Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 6

< 5 March	7 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 delete. NW (Talk) 03:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Stillman[edit]

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

An article derived from a website bio with OTRS permission, unfortunately doesn't imply any notability. Step hen 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - looks like there could possibly be some notability, unfortunately the source is biased, and the article is written like an advertisement. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject's career is simply describe in this article. She probably is quite competent in her job, but there is nothing to suggest she is notable. It appears to have been created as form of personal advertising.Rotmo (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This is a pretty blatant G11 case, especially given that there's nothing in the article that suggests the subject would pass the GNG, WP:BIO or any other notability criteria on her own merits. OTRS can certainly suspend the provisions of WP:COPYVIO, but it can't grant a free pass from the CSD criteria. Ravenswing 18:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing special about this person; the company she works for doesn't even have an article! PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 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. In addition the nominator voted keep after sources were found. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Castellanos López[edit]

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

I find no matches under this name in GNews or GBooks. The article has been given a grace period as an unsourced BLP for over 3 years. Against the criteria of WP:ARTIST there may be a claim if sources can be found to support permanent public exhibition, though the only sources I can find by Google searching are circular references to this Wikipedia article and translations of it. Raising for wider discussion rather than PROD as deletion will rely on this being a sustained failure to address WP:V and there being little likelihood of this being addressed in the near future rather than potential (unsourced) claims of notability. Fæ (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a detailed entry describing the career of Manuel Castellanos López at the website of Taller Experimental de Gráfica (TEG) (looks like a reliable institution mapping the development of Cuban arts). The name is Spanish, and it is better to search without the second surname, full names are used rarely in Spanish. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The work of the same person was a part of the exhibiton Cuba: art and history, from 1868 to today and is mentioned in the homonymous book (organized and published by Montreal Museum of Fine Arts), see [1], detailed review of the exhibition is available here. In my opinion we should keep this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the sources. TEG appears to be a type of technical college and the page about Lopez being his CV, presumably because has been a teacher there. On its own this does not address notability. I do not have a copy of the Cuba book, though on Google I can see a mention of his name but am left wondering if this is a tangential mention or if his significance is made clear, if you have the book perhaps you could clarify with a quote? The page referenced at www.mbam.qc.ca does not mention Lopez, perhaps there is another page somewhere that does? Fæ (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castellanos was/is a member of TEG. Unfortunately, I don't have the book and I can't find anything apart from brief mentions in inaccessible Cuban magazines. The problem is that newspapers and magazines published on this somewhat isolated island in the 1970s and 80s aren't available online. My keep vote is based on fact that Castellanos is an internationally exhibited artist for several decades. This is verifiable by reliable sources and it is in my opinion sufficient. I admit, the coverage is very weak. It's just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have additional verifiable sources to address the WP:ARTIST criteria, please go ahead and add them to the article as it currently has none and this may address the AFD by default. BTW, I note that the British Library have a copy of Bondil's book and I'm happy to check it the next time I'm there, but this may be in a couple of weeks time. Fæ (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forced to rely on online sources, and I'm afraid it is insufficient in this case (Cuban artist who was active mainly between 1970 and 1990). Another problem is artist's name, it seems to be quite usual in Spanish speaking countries. However, things should be discussed and judged properly. Thanks for your willingness to check the book. I added the fragments I found. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the (large) Cuba book in front of me (thank you British Library for your free wifi). On page 259 in the section "The 1970s: Recovery and Contemporaneity" it states "Manuel Castellanos, a meticulous draftsman, created a world of imaginative and symbolic richness in an original style, tackling Cuban reality with mordant wit. A master of the pencil drawing, he employs an intellectualized popular theme in A Comdatant People on the March (illustration 303). A landmark in Cuban drawing, it was a pioneering use of a map of the country's outline to refer to Cuban society as a whole. This contemporary motif was subsequently adopted for other purposes by Antonio E. Fernandez (Tonel), Ibrahim Miranda, Sandra Ramos and Abel Barroso." The illustration mentioned (303) is of his painting dated 1980 which is of a carefully drawn map of Cuba with various monsters around it in the ocean. The ISBN is 9782891923231 and as well as English exists in French and Spanish editions under other ISBNs. Fæ (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources found above. Postrock1 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the new source with the quotation given above which can be taken as an unambiguous demonstration against several of the notability criteria defined in WP:ARTIST. As the nominator my opinion has no special status but I suggest this is taken as a strong likelihood of Snow Keep. Fæ (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fæ. Your attitude and collaboration at this AfD is exemplary. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Danger (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Olaso[edit]

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

Fails any of the Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Tennis that is:

