.this is a very unique movie about a documented paranormal incident.watseka wonder--91.99.9.55 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These comments from the people who have watched this movie show that it was amazing and interesting for them. http://thepossessedmovie.blogspot.com/ --Navid1366 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, blogs are typically not recognized as reliable sources. Strikerforce (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very sorry, but unfortunately if a subject has not been covered significantly by reliable, secondary, independent sources, then it is not worthy of its own article. If you can find such sources then please, add them in, and no doubt this AFD will swing round for keep. For more information see WP:N. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but it was my fault that i could not imply what i wanted to say.I wanted say that this documentary television movie is not as notable as other movie for example Saw series or The others Or constantine., but if you look at the cooments of the people who have watched this movie you could easily understand that this is interesting and notable movie in super natural movies category.

also i have mentioned different sources as reliable sources for this movie like www.imdb.com and i think just this web address is the most reliable source for any movie or TV serial91.99.34.217 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. While inclusion in the IMDB database is not seen as suitable when addressing the issue of notability, it is suitable as a point from which to begin one's research... research that can lead to articles in newspapers that might address the film directly and in detail... such as the one from the Iroquois County Times-Republic Before the day is out I will look into other articles and DVD reviews. Off to RL work for the nonce. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update So far, the two-sentence stub that was nominated (without any tagging toward concerns) less than three hours after its creation, has now benefitted from regular editing, becoming a sourced start class article that now serves the project. More can be done, certainly, but in considering that the project accepts that it is itself a work-in-progress, and with respects to the nominator, a hurried nomination might not have been the best way to deal with a new article from a new editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect, pending the outcome of the AfD currently underway for Watseka Wonder) - With due respect and appreciation toward the efforts made to improve the article since it was originally created (for the record, I think the nomination may have been a little premature... tagging for improvement would have been my choice of action), this movie appears to fail the policy on the notability of films. A Google search[17] reveals few results outside of the IMDB database (generally not accepted as a proof of notability) and links to download / watch the film online. If the outcome of the current AfD for Watseka Wonder is "Keep", then I would suggest redirecting this article there. Strikerforce (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Strikerforce, I appreciate your acknowledging that the film article is being improved, but A) the IMDB database is not used to source the article, and B) the "general" search you offered only came up with a paultry 2,750,000 g-hits. However, as WP:GOOGLEHITS encourages we not simply give a count or imply that a large result means the result is either uselesss or too big to search properly... let's be more specific. In my own use of different search parameters, I quickly came up with several reliable sources that addressed the film directly and in detail, and used them to expand and source the article so as to have it meet the criteria of WP:Notability (film). So far, and to meet WP:NF's call for significant coverage allowing an independent article, we have: A November 30, 1999 interview with the filmmakers in Dread Central[18] where they speak about the film and how it was conceived and made. An October 1, 2009 in-depth article in Iroquois County Times-Republic[19] that speaks about the film and how it was made and addresses it debuting on SyFy in October 2009. An August 11, 2009 in-depth review in Dread Central[20] that directly speaks directly toward the film, its production, its creation, and its shortcomings. WP:NF is met, and more can be done... and it's always better to avoid a wide "general" search when we can use our google-foo to narrow the field. And just as I see no call to merge the notable films Gone With the Wind (film) or The Blue and the Gray (miniseries) to the article "about" The Civil War (though a mention there of media about the war is proper), we also have no need to either delete or merge this article about a notable film to an article someplace else simply because we could. Independent notability is independent notability, and the persons sourced as creating and being part of this 2009 film, had nothing to do with the event from 1870s. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that you understood the crux of my statement, based on your response. My challenge is that it fails WP:MOVIE, specifically the seven "general principles" of the policy. It may meet #2 of those seven principles, based on the search results that I found, but that's a stretch, in my opinion. You asked me to come here[21] and weigh in and I have done so. I'm sorry, but I still contend that this film is not worthy of its own article. I suggested the redirect as a compromise. Strikerforce (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... then with respects, I believe that the misunderstanding may be yours. As you may be aware, it's not a policy you quote, but rather a guideline. And in following WP:GNG, that guideline section begins "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As this film has significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the film, that presumption is met. This instruction is then follwed by the statement "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist".. a statement which means that IF one or more of the listed attributes can be confirmed, then editors might reasonably expect to find reliable sources... so as to encourage a diligent search for available sources. That section does not mean that if the listed attributes are not met then one can then ignore reliable sources that are found and offered. And yes, after seeing the courtesy you extended to the article's author,[22] I did ask for your opinion of the article's improvements and advice for further improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I've missed something (which is certainly possible), I don't believe that that topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Very simply, that is my opinion, and it will be evaluated just as any other in the discussion upon closure. I have no dog in the fight, as the saying goes. In regard to your comments about WP:MOVIE, I am well aware that it is a guideline; at no point did I suggest that it was a policy. However, remember that the stance on "guidelines" are that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". To that extent, I just don't feel that this is a situation that is covered by one of those "occasional exceptions". Strikerforce (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant" is not a measure of the number of sources, but rather how sources deal with the topic... this meaning that we do not need dozens of sources dealing with a topic... only that the ones that do, do so "directly and in detail". And neither does significant mean the subject must be the sole topic of the source (which though in several of the sources it actually is), just that (again) the the topic be addressed directly and in detail. And as the film meets the instruction of the WP:NF through WP:GNG, ther is no "exception" to be made. Notability, even if not earth-shattering, is still notability. And as for your "policy" reference (and I'm sure you did not write so in any intent to mislead), but when you were referring to the guideline you wrote "...the seven 'general principles' of the policy." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, in regard to the use of the word "policy". I misspoke and I apologize for that. In regard to the rest of your comment, I offer the same statement to you that I did to the article's author on my talk page[23] in that I still do not feel that this film is notable and until someone can convince me otherwise, my delete ~~!vote~~ comment stands, as is. I appreciate your effort, but I'm just not convinced. However, I am just one person that may or may not be making a good argument, so I look forward to seeing what others might have to offer to the discussion. Strikerforce (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason of the creation of this page was the the relation between this article and Watseka wonder. because a person which is interested in spiritual possession could access at least to visionary example of real incident.you know that most of the spiritual movies and stories are fake and in fact are worthless and also this article could help other people to get more knowledge about paranormal subjects specially for the people who can not spend their time for reading the Dr stevensons booklet.--Navid1366 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News coverage. [24] And Dread Central covers it in part of the interview with the creators here [25] and then reviews the DVD [26]. Dream Focus 09:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RS coverage, including that cited by Dream.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impetigo (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band with no secondary source coverage found. Fails WP:BAND since none of the other claims of notability can be verified. Also note at least one album All We Need Is Cheez by the band here which will need to be either CSDed per A9. if the outcome here is delete, or go through its own AFD, or just merged boldly to the band's article, if the result is keep. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in google books here and allmusic here. Postrock1 (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Postrock1's sources. Pburka (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is legit as Postrock1's sources clearly show. Needs more development and referencing (a good place to start would be the All Music Biography).--Hokeman (talk) 03:06, 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 REDIRECT. If there are continuing concerns about the notability of the underlying subject, I would not view this AFD as precluding one for Rappers Rapp Group. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rappers Rapp Group[edit]