The player is a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category — NO
The player has competed in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or similar international competition — NO
The player has competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments:
- Grand slam tournaments (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open) — NO
- Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250) — NO
The player has won at least one title in any of the ATP Men's Challenger tournaments — NO
The player holds a tennis record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA — NO Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a challenger doubles title in 2010. (Wasn't in the article, though under double his record was listed at 1-3, but I have since added it.) Ravendrop 22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The funny moment is that he became notable months after his article had been created... Anyway I ran through his ITF page but didn't catch his sole win, thus I had to withdraw his nomination. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 08:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry that's true. Next time I'll be faster. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 08:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Berstad[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline for association football players. PROD was contested with the comment “has played 303 matches in the top league in Norway & won the national cup in 1993”, however no sources were added to verify these claims, and I am unable to find significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Onthegogo (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found several sources which corroborate the disputed facts of this person's career. See [2] and [3]. Also, he appears to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, which states that "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable." And if you click on the link to WP:FPL, you'll see that Tippeligaen is considered a fully professional league. —SW— ^express 04:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sources you listed above provide no significant coverage of the person. And being named as a coach is not the same as being the manager of team. This article needs to be supported by references to verify that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Onthegogo (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 300 appearances in the Norwegian top professional league? Clearly neets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Geschichte (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is the claim, but what is missing is WP:Verifiability. Show me a reliable source that he has played in a top league and I will withdraw my nomination. Onthegogo (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that this is a Norwegian athlete, so sources may not be easy to find for those who do not regularly access Norwegian sources and/or speak Norwegian. In any case, in the sources that are easily findable, it's clear that he has played in hundreds of games for a pro team, therefore satisfying WP:NFOOTBALL. See [4][5][6][7][8]. Unless, of course, you think that someone is playing an elaborate hoax by inserting Charles Berstad into all of these various unrelated norwegian football websites. —SW— ^babble 21:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should not need to remind you of WP:Verifiability: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Onthegogo (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is precisely what has been demonstrated above. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Tippeligaen has been fully professional for nearly 20 years. I've found a page on Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation that confirms he made 303 appearances in the Norwegian top division which I will add now. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per reliable source added to article by Argyle 4 Life. Onthegogo (talk) 03:23, 12 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) CTJF83 22:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

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

Article was deleted back in 2008, on the basis of no notability and no reliable sources. There's still barely anything present establishing proper notability. Sloane (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep and edit The earlier deletion should not prejudice matters--another admin, in declining a G4 speedy as a re-creation, said " is significantly longer and has more sources now", a judgment I agree with. I'm not sure being longer is beneficial, though, it is a little overextended in comparison with the available material. I consider the March 16, 2009 NYTimes article on the movement "They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present" [9] a sufficient reference to establish notability DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You consider a single newspaper article sufficient?--Sloane (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Edit There is a bit of a self-promoting tone here, but the subject matter shouldn't be up for debate for removal. The movement has gained enough following and interest to merit notability. The Zeitgeist Movement's Peter Joseph just released a documentary called "Moving Forward", which has just about a quarter of a million views on "YouTube" alone. I could probably consider hundreds of subjects and items off-hand that hold far less notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.30.105 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT story usually establishes notability here. A good WP article would be useful to people interested in learning more about this movement. On the other hand the contributors to the article should be given a lecture about writing in a neutral tone so that the impression of self-promotion is not given. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In the past few years it has gain notability. Maybe some parts of the article need neutralization, but the movement itself i think has the notability needed to have an article here. Gonchibolso12 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The main thing that seems to get brought up here is the notability of the topic. Just on the bases that I've known about it for some time now, and most people I've come across know about it as well, I'd give it a pass on that. Zeitgeist Movement returns just under 2 million results on Google. I'd say that's pretty notable. To put that in perspective, Buck Bumble returns about 64,000, why isn't anyone questioning that topic's notability? Because nobody gives a fuck about Buck Bumble. This seems to be more of an issue about personal disagreement rather than objective qualification. --Renegade78 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google hits are meaningless when establishing notability. We need multiple, reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Here's a reputable, peer reviewed Australian journal article written by a psychotherapist with a PhD [10] [11]. --Renegade78 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems have have at least a bare minimum of notability, but it would be nice to see a few more sources on notability. Also currently up on AFD that people here may be interested in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Moving Forward -- Monty845 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A definite keep. I don't think the notoriety of the Zeitgeist Movement is in question, no matter what one's personal feelings about it are. There are 500,000 individual members of the movement. (In comparison, the British Labour Party has less than 200,000). It returns over 500,000 results on Google (when the term is specifically defined). And there are numerous mentions of it across various media. The argument that it has no notoriety seems to me patently false, and smacks of people peddling an agenda. The overall quality of the entry itself might well be questioned, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.30.43.61 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of note, all but three of the citations in the article are primary sources. I'm not convinced this passes Notability for a stand-alone article, but it's enough to be included in a related article (most likely Zeitgeist: The Movie). I'd lean towards Merge to that article, with substantial trimming. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Just as those in 2008 you have an agenda against tzm, look at the above comment, never ever would tzm merge with Z1, its unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.151.158 (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A solid keep. Source and notability is united with its references to relevant articles and official web pages about the movement. That's simply the fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 528Hz (talk • contribs) 4:49, March 8, 2011
Merge, lacks the level of third party coverage necessary for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Zeitgeist Movement' is in some senses a tautology. Anarchangel (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Edit, while all these guys are saying is "communism + big brother x 10 = GREAT IDEA" it is a good article to keep so people can learn more without needing to read the official site, which is blatantly sugar-coating itself and saying it's the best choice. A wikipedia article that is NPOV would help people get their own personal POV. Jax-Kenobi (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, There seems to be a lot of edit wars for a topic that is so un-notable, or is it notable? I get confused. I think this article is being attacked and can't be improved easily under such conditions. Fix that problem first. It only makes sense when you think about it.-- (Gharr (talk) 12:56, 11 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 00:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes (2009 film series)[edit]

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

One film and an unreleased sequel do not need their own article as a "series" Yaksar (let's chat) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article is not really needed, and gives the impression of fandom. However I can't really see a reason in policy that WP shouldn't have an article on the series, both films are notable enough. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One film hasn't even been released yet, it's still in production. Technically there's no policy saying every film with an unreleased sequel shouldn't have it's own series article, but I'd really hope it's somewhat common sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 2 films does not "film series" make. A series would indicate more than just 2 films. After that, we have an issue with the title of the page. "2009 film series" indicates that the "series" all happens within 2009. That is not the case here. Given that this is an inaccurate title and there "will be" only 2 films in this "series", there is no need for this page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be deleted, but article title is correct as per WP:NCF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No need for a series article when the "series" consists of only 2 films (really only 1, as the sequel is still in production). Absolutely nothing to say that isn't said better in the film articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete Classic jumping the gun, two films is a duet not a series. WP:CRYSTAL may be applicable here as well.The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 22:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It made hundreds of millions of dollars profit, so we can expect many sequels. No sense deleting something now only to have it recreated later on. And there is no rule against how many films are necessary to call it a series. We have an article on Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series) so I suppose mentioning the year the first film came out is the thing to do. Dream Focus 23:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1939 series has 14 released films all part of one series. This has one released film and one in production. We can't just "expect" more sequels, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, it's not Superman (1978 film series), or Friday the 13th (1980 film franchise). As for no defined number for a "series"...maybe not on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean that we treat 2 films like they are part of a series of films. There are two of them. Not a series of them. In most common practice, a "series" is going to be 3 or more. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary defines series [12] as "1a. a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession b: a set of regularly presented television programs each of which is complete in itself" I don't see any definition saying it has to be three. Two would meet the requirements. Dream Focus 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swear to heaven, it's seeing votes like this that leads me to wonder whether certain members of the alleged "rescue squadron" just routinely vote Keep in bad faith because they don't have the support to abolish WP:Deletion policy outright. For pity's sake ... WP:CRYSTAL is a content policy. It is not optional. It's been part of the rules of the road of this encyclopedia for most of its history. WP:V is a core content policy. It is, in like fashion, not optional, and has been part of the rules of the road of this encyclopedia for all of its history. (I presume folks didn't miss that there aren't any sources suggesting a full-blown series, and that there might be is pure unsupported speculation on the Keep voters' part.) None of this is news. Delete. Ravenswing 18:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any Rescue tag on this article? Do you see anyone from the ARS other than me here? They have one movie made and are making the next one. See the definition of "series" above. Dream Focus 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete makes sense to delete this as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. See WP:CRYSTAL. Creating this type of article prematurely tends to attract rumors or filler content. Better off re-creating this article when there is something reliable and substantial to say. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL pretty clearly applies here. Even a film and a sequel doesn't really make a series. Douglasi (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's fair to say that the consensus is that this shouldn't have been created in the first place. I'd treat this one like a guest who stopped by in March for the 2011 Christmas party, please come back when we have the tree up... Mandsford 21:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can be recreated if it is warranted in the future. Millahnna (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two films in a series does not warrant an article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since two films (especially with the second still unreleased) is not enough for a film series article. Three released films, I think, is a reasonable threshold since it can truly aggregate figures like box office revenue or critics' scores. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:42, 12 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 My Chemical Romance. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Toro[edit]

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

Note: This is being posted for an anon Special:Contributions/194.150.65.61 who isn't familiar enough with the AFD process to do this themselves per this Best, Mifter (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Per WP:MUSIC: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Also, the existing information on the article is poorly referenced, and either already exists in the band's article or is hardly significant. --194.150.65.61 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Previous AFD was closed as redirect and merge. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect. Not sure why AfD is needed, since the redirect is clearly appropriate and consistent with previous consensus. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, but Mifter insisted than an AfD is necessary, so. :/ --194.150.65.30 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was unaware of the old Afd, so when the article was redirected, I said that it was an established article and that it should thus go through AfD ;). Best, Mifter (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to My Chemical Romance per the previous AfD. This musician is not notable outside the band. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 11 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. NW (Talk) 03:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porphyrophobia[edit]