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

Contested PROD that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC Strikerforce (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rappers Rapp Group. Definitely notable, but we seem to have two articles on the same thing and the one without the "the" seems to be the official one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rappers Rapp Group, or merge both with DJ Flash as he seems to have been the most prominent member of the group. Pburka (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If The Rappers Rapp Group is non-notable, then surely Rappers Rapp Group is equally non-notable. I've had a quick search and cannot find much about them at all, i mean this is their AllMusic entry and this is the google books results, which all seem to be trivial mentions. I'm not sure if DJ Flash himself would be notabe either. A search of google books throws up many hits, but Grandmaster Flash seems to have gone by the name DJ Flash too, which confuses things. Postrock1 (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got the impression that they were notable as pioneers of early rap, especially when one considers they seem to have been a record label in addition to a band. I do see scarcity of sources as a problem, but then a group whose heyday was the early 80s likely has sources that aren't easily found online. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telman Agaronov[edit]

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

Article makes a few unsubstantiated claims. Google search returns 2 results. No significant coverage in reliable, secondary, sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local amateur boxer. ... a former Middleweight amature (sic.) boxer. Telman was a local champion who was seen as a prospect in his home country. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never competed in the top division of his sport. Pburka (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 00:30, 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.

It appears to have already been deleted by User:Jimfbleak as (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): no independent sources). Non admin closure. Edgepedia (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory Council for Spiritual Healers[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Zero hits on Google News for either "Regulatory Council for Spiritual Healers" or "Healer Practitioner Regulatory Council". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not up to Wikipedia standards. I don't see how it is notable. Also no references. IJA (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm pleased to see that spiritual healers are concerned about the integrity of their profession. Pburka (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 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) 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fish (BBC TV series)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. References include Sunday Herald, BBC News, The Independent, The Observer. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, and I'll add that while I'm not typically a fan of "all x are notable"-type statements, a BBC drama is extremely likely to be notable and have at least a reasonable amount of media coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has had notable coverage in the UK. IJA (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A television series that was broadcast on the BBC is notable. It might make sense to withdraw this nomination. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus has shown significant independent sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 03:20, 27 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:A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 13:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Villegas[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Secondary source coverage unestablished. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:37, 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 REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Immortals (song)[edit]

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

Do not see any reason why this song should have its own article. Redirect to album which itself has significant secondary source coverage. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect article to album and speedy close as redirects don't require AFD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Rlendog (talk) 19:12, 24 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. Consensus was that the subject is a notable individual for a combination of his writings and his weather prediction claims raises him above the WP:GNG - (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ring (astrologer)[edit]