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

Is purple a special color that makes this phobia deserve a special article?? Any list of color phobias in general?? What is, for example, a phobia for the color green?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - before edit conflict I was about to PROD it as "Only a dictionary definition". One ref is a dicdef in a list; the other is a spoof? item on a blog. PamD (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, its not a spoof but rather an excerpt from a self help site where you choose your phobia and then its gets slotted into a stock article a la 'Happy Birthday (Enter name here)'. Clearly not a source. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is a legitimate medical disorder as documented here. Whether or not other colors have similar phobia-related disorders is not relevant. There may or may not be something "special" about the color purple, but the fact is that Porphyrophobia is a mental disorder-- if other colors also have phobias, then they should have articles too. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anything be said about this specific color phobia other than "X is Y?" though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but that is not a cause for deletion. A stub is a stub, and should not be penalized for being one. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a reliable source, nor is it a new source, its just a reprint of the same list of phobias on some of the other non-sources. Unless theres actual evidence that somebody has actually suffered from it, the only thing this article can be is a definition, and definitions go in dictionaries. Bob House 884 (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not a legitimate medical disorder. It is not listed in the DSM-IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, which "covers all mental health disorders for both children and adults", nor is it a historical disorder. The sources cited are not reliable sources for mental disorders, nor is the one listed above by Ashershow1. Porphyrophobia is a "nice" sounding phobia from the Greek root πορφύρα (porphura), See Purple#Etymology and definitions, but there are lots of these made-up phobias. --Bejnar (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article should be deleted on several grounds. First, it is simple a dictionary definition. It's nice to know what the word means, but the article does nothing to describe the phobia's characteristics. Second, this may well be a hoax. There are several websites that seem to treat it as a joke. The only legitimate reference I can find is that of track second track named "Porphyrophobia" on some obscure album. Another reference to word can be found on this website ^[1]. But this site is for a "phobia treatment expert" who claims to be able to cure any type of phobia. Rotmo (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's more than just purple. Since the wearers of purple are considered to be royalty in many cultures. There must be some decent references out there even if they are hidden under rocks. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 07:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That might make purple notable but not Porphyrophobia Bob House 884 (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are -phobias for almost everything (except perhaps synchronised swimming). Most of them are rather 'made up', and I wouldn't really trust a site offering (in the commercial sense) hypnotherapy not to give as long a list as they could. (Not knocking them for it - business is business - but it's not necessarily highly reliable.) If this article (which almost gives new meaning to 'stub') actually told us something about it it might be of use here. As it is, there seems to be no entry on Wiktionary (the English version - there is a red-linked mention in a list at the Russian version), and possibly it could be transwikied if they want it there. Peridon (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. If there were a single reference in a journal of psychiatry to a case study of a person who had actually been diagnosed with an irrational response to things purple, then that would be one thing. However, the only references are on word lists. It's kind of like, "There are no cases we're aware of where someone is afraid of ______, but if there were, then we would call it ____phobia." The lone sentence gets it a mention on list of phobias. Mandsford 21:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the complete Oxford English Dictionary doesn't recognise the word Porphyrophobia. PamD (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If about.com is any reliable source, then they do recognize porphyrophobia here. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid it isn't here, because the author may well have lifted this from another of those lists. Many phobias are made up as jokes and somehow find their way onto lists of phobias. I've seen arachibutyrophobia on several such lists, claiming it's a fear of peanut butter sticking to one's mouth. However, it links here to a list of fake phobias. Without being in the Oxford English Dictionary nor the DSM-IV, I'm extremely skeptical. Kansan (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All "-phobia" stubs need the searchlight of notability applied to them. JFW | T@lk 06:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concede that it's a valid word but to belong here it must have appeared in the medical literature, and the article must be sourced from it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:19, 8 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New England Summer Nationals[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is some routine coverage in local papers, but no significant coverage of the event in third part sources. The shows site [13] claims as many as 75,000 attendees in the past, but this is not corroborated by any independent sources. Dbratland (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made this article a long time ago before i understood alot of wikis policies, and it is admittedly a horrible article, but there are plenty of reliable sources out there such as [14], [15], and [16], which i all found after only a few minutes of looking. The Summer Nationals are one of, if not the largest yearly event in Worcester, the second or third largest city in New England depending on the census numbers you use. This alone should have it passing notability guidelines. Over the next few days i will attempt to fix up and expand the article with reliable sources.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article needs to be improved upon and expanded, not deleted. From The Worcester Telegram: "Donna McCabe, president of the Central Massachusetts-Worcester County Convention & Visitors Bureau, said she expects the show to draw about 100,000 visitors. Organizers said about 2,000 attended the first event two decades ago and, in peak years, about 200,000 have participated."[17] The event also appears to attract people from outside of Worcester and Massachusetts. A Google search for the term brings up over 66,000 results, which is significant for a relatively local event. It is, apparently, the largest automotive event on the East Coast.[18] DVDs of the event are for sale on Amazon.[19] Fan-made videos exist on YouTube.[20] It is by no reasonable measure non-notable. --TimothyDexter (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 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 23:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming iPhone 5[edit]

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

The article based purely on speculation and therefore violates CRYSTAL. Apple is notoriously secretive about upcoming products; there are no reliable sources available. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure unsubstantiated rumour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur, when the cloud of uncertainty passes over then it would only be wright and proper to create such an article. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 21:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that we can know for sure right now is that there will be an iPhone 5. Beyond that, all of the sources here lead to other sources which have little to no verifiability. Capcom1116 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to a section on the iphone 4 page detailing speculation about an iphone 5. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CRYSTAL. The iPhone page could probably do with a section on the speculation that goes around the more reputable commentators on upcoming models, though. There's an awful lot of it around Apple. Douglasi (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid such a section would have the same sourcing issues as the article. Move crud around, it's still crud. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is full of speculation and is non-encyclopedic. Besides, even if it were a decent article it should have been named "iPhone 5" rather than "Upcoming iPhone 5"; upcoming is temporary, and Wikipedia is not a news website. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The peculiar name is because I protected iPhone 5 as a redirect a long time ago. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If IPhone 5 was salted a long time ago, then this article might qualify for a speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted material. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I didn't delete anything, I just salted it preemptively to prevent exactly this from happening. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, cut and dry.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:37, 13 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qindeel-e-Hira (poems)[edit]

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

the references provided only show the author and book exist, not that it has any notability. i have tried to clean up this authors article, and the books, but some books i cant find anything on. a good reference from an english language poetry journal would help. online poetry pages are not enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:03, 9 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 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo Condo[edit]

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

This appears to be a WP:COAT article kicking around since 2006, to promote the concerns of a group of disgruntled union members who call themselves the Members for Democracy and refer to the financial misfortune or misdealings of this nondescript Travelodge "a financial scandal that has been called "the Enron of Canada." -- both wildly inflated, it seems to me. I can't find any WP:RS. Their website points to a series of articles in the Toronto Star, but I can't determine what they may have been in fact about. The article's name is grossly biased as well, as the place is actually called -- by anyone not in the in-universe world of the Members of Democracy -- the Travelodge Yorkdale Hotel. I can't find any WP:RS indicating notability for that either. Am I missing something? If kept, I'd suggest the article must be renamed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see here that a great deal of material was removed by an editor last summer on the basis that it was "potential libelous." I can't tell if it's libelous or not, but what I do see is a convoluted attempt to piece together legal and business records to attempt some sort of attack. And again, it does not seem to come together as something that would make this Travelodge notable by our definition of the term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to be a poorly sourced attack page (not that there should ever be a well-sourced attack page). freshacconci talktalk 17:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I fail to see any notability in this at all, reliably sourced or not. - Renegade78 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article, in its various edits over the years, seems to have been written either for the benefit of people who already know the story of this building, or for those who are willing to devote the time to read the external links that explain the story of this building. Apparently the idea of actually describing in this Wikipedia article the alleged scandal associated with this building does not appear to have been a priority. (See WP:AUDIENCE.) In any event, it appears that the proper title for this article would be Westmount Condominiums. I would not object to this article being re-created under an appropriate title, with context, and using independent reliable sources, as opposed to using only sources associated with the "Members for Democracy" group. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wouldnt renaming it be more simple than deleting?--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if the content is significantly improved and the sources used are not limited to only one side of the controversy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see the notabilty of the subject. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:06, 9 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 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Murray (footballer born 1993)[edit]

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

Football player who does not meet WP:N or WP:NSPORTS guidelines. He has only played in the second tier of football in the Republic of Ireland, which is not fully professional. Article appears to have been created by a user with a conflict of interest. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully professional league, and he fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Athlone Town is the oldest Soccer Club in the Republic of Ireland and one of the oldest clubs in the British Isles. The club is therefore worthy of accreditation as is its current players. (Murraylmy 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murraylmy (talk • contribs)
- Does that mean you deem anyone who plays for Sheffield F.C. as notable, they're much older? --Jimbo^[online] 20:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, player is not notable as he has not played professionally. Still got many years in which to achieve this though :) Delusion23 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 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 based on WP:TENNIS/N ("Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if... The player has won at least one title in any of the ATP Men's Challenger tournaments...") and the subject has won the 2011 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso, which is on the 2011 ATP Challenger Tour. Closing this early, in that the discussion is escalating beyond a discussion of policy. Mandsford 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Molteni[edit]