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

Ken Ring uses the moon to make long range weather forcasts and to predict other natural events. His methods are highly controversial and mainstream science considers them psuedoscience, but he does have quite a few followers. Recently there are claims he predicted the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake and subsequently made a predicition that a big Earthquake would strike at midday today (give or take 3 days). Fails WP:ACADEMIC ~~and as his books are self published probably fails WP:AUTHOR~~. Plenty of info can be found in reliable newspapers, but they most seem to be about this prediction, so WP:NOTNEWS may apply. I am putting this up because there are various issues and before I attempt to address these I would like the communities opinion on his notability. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC) AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking self-published sentence. I thought Random House just distributed his books. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: contested prod AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —AIRcorn (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - setting aside my opinion of the man, he has been widely known for several years prior to the earthquake prediction saga. And quite a number of his books seem to have been published by Random House. dramatic (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we had a specific notability criterion for cranks, he'd almost certainly pass it. Grutness...wha? 11:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The man is responsible for hundreds of people temporarily leaving Christchurch, and is openly believed and trusted by very well known NZers such as Ian Ferguson (Olympic canoeist) and Brendan Horan (former TV weather presenter). I'm no fan of Ken Ring, but he's certainly/unfortunately an influential person in NZ right now - and IMHO that's worth recording. Timothym (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty contextual history if you ask me, I can't believe people try to abuse wikipedia by suggesting deletions in this way118.90.52.246 (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not match Wiki criteria for notability. All his works are self published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.254.34 (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The alamancs aren't self published - they're random house. Also some of his other books were published. Not by large complanies maybe, but far from *all*. His following and recent media attention is significant. Also he has caused (allegedly?) a lot of fear and panic VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alas infamy is as notable as fame. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His methods may be complete rubbish and his results may be no more accurate than the horoscopes in the paper. However, he is now, for better or worse, one of the most recognized and talked about people in New Zealand. In the past two or three weeks he has probably been the topic of more conversations in New Zealand than any other person, including politicians and notable sports people. I've just checked the Wikipedia notability guidelines for people: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I believe Ken Ring fits this profile. Some of the articles about him:
- Ken Ring: the biggest story of the week (Yahoo NZ News)
- Ken Ring can’t predict earthquakes (National Business Review)
- Christchurch earthquake: Ring's tip sends families fleeing (NZ Herald) TeWaitere (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Rubbish" is exactly the right word to describe his methods, but nevertheless Ring seems to have achieved notability. See Jeane Dixon for a comparable American example. Doc Tropics 14:20, 26 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. I'm just going to dump it in the target article as is; others can then trim or rearrange as they see fit. postdlf (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball lower divisions records[edit]

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

It's a stub that is obsolete because its information would be much better served by being merged into Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball. Nothing links to it and nobody would ever find it. Also, there's no information in this "article" that justifies it having its own entry. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball. No reason to split this off from the main article, but the information itself is certainly relevant to the team's history. BryanG (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball, not notable as a standalone article. Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agree, merging into the main article makes sense. Useful information, but not as a stand-alone article. Rikster2 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four emerging markets[edit]

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

Neologism. Not yet in substantial common usage. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept is associated with an individual Goldman Sachs analyst. Why not three or why not five? Not a term discussed in depth by reliable sources independent of the analyst who (provisionally) coined the term. Many of the references don't even discuss the term. Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "four emerging markets" could refer to any four emerging markets, varying depending on the analyst. —Lowellian (reply) 10:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider "Four emerging markets" is temporary name and certainly it is not the contributor grouping. For a new term certainly there are only a few article about it likes when BRIC first announced. I'm joining Wikipedia not more than a year, but I know BRIC (not from Wikipedia) and analyse and study it more than a decade. Might be it is better to know which part I contribute at BRIC. Right now and a few years ahead only India and China (I say India and China and not China and India due to India will surpass China) will be counted in BRIC and no matters who will accompanied them. Certainly I'm not contribute about it at BRIC due to it will disappointment Brazil, Russia and the not neutral readers. But we may see a little bit about it at 3G (countries) which coined by Citigroup. It is the latest grouping of emerging markets I have known. Might be the latest prediction is more correct (uncertainty) and a prediction a decade ago is still relevant right now (uncertainty). We may also scrutinized one by one of Emerging markets countries by each groups of analysts by sequentiality and also by frequency. Different time and different analysts make the different grouping, but we should know who will be better in the future. By the way my prediction might be U.S. in 2 or 3 years ahead will follow U.K. way (US is better than UK at least in debt and unemployment)^[1]^[2]. It can be predicted, but certainly it will contribute Wikipedia when the sources are adequate. Thank you so much for all of your consideration.Gsarwa (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence of the article reads "Four emerging markets is a new temporary term (it might be changed should Jim O'neill [sic] announce a new name)". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not an index of neologisms, and the fact remains that a single person coming up with a concept does not make the concept notable. —Lowellian (reply) 17:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
A single person, but it is not me. I am not coined of the new term, if I make it I will say this is my term. Jim O'Neill certainly is not Goldman Sachs, but if one president or might be one ex-president make a new term and press note it, should we pretend not to see it. I don't care about the term (title of the article). The important things is the substancies. BRIC and all articles about emerging markets predict at least a decade ahead (crystal ball?), should we delete all of them. Thank you so much for your sharing.Gsarwa (talk) 18:04, 17 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite the good faith shown by the author here, the fundamental problem with this article remains. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss this particular topic in depth. All we have are the opinions of the analyst, O'Neill, and speculation about how this topic (possibly under another name) may possibly be notable in the future. That isn't enough. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst it could refer to BRIC economies, anyone could use such a non-specific term. how about the four emerging football nations? LibStar (talk) 07:23, 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. Big Dom 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watseka wonder[edit]