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

3rd nomination. Both deleted for failing Wikiproject Tennis. Still fails notablity KnowIG (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hey, Molteni passes WP:Notability (sports) now. He has competed in the doubles draw in 2011 Copa Claro (ATP 250), he also won 2011 Challenger Salinas Diario Expreso. So I can't see any reason to delete this article again... This nomination is very funny. PL Alvarez ^Talk 17:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't you add that to his article. If you don't I will delete. Simples. It's not difficult to write a sentence stating why he is notable in the lead. KnowIG (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also this nomination is totally unfunny. How about you communicate why he is notable instead of recreating the exact same article. KnowIG (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He surely is notable now so no need for a deletion. What sentence? You can see at the article that he won a challenger tournament so he is automatically notable... Kante4 (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my job to know what he has been upto. It's up to you and PL Alvarez to write in the articles why he is notable. The pair of you are really lazy. You also need to source it. KnowIG (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't come on here with a bunch of rubbish hours after I've said something which has now been edited in. Your not funny don't twist the comments. KnowIG (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if he were no good as a tennis player there are still numerous articles that mention him. There is no shortage of references available on Google. Have added one Spanish reference to the article. There are many more that could be added. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 07:47, 7 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 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist: Addendum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted back in 2009, on the basis of no notability and no reliable sources. Notability still hasn't been established and admin User:Nyttend refused a speedy deletion request. Sloane (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Weak Keep Should take Zeitgeist: Addendum combine it with Zeitgeist: Moving Forward and either merge into Zeitgeist: The Movie to cover all three Zeitgeists or into The Venus Project perhaps as a discussion of the efforts to promote the project. Either way, I suggest including Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in this AFD as it currently has a proposed deletion. Monty845 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe merge into The Zeitgeist Movement, that would probably make the most sense. There is a small amount of coverage on some high quality, reliable blogs, but not really much to make a claim of independent notability. Monty845 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 2009 deletion, quite a bit of coverage became available in reliable sources that are not blogs... in such WP:RS as Chicago Sun-Times, National Business Review, Times of India, Tagesspiegel, RTV Slovenija, TA3, Trouw, Cotidianul, Jakarta Post, The New York Times, Trikalanews, Resource Investor, Económico, and quite literally dozens more. It is that persistance of coverage that notability is all about. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still worried about the sourcing on notability, but I don't have a strong opinion on merging, just wanted to avoid an outright delete, which I thought was likely as due to the questionable notability. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I declined the G4 speedy because it was not applicable: the content is substantially different from any version that was deleted at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge: I'd be okay with a merging. The movies themselves seem to be struggling with independent notability. --Renegade78 (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie, keep the movies in one article. Ravensfire (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Independent notability is independent notability... else we'd be merging Rocky 2, Rocky 3, Rocky 4 etal to Rocky 1. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several references on Google, 4074 user ratings on IMDb and even a few mentionings on Google Books which is quite good for a fairly new movie. If there is a problem with reliable sources then tag the article accordingly and/or WP:SOFIXIT. Why merge this one when most films have their own articles? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. jonkerz ♠ 01:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Nyttend was absolutely correct to refuse a speedy, and just as the G4 speedy did not apply, the world has continued to move on since the original article's deletion in February of 2009. And, since that deletion, the film has recived a great deal of additional coverage in unquestionably reliable sources to show an independent notability and its meeting of WP:NF to merit a seperate artcle as a seperate film. A search for post-February 2009 articles finds wide reaching coverage in such as Chicago Sun-Times, National Business Review, Times of India, Tagesspiegel, RTV Slovenija, TA3, Trouw, Cotidianul, Jakarta Post, The New York Times, Trikalanews, Resource Investor, Económico, and quite literally dozens more[21] ...sources that did not exist at the time of last deletion. We do not need to agree to the subject matter, as our inclusion threshold is verifiability, not truth... and independent notability is independent notability. Or will we be the next such AFD suggest that Rocky 2, Rocky 3, Rocky 4 etal should all be merged and redirected to Rocky 1? Yes, these easily found sources should be added to the article, but as they do exist, independent notability is established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since you claim reliable sources exist, can you please post them here so we can discuss them? Simply naming a few publication isn't actual proof that sources exist.--Sloane (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the post-February 2009 g-news link I offered above specifically included the news sourcs I listed and more, it's far easier per WP:SOFIXIT to expand the article and add sources as I go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Couldn't agree more with Schmidt. Gonchibolso12 (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG, due to robust RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie, not enough independent notability to sustain an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Five "sources". One source is the video itself. Two other sources are about the third film, not this film. The remaining 2 sources contain a combined three sentences about the film. Ehdrive (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Always problematic to opine on current state when there are so many more sources available[22], sources that did not exist in February 2009, that DO address the film directly and in detail, to allow a reasonable presumption that further improvements are possible. Meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG do not require that the article be immediately improved, only that in can be over time and with regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a reason why WP:GOOGLEHITS is relevant here. A quick glance at the search you linked finds most of those results from 2011 are comments on articles unrelated to Z:A; others are just blog posts. Trying to claim that there are "many more" sources based on that search is misleading. At least bother to check the sources before making a claim like that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did, and find your dismissiveness to be insulting and rude. But as WP:GNG and WP:NF are met, I will rely on others more willing to actually look, than simply spout. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't "rely on others." If there are valid sources, please add them to the article. So far, I see none in your Google search. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG, due to robust RS coverage. But i would not mind having all the zeitgeist movies from the Zeitgeist Series in one article, but simply merging them to Z1 would not do, The Zeitgeist Movement is not directly related to those films either, it should be noted that the Z-series by Peter advocate TZM but are not TZM. Check the Zeitgeist Orientation for more information on what is TZM: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Plenty of coverage, but maybe not notable enough to each warrant separate articles. Captain panda 07:25, 10 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of garage rock bands[edit]

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

This is a list of garage bands that is just that - a list of bands. There are no requirements for those on the list to meet the GNG, or even a set of list specific guidelines, as such it has become a list based on OR and is somewhat of a an indiscriminate collection of information. As it is right now I am reminded that Wikipedia is not a collection of links, even internal ones.

As there appears to be some confusion as to why this is here ("No real reason for deletion given, 'messy' doesn't count", "didn't read WP:BEFORE", doesn't know how to make AFD noms, etc): The blue links in my nom are hyperlinks that, if clicked, go to related policy and guidelines. This is a policy based nom. I had presumed that was obvious and those would be followed. In that case, and to be clear, I am going to explicitly cite the reasons it was sent here:

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files *including* collections of external links and collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria.
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists: Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. This section, not the page's name, defines the subject of the list. Ideally, the selection criteria will be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists): Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.
Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia does not publish original research.
Talk:List of garage rock bands: January 29, 2008 - ive got a feeling this is just going to turn into a massive list a wikipedians bands
Talk:List of garage rock bands: January 29, 2008 - As much as I hate these kinds of list pages, I don't think they're going to disappear anytime soon. I think we just need to be vigilant about the redlinks and maybe trim down the "revival" list.

Today is March 26, 2011. I do not see where the list has become anything more than what it was suggested it would become, and more. I hope that will make it more clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2 do not apply here. 3 is easily fixed. 4 is correct, and is already covered by the 'unreferenced' tag at the top of the article. I agree that entries should be sourced where they may be contentious, and am in the process of putting that into practice with a similar list for another genre. 5 will be covered when 4 is dealt with, although it's worth pointing out that original research doesn't mean anything that isn't sourced. 6 and 7 are editors' opinions, not policies or guidelines. There is no policy or guideline that indicates that a list such as this should not exist.--Michig (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to take that up on the related policy page and explain why you feel Wikipedia *is* a "vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing" and should be a "repository of links" where editors can simply add links to their favorite bands. Maybe when you do that you can also try to have the wording "for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria" removed as it does "not apply here", ("here" being any deletion discussions about a list where editors add links, including "propaganda, advertising and showcasing" and "external" ones, for their their favorite bands). And of course "6 and 7 are editors' opinions" - or are you saying editors opinion are also not valid? Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You described the above as "hyperlinks that, if clicked, go to related policy and guidelines" - I simply pointed out that the last two were not in this category, and carry nos such weight - what is your problem with that? The rest of your rant is a lazy and obvious misrepresentation of my comments. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a pretty clear fallacy to suggest that since User:Michig disagrees with your interpretation of policy of what Wikipedia is not they are in any way suggesting that Wikipedia IS all of those things Bob House 884 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty clear fallacy to suggest that since User:Michig clearly states that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does not apply to a deletion discussion of content that is explicitly in that policy as a "not" than, indeed, they are seen as suggesting that they feel Wikipedia *should* all of those things. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When they said '1 and 2 do not apply here' I have a feeling this was meant to mean that your first and second objections were not relevant or not properly founded, nobody is suggesting that deletion policy in general doesnt apply. Incidently I think you may have missed my point about the black or white dilemna. I'm going to cool off this point now anyway since its clearly not going anywhere, I'd suggest you do the same. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a list, and there's nothing wrong with lists. All such lists require the bands listed to be notable. It may need cleaning up and some criteria spelling out at the top, but there's no reason whatsoever to delete it.--Michig (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Never said there was anything wrong with lists. So as long as you are stepping forward to redo *this* list article and bring it up to policy and guideline specs I have no issues with withdrawing the nom. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not for cleanup. As WP:BEFORE states: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Since you appear to be happy for the list to stay if fixed through normal editing, this AFD is only going to have one outcome. --Michig (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sorry I mistook your "keep" as saying you were willing to take responsibility for improving the articles you gaily vote to keep. As you point out this is not a venue for discussion of article clean up, than I stand behind what my nom says. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid reasons for deletion set forth. Obviously Wikipedia has lots of lists on all subjects, including bands, and these are well-supported by consensus, so saying this is just "a list of bands" doesn't accomplish anything other than a banal description. General practice with lists of this kind is to exclude non-notable entries, even though this is not typically stated in the article title (though see List of notable Puerto Ricans), and this is not considered difficult to maintain: "Does this entry merit an article: yes or no?" So the complaint that "there are no requirements for those on the list to meet the GNG" is simply incorrect, and to the extent the list does contain non-notable entries, those can simply be removed. As for the lack of references, as garage rock is a recognized genre, and there are presumably reliable sources calling this or that band an example of that genre, that's completely fixable, and even where sources may disagree on genre, the list can be annotated to note that. The nom should read WP:BEFORE before starting another AFD. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No real reason for deletion given, 'messy' doesn't count. Also whilst a statement of intent to help fix an article might add weight to a 'Keep' vote, users are completely free to vote keep without having to adopt the article. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% unsourced and apparently gonna stay that way. Pretty much this is vintage "who cares if it's true" Wikipedia, with the content derived entirely from people saying, "The Kinks was a garage rock band, The Kingsmen was too, I think Strawberry Alarm Clock was, don't forget Paul Revere and the Raiders, yadda yadda yadda". The very first rule of an encyclopedia is WP:V, it has to be verifiable. We've come a long way from the "take my word for it" days. I get the feeling from the comments above that there's no incentive for improving it, simply because garage rock is such a great topic. Thing is though, we've got a page for that topic, and it's called Garage rock, and it lists bands as part of its narrative. What sets that article apart from this piece of nonsense is that it has stuff like, you know, proof. Mandsford 19:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is verifiable. There are more several books dedicated to garage rock which can be used to verify entries in this list, in addition to web resources. Any entries that cannot be verified can be removed - it doesn't require the entire list to be deleted.--Michig (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by your contradictory claims, within the same comment, that the list is both unverifiable and verifiable. You acknowledge that there is "proof" in the garage rock article, but only in the part of your comment where you try to use the existence of that prose article to justify deleting this one. Obviously the format of prose vs. list does not change whether it's verifiable, and any sources in that parent prose article can be incorporated into this list, as I have begun doing. postdlf (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - Keep the article but include a provision that only bands with independent WP entries can be added. That way we can at least make sure that not every high school kid with a guitar is adding his name to this list. Essentially, remove all red links. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just removed all of the redlinked bands on the presumption that they are nonnotable. Though red links in a list are not in and of themselves bad as long as the linked topic merits an article, even though one hasn't been started yet. Red links can thus aid in article creation by identifying missing article topics. But, on the other hand, a list of this kind, of a subject of this kind, is prone to nonnotable additions. So there it is. postdlf (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW, although I've heard of most of the bands that have articles, I haven't heard of any of those that you removed, so it seems perfectly reasonable that they should go, in the absence of any evidence that they belong here.--Michig (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of Michig, and Postdlf making improvements, so my original rant doesn't apply anymore. Mandsford 21:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fubsy-wubsy inclusion criteria, but the utility of this page as a source of in-links seems self-evident. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 10 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1313 Mockingbird Lane[edit]