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

Also see The wateska wonder

Article about an alleged spiritual possession, largely sourced to a Wiki about that subject, with no other verifiable third-party sources. Strikerforce (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Since I nominated this page, the primary contributor has put quite a bit of work into the article and has brought it, in my opinion, to the point that it no longer warrants deletion. As such, I have elected to offer a !vote to keep below, but will leave my original nom statement for others to evaluate as they see fit. Strikerforce (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Spirit possession Current sources for this article at this time are personal web-pages and a fringe wiki that should be considered unreliable. Phearson (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commenti can not understand what is your meaning from third party sources i adapted this article from the sources which are based on the memories of the eyewitnessesNavid1366 (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navid1366 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But are they reliable sources? To the best of my judgement, they are not. Strikerforce (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...That need to be published in trustworthy WP:RS for WP:V. Like a newspaper or magazine article. Personal websites are not, and let me give an example; I could throw up a personal website myself and say I saw bigfoot or similar disputed hoax. See what I'm getting at? Phearson (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am talking about memories of witnesses like Dr. E. W. Stevens or Richard Hodgson (1855-1905)the first full-time, paid psychical researcher of the American Society for Psychical Research http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Lurancy_Vennum2.htm http://weird-people.com/spiritual_possession/ Navid1366 (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any of his published works that match up to the article? Phearson (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of website sources instead of book sources is not a good approach. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic clearly is notable and has been around since at least 1860.[27] See Google Books general search and Google Books 19th Century search. The use of hokey sources for the artice means Wikipedia would be better off without it as now written. The wateska wonder was previously deleted. Delete and redirect to Spirit possession. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an article there, but it needs massive improvement. As Uzma Gamal rightly points out, "the topic clearly is notable and has been around since at least 1860." The article as it stands at the time I'm writing, as Uzma Gamal again rightly points out, uses only "hokey sources". This is not a reason to delete - see WP:BEFORE. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure the link to policy was necessarily directed at me, as the nominator, but in the event that it might have been, I would just like to point out that the article has undergone substantial improvement since I nominated it. I'm still not convinced that it should stand on its own, but it has improved. I tip my hat to the primary contributor, in that regard. Strikerforce (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the article creator's replys, including on my talk page, I think the use of non reliable website sources instead of widely available, easily accessible book sources for the article is intentional and disruption, no matter its form, is a basis to not keep an article. If someone replaces those website references with book, newspaper, magazine articles - things on printed paper, that would remove this disruption issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I have mentioned in that articlw which this case is the first well documented spirit possession in America and all details of incident are based on the memories of eyewitnesses as i have mentioned so there is doubt about the reliability of them,but about the nobility you should consider this case as one of the rare super natural cases which was documented and recorded by verifiable eyewitnesses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.9.55 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — 91.99.9.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Many Google books sources available. Google News too. Deletion is way unnecessary here, I think. This should have been tagged for maintenance, or even stubbified, but there's no good reason to delete a notable topic that Wikipedia has not yet covered. -- œ ^™ 03:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic meets WP:N as book results show the subject has been written of and studied for decades. The article will benefit from cleanup, expansion, and better use of sources. We do not delete what can be made to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, the primary contributor has done enough work on the article since I originally made my nomination that I believe the article has reached a point of being worthy of hanging around. Strikerforce (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the Google News cites that are not directly about the incident are about a play written about the incident. Very notable bogus superstition, just as Amityville Horror was a notable bogus fabrication playing on superstition. Anarchangel (talk) 14:40, 24 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) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Rodriguez[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. The commonness of the subject's name made the search difficult but the name combined with the individual projects that the article says she worked on yielded no hits either. Several alternative names redirect to this page (Kelly Davis, Kelly Ray, and Kelly Rodriguez), if some finds sources that I missed and notability is established we will have to somehow verify that they are all the same person. J04n(talk page) 02:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --J04n(talk page) 02:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. Simply making one's living as a voice actress does not amount to notability, per WP:ACTOR. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had made a sourcing attempt myself without success, but am glad someone else made the attempt. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:18, 27 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 appears to have been speedied -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Trampoline Championship Wrestling[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Top ghits are WTCW's website (and possible fansites?) and social networking pages. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as web content with no notability asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Rename to Trampoline Championship Wrestling. When I first saw this title my first thought was "Huh! You've got to be kidding me!". However, if the title is changed to "Trampoline Championship Wrestling" I think that something could be made of this article since there are a lot of hits on Google when the word "World" is excluded. Although I have to say that there is probably only one or two references that could justify keeping the article with the new name. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Notability aside: no content. This is an ad for a YouTube series. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content, no references. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I haven't seen any reliable source that this or any other "trampoline wrestling federation" is notable (or anything more than kids having fun), I "gree" with Nipsonanomhmata that to the extent that there's room for an article about trampoline wrestling itself. [28] and [29] show that the activity does attract some attention in the press, and its referred to in some books [30] and [31]. There's some mention of it in the article backyard wrestling, so maybe someone can contemplate a spinoff (or bounceoff). Mandsford 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm baffled. Deb (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, appears to be virtual wrestling competitions. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 24 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 Glorantha. Any merging can be done from the history if sources are also provided; the current content is unsourced. Sandstein 06:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aldryami[edit]

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

Completing malformed AFD begun by User:Albacore using Twinkle. I have no opinion on the article. NellieBly (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How notable can elves be from a fantasy series? No RS given, and I can't find any to back up the article. Albacore (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RS. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, no references. MacMed^talk _stalk 03:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge with glorantha (although this is still a very short section. My instincts were 100% in agreement with Albacore, but never under estimate the RPG there is a book just on them [32]Tetron76 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Glorantha -- while they're quite a bit different than your usual fantasy elf, they didn't have a big effect on future RPG elf portrayals and in general are just another unique feature of the Glorantha world. Thanlis (talk) 23:09, 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resaas[edit]

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

This company doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. There doesn't seem to be any in-depth third-party coverage of this company at all, not even in Canadian business magazines or newspapers available through my library's website. Google searches reveal press releases and the odd stock quote from Bloomberg et al, but nothing more substantive. NellieBly (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete. This stub doesn't give us much of a clue as to what this business makes or does, though the presence of the string 'saas' in the business name is gravely suspect. No context to identify the subject, and hardly any content makes for no claim of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The statement that the company is publicly traded (and it is, on a national stock exchange) was in my opinion an assertion of significance that made it inappropriate for CSD. The company does exist and the name is wholly legitimate - there is no need for grave suspicion with respect to the string "saas" in this case (and why would there be otherwise?) This real estate support corporation simply doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP, hence its nomination here. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:51, 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. Consensus is that the subject is not notable. Sandstein 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boroka[edit]

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

DrV was closed with leave to restart an new Afd [33]. I feel that she doesn't meet WP:N nor does she meet WP:PORNBIO with the single award nomination. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject fails PORNBIO and the GNG; the article includes no reliable or independent sourcing for any biographical information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 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) 02:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If nominator has looked at the sources, why are they not marked with deadlink tags? Is it asking too much that deadlinks be marked before bringing an AfD to the rest of the community? Unscintillating (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erb? The three sources in the article all work for me. Are you referring to something else or are you finding them dead for you? I can't say I've inspected them closely, but I don't see them as even coming close to meeting WP:N's sourcing requirements (2 blogs that appear to exist at least in part for the purpose of promoting the subject and one list of products). Hobit (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Figured it out. I just saw the porn and lack of any kind of coverage of any kind (insert drum roll) and didn't notice the redirection from dead pages. My fault. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Lack of coverage". Badoom tish. :) Reyk _YO! 12:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nice to see someone got it. :-) Hobit (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO, only 1 AVN nom in 1 year. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Complicated AfD. The Google search [+Boroka +(Pendolino OR Borres OR Bolls)] starts with 660,000 hits. I believe that the topic fails WP:PORNBIO. However, topic is notable under WP:N, as shown in that 652 web pages have been created and dedicated just for Boroka (some presumably mirrors which reduces the count). Is there enough reliable content to satisfy the requirement in WP:V to have an article? I suspect that there is, but it seems that no one is really all that interested in working on the topic, especially with the difficulty in resolving the conflicting information. I've found three birthdates. Is she 5' 4" or 5' 6" or 5' 9"? I did find that two more actresses were selected as "Private Sexclusive" representatives, and there is a news article from London about an appearance there. Did she leave the industry in 2009? The fact that no one noticed three dead links through the previous AfD and the start of this one says something, but I'm not sure what. I made a change to the WP:Guide to deletion but was reverted. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. I'm not so sure the first link was a deadlink when the initial AFD began; it's part of a porn vendor's catalog, which changes frequently. That said, the links in question went to promotional pages from porn vendors, and are now redirected to different promotional pages from the same porn vendors, and it's not generally easy to distinguish between such pages, although it is easy to see that they won't provide evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Not sure, but I think it more likely that Private shut down that page in 2009. It seems that Wikipedia needs a bot to get all of our references into the wayback machine, or maybe Wikimedia needs to create our own Wayback library? Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist? Two deletes + the nomination, and a comment which (no offense) doesn't really offer much of anything; notability can't be squeezed out of google hits. It's bad enough that PORNBIO is so pathetically weak that it essentially gives thousands of porn "actors" a free publicity platform, it is even worse when we waste time quibbling over a subject that can't even reach that low-hanging fruit. Sigh. Tarc (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yeah, I'm with Tarc here. Of all the pathetically weak notability guidelines on Wikipedia this is easily the most feeble. This person can't even meet that, and here we are relisting the debate. What's the point? Lots of people have jobs; some people get paid for taking off their clothes on camera. Big deal. Reyk _YO! 12:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a waste of time. Two AfDs, four relists and a DRV over something that clearly fails the notability criteria. Should have been deleted after the first AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some unconstructive responses. The last two are empty votes, they cannot be reduced by the force of reason. The previous comment incorrectly uses a WP:GHITS argument, and dismisses hours of analysis without countering analysis. Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering all delete arguments, I see no delete positions showing a due diligence effort to analyze the facts with metrics–none account for 660,000 page hits. In comparison with the 660,000 page hits, "pro-life movement" gets 289,000 page hits. As suggested by WP:Articles for deletion, proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. I think that by Wikipedia standards, IAFD and adultfilmdatabase are considered reliable. The Sexclusive press release is reliable to say that Boroka received the Sexclusive appointment, and this appointment is confirmed by a business.avn article here and also here. Even though we have three birthdates, we can infer that more research would produce reliable records in Hungary of this person's birthdate.

Nor has there been analysis of the 652 web pages dedicated to the topic (BTW, the initial Google value for [inurl:Boroka] is 112,000 pages). The existence of each such web page is reliable (can be verified by readers). Those web pages are each statements that the topic meets the definition of notability in WP:N, i.e., is "worthy of notice". With the exception of "Pro-life" (8.65 million page hits), I doubt I've ever worked on a topic that has this much attention on the WWW. Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is free publicity, we had it on here for three years during the actresses career, and now that that career is over, it is time to AfD it? Are we being used? Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried to fix the dead link to the AVN 2008 nominations? AVN_Award#External links shows that the information is in the wayback machine, but I've not been able to see it. Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I previously said that the topic satisfies WP:N but not WP:PORNBIO. I am amending that position to say that the topic meets both WP:N and WP:PORNBIO. This is because the Private Sexclusive appointment meets the intended purpose of WP:PORNBIO point #1. Only three actresses were ever given the title of Private Sexclusive. I continue to think that the notability under WP:N is stronger. Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus I have been unswayed by the delete votes and !votes. I have made points that support both delete and keep positions. There are questions, and IMO the quality of the debate this week has added a cloud of hyperbole (for example, "squeezed", "much of anything", "quibbling", "big deal", "pathetically" (twice), "feeble", "waste", "easily" (without metrics), and "clearly" (without metrics) ) to the consensus into what was already a complicated AfD. The closing admin may choose to consider the previous question regarding a point for which consensus still exists: is the fact that no one wants to work on an article a reason for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets PORNBIO. I said keep last time and I say keep now too. was a nominee for the 2008 AVN Award for Female Foreign Performer of the Year is quite telling. Has made an impact in the world of adult entertainment,you can say whatever you like about the pron industry but its not up for us to judge a womans choice of career.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't usually comment on AfDs in this area, but since I did comment at the deletion review, I think it;'s fairly clear she does not meet PORNBIO. She was nominated for one, and the requirement reads "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years." Whether the criteria for notability in this field are too weak is something I'm not sure about, but they do seem rather low, and we certainly shouldn't go at all lower than they specify. adultfilm database like other such , are reliable for the facts of a career, but not for determining notability. It would be absurd for our standards to be as low as inclusion there . DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a lack of metrics here for being "too low". How many people in this field are excluded by these criteria? My sense in this AfD is that no one here has the experience to understand such a balance, and this idea of "too low" was started for the purpose of hyperbole, not by being based on design standards. Given how easily Boroka seems to pass WP:N, WP:PORNBIO seems to me like a higher standard, which pretty much raises the question in my mind of why have WP:PORNBIO when it is so much harder to meet than WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This last delete position seems to be saying that the topic does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO point #2. It does not discuss WP:PORNBIO point #1 or WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet the subject guidelines. It doesn't look like the subject meets GNG, either. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:51, 28 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) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shakuma[edit]

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

The page is a hoax/vanity/misinformed page created by User:Shakuma. It claims that Shakuma is a common Japanese name, where in reality, it is a made-up name of a character in a popular Japanese manga (as well as being also the handle of the user who created the page). It is quite possible that the user who created the page actually believes that Shakuma is a common name. VNNS (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Shakuma (in hiragana) in Japanese Wikipedia for one, reveals very few articles, mostly in a technical sense or in the names of mountains and works; in fact, none are names of men. [[34]] VNNS (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 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) 02:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shakuma appears to be a mountain and a term for tengu, a phrase meaning "a foot of evil". As a personal name it only seems to occur as the pen name of Washizu Bunzo, presumably made up. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and per WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 15 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a hoax. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a hoax, but even if a few people out there did have this name, that still wouldn't necessarily make it an encyclopedia subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has "some" become verifiable or an allegation of notability? Pure opinion, essay, and OR. Delete. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lachute earthquake 2011[edit]

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

Minor earthquake, minimal damage, no loss of life, not even powerful by regional standards, no real assertion of notability, WP:EVENT. Prod removed, can't CSD. Monty₈₄₅ 00:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no evidence of lasting coverage. Ravendrop 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting coverage, small regional quake, little to lean on in terms of notability. MacMed^talk _stalk 03:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also some coverage in Lachute, where I think it is probably appropriate (at a very local level, it is arguably notable). But not sufficiently notable for a separate article or even redirect, so delete. PWilkinson (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDrive (platform)[edit]

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

Non-notable online backup service. Reads like an advertisement in some parts. I cannot find any reliable outside coverage about this product. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an ad, the one link links to a page with a price, no hits found in Google news (search was done with "OpenDrive"). No independent secondary WP:RS listed in the current article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 12 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 12 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no sources or no news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21nolja (talk • contribs)
Delete for mercy's sake, another run of the mill online backup service. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:45, 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) 23:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bal-E Lasara[edit]

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

Contested prod - Non-notable, non-reliably sourced singer that fails WP:MUSICBIO. Aspects (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 12 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently not notable, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Pol430 talk to me 21:30, 27 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) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replikas[edit]

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

Googled the band and could find no mentions in reliable sources. Article appears to fail all points of WP:BAND, apart from possibly number 10 (though this is not enough by itself). If the band is in fact notable then I have no objections to keeping the page. Postrock1 (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be significant coverage of the band in Turkish newspapers & magazines, including album reviews and interviews. I don't speak Turkish, but searching on google news & books for the album names as well as the band name, with the help of google translate, shows enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. (Googling the band name alone doesn't turn up much of any use as it means (I believe) "replacements".)--Beloved Freak 12:31, 12 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cool Beans: We Need a Hit[edit]

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

This article was created in 2009 about a film that is still, as yet, unreleased. It has received no significant coverage in reliable sources as far as I can see, only press releases and internet marketing. There is no page about it on the IMDb. Nothing that suggests it meets the WP:N, WP:NFF or WP:NOTFILM guidelines. Beloved Freak 09:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Films, as the article itself states "Voice casting has not yet been announced". Lacking significant coverage this one is simply too soon as an independent article. Userfy to author if requested. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete movie that may or may not actually be in production and apparently isn't very far along if it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:54, 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 merge to Light After Dark. WP:NSONG states "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article ...". This is key in this case. No editor has shown that such material exists. The one interesting piece of commentary was "and contributed to Maguire's placing on the annual BBC Sound Of... poll at number five." Though the BBC source confirms that Maguire achieved that placing, the contribution by this song is not supported by the source. Finally, the guideline indicates that chart placement indicates probable notability not definite notability and I am persuaded by the argument "a #78 chart entry for one week does not make a significant hit". I have merged the only other sourced information, about the music video. All in all I am not convinced that the arguments support the case to justify this as being a standalone article. TerriersFan (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't Nobody (Clare Maguire song)[edit]

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

Due to a cheeky move by an editor of the very notable and much covered Chaka Khan song to be replaced by this one, this came to my attention. The single in question seems not to have properly charted anywhere (since the UK only officially uses a top 75) and the song in itself doesn't seem to be at all notable (the refs given are a bit tenuous). I'm nominating this for deletion rather than a move. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It did chart at #78 in the UK - this is sourced in the article. The UK does not officially only use a top 75 - chart positions are recorded for the 200 best-selling singles I believe. Different publications simply show different extracts of the full chart - the BBC the top 40, Yahoo the top 75, etc. The track was also used in a high-profile advertising campaign by Renault.[35]--Michig (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:From WP:Songs:
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article

As I see it, this song doesn't satisfactorily meet these criteria (a #78 chart entry for one week does not make a significant hit).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. In this case, the Chaka Khan song should be at this title, with a dab hatnote pointing to Maguire's album (Light After Dark), where the relevant details about this song can be included.--Michig (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or merge with the album. Weak Keep at the new location as the song has charted. Was any justification given for moving the Chaka Khan song from this location? If not, my vote would be to move it back as it's safe to assume that most people looking for this song title are looking for the Khan song. Robman94 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I love Clare Maguire and I love this song, but there ain't nobody can claim it's sufficiently notable for an article in its own right, nor that it should take precedence over the Chaka Khan song. Nonetheless, it has received sufficient coverage that someone could easily be searching for it (that's how I got here). Therefore:

Merge and redirect to the album, and move the redirect page to "Ain't Nobody (Clare Maguire song)".
Move "Ain't Nobody (Chaka Khan song)" back to "Ain't Nobody".
Create "Ain't Nobody (disambiguation)" - I notice Monica also published a song with the same title, and not forgetting Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens.

82.1.57.194 (talk) 14:57, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Song was ranked on a national music charts, which is verified by the source in the article. Onthegogo (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying to keep this song where it is at the root address and leave the Chaka Kahn song at the junior address? Robman94 (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Here's what I have done. I have moved the Clare Maguire song here: Ain't Nobody (Clare Maguire song) and I have moved the Chaka Khan song back to its original location at the generic address. I have also created Ain't Nobody (disambiguation). This AfD for the Clare Maguire song is still open though. Robman94 (talk) 17:27, 27 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 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pricedown[edit]

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

Absolutely no sourcing found whatsoever; despite being used on various notable works, the font is not itself notable. Prod declined since article was previously deleted via prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tending to delete No single ref, true. It has an acceptable amount of Google hits (possibly because it is included in GTA), but articles about fonts should be generally not created (with exceptions like Courier).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 15 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 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. Anyone wanting to merge can drop me a line and I'll restore the content, but only if they provide citations as well (everything in Wikipedia must pass WP:V). Stifle (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultor Corporation[edit]

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

Declined prod. I think it's fair to do so just for procedure. Article is missing third party sources that can help it meet WP:N, and is missing information about reception and development to meet WP:NOT#PLOT. Declined prod saw what I saw, that there are sources to verify the existence of this phenomenon. But are there sources to WP:verify notability and meet the WP:GNG? From my search I'm confident there are not. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 12 March 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) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage is limited to being mentioned as part of a plot summary (examples [36]). We should mirror that by describing this fictional element in the plot summaries of the individual games, but nothing more. Update: Found something at Gamesradar but its pretty light. Marasmusine (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Red Faction (series) with a redirect section in Saints Row (series). --Teancum (talk) 15:39, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as much as I love the Red Faction universe, no third-party sources are talking about their fictional company. I'm sure there's a wikia for red faction that hosts ample data on UMC but it's not encyclopedic. Though as an example of a running fictional corporation through multiple series it might make a list or example in the article. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Red Faction articles. --Sloane (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world notability and no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability, so it is an unnecessary content fork. Even with a quick search engine test, there is no indication that it might meet general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 18:19, 24 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 to Carl Hiaasen. Or to some other appropriate article; one about the novel series does not currently exist. Sandstein 06:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Garcia[edit]

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

No assertion of evidence of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to author or novel series, like I said in the PROD decline. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 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) 00:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Article lacks coverage to WP:verify notability but willing to compromise in off chance this can help improve another article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see the coverage to justify a stand alone article. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:42, 28 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. Roscelese presented secondary sources covering this topic, which none of the delete !voters acknowledged, yet alone rebutted. postdlf (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engender[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No secondary source coverage established. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 15:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources: [37], [38], [39], [40] (it's apparently the same group as the Scottish Women's Budget Group, correct me if I'm wrong?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear with me because this is the first time I've said anything in an AfD and I'm trying to learn. We might want to keep this article as Roscelese says, but it's not right that everyone who searches for "Engender" finds a page about the Scottish organisation. I think that someone looking for "engender" should find a disambiguation page that points to several different places: "engender" on Wiktionary, an article about Engender (Health) who are here, an article about Engender (South Africa) who are here, an article about Engender (Europe) who are here, and this article, which ought to be called Engender (Scotland). So if I have to put in one of those words in bold (do I?), then mine is keep, rename and disambiguate.-Beth 84 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, very little coverage and they're only the 8th hit for "engender" on google. - Haymaker (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Engender" is also a word, so this isn't very surprising. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Lionel (talk) 09:27, 25 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. Renaming is an editorial decision. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refitting[edit]

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

unsource dictionary definition with no indication of WP:notability noq (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is already more content here than a dicdef, and notability is clear; see for example [41][42] Melchoir (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is kept it should be with a more specific title. Plenty of things other than boats can be refitted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Refitting" is something that all ships have done to them at one time or another. This can be a very detailed and informative article with the proper expansion. Brad (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move Topic not adequately covered in related articles and would probably be better in its own article anyway. But name change needed per Phil Bridger (current title would be better either as disambiguation or redirect). PWilkinson (talk) 09:35, 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, without prejudice to anyone recreating the title as a redirect only. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LordsAWar![edit]

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

non WP:notable open source game - external links to directory listings, other wikis but nothing to establish notability. Disputed Prod. noq (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is common to all articles about opensource TBS. See The Battle for Wesnoth and freeciv for example, keeping in mind that thay are developped far longer then LordsAWar! The opensource TBS don't get reviewed, rated by official bodies and listed on gamers' resources. Google search gives 55,800 results, which outnumbers some games in Open source video games (not to mention others from List of open-source video games). At the same time, LordsAWar! is important in Warlords (game series), as the others are dead. --Czarkoff (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem because Wikipedia requires independent sources. The raw hit counts on google are less if you include the exclamation and fewer still if you add -wikipedia. With 100 hits/page google stops showing anything after 544 entries. noq (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best external references of an opensource software is package repositaries. If this game wasn't notable, it wouldn't make it to Ubuntu (since 7.10), Debian (since Squeeze), Fedora (since FC11) Mandrive (since 9.2, still as freelords), Archlinux AUR (since 30 Oct 2008) and some less noteable Linux distributions (and to FreeBSD ports (since Feb 21 2008) too!). Notice no single exclamation sign! --Czarkoff (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also one can notice a lot of different sites mentioning LordsAWar in Google Image search. --Czarkoff (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is required is significant coverage in WP:reliable sources - mentioning it in passing is not significant coverage. Directories, download sites etc are not considered reliable sources for the purpose od establishing WP:notability. I have not seen anything that makes an exception for open source software. noq (talk) 18:50, 15 March 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) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - It doesn't matter how many distributions its in - if there's no actual coverage anywhere there is nothing to write about. I did find a trivial mention at Linux Magazine, so no objection to redirecting to List of open-source video games with this citation. Marasmusine (talk) 08:03, 17 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, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the creator acknowledges this doesn't have substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that this article (in finished form, not as is) is consistent with goals of Wikipedia - it informs Warlords community-disconnected fans of the possibilty to enjoy the game again. But I must admit the lack of so cold reliable sources, so, as it is seen as unavoidable, I would prefer this page redirecting to Warlords (game series) instead of List of open-source video games. --Czarkoff (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to your proposed redirection target. An aside: "so cold" is a charming mondegreen. Marasmusine (talk) 10:32, 24 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 Amphitheater Public Schools. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L. W. Cross Middle School[edit]

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

This middle school doesn't seem to meet the GNG or be much of any interest, for that matter. Raymie (t • c) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 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, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amphitheater Public Schools, article on parent school district. I don't see anything worth merging. postdlf (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, per standard practice for schools under high school level. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per established consensus.Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amphitheater Public Schools, article on parent school district, as per precedent. Kudpung (talk) 15:46, 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 redirect to Amphitheater Public Schools. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard B. Wilson K-8 School[edit]

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

Accompanies my AfD of L. W. Cross Middle School. Another yawner of an article that has little notability. Being Excelling is Arizona isn't that big of a deal. Raymie (t • c) 23:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amphitheater School District as per consensus on school articles. Middle schools are not considered notable unless there is something unique that distinguishes them from thousands of other middle schools. Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 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, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amphitheater Public Schools per Cullen328. postdlf (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice. I have a question, for those more knowledgeable about Wikipedia's treatment of schools: If I come across an article like this, about a run-of-the-mill elementary school or middle school, can I just boldly redirect it? Or is there some process similar to WP:PROD where I can propose the redirect? I hate to bring them all to AfD where the redirect is virtually a foregone conclusion - seems like a waste of editors' time. Thanks for any advice. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I think I found my answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools: Merge and redirect, and if somebody objects or reverts it, then take it to AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 25 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.

^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361848/Libya-fly-zone-Cameron-axes-11-000-servicemen-women-Middle-East.html
^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/britain-defence-cuts-idUSLDE7202A420110301

[1] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361848/Libya-fly-zone-Cameron-axes-11-000-servicemen-women-Middle-East.html

[2] ttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/britain-defence-cuts-idUSLDE7202A420110301

[1]

[2]