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

Article on a local band from Albany, Ny. Released DIY product, received local coverage and zine coverage. Reads like a OR piece for the most part. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, that is a great name for a band. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Sources look valid, a good argument could probably be made to keep this, although I'm too lazy at the moment and the band seems all but defunct. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Munsters. Douglasi (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I recall this band from Albany, New York, as far as I know, they never played outside of Upstate New York, they never got much radio play, and they never recorded a LP or CD with a 'major independent' company. Thus they fail WP:BAND. The trivia section has nothing to do with the band. If anyone else can take a crack at rescuing this one, please do so. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 7 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. Most of the problem here was the criteria for NFOOTBALL but this isn't the place for that discussion, had he met GNG the outcome may have been different J04n(talk page) 17:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Donnelly (Irish footballer)[edit]

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

Cannot find any evidence of him playing in a professional league (Irish league is not professional). Cannot find any sources or references. Echetus Xe 14:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Echetus Xe 14:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep over 100 games at the top flight of Irish football and a winners medal at the European U-19 makes him notable. MLA (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Few WP:ATH policies are more totally screwed up than WP:FOOTBALL. Because of the ridiculous "fully professional league" focus, it includes players from extremely minor American professional leagues, and excludes those from those nations where the top league isn't fully pro. Here's the list of those leagues [23]-- if you're Irish, Welsh, New Zealander, Chilean, or another of the WikiProject's pariah states, the message is "get lost, we don't want your kind". On the other hand, if you played one game in USL Second Division for the Albuquerque Geckos, it's "Oh, a superstar, can I have your autograph?". Silly in the extreme, it includes many minor players and bars many major ones. I think that Donnelly would probably be notable, except that he made the mistake of staying in Ireland. Mandsford 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd second that. Teams from the 10th level of English football (that's 6 below the professional leagues) as well as some from even further down the chain are apparently notable yet players from the top league of Ireland don't qualify as notable according to this bizarre approach. Glad to see Mandsford take a stand. MLA (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment but players aren't notable for playing in the 10th tier. They would have played at a fully-professional level and dropped down the leagues. Otherwise, I'd advise nominating them for deletion. --Jimbo^[online] 22:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except he didn't stay in Ireland. He was at the English professional club Leeds United as a youngster, but failed to break into the first team there. The reality is that any Irish player of a reasonable standard moves to England at some point in their career. I would also like to know who these "major" players are who are not covered by the WP:NSPORTS criteria. If anything, they are too lax. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because a guideline is silly (and I completely disagree with that interpretation of NSPORT) in no way invalidates the guideline. NSPORT was established by a thorough consensus and I see no reason to go against it. Not having played in a fully professional league, this player fails NSPORT, and from what I can tell, he does not meet WP:GNG either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, NSPORT isn't silly, just parts of it. The idea of automatic inclusion of particular players makes sense, in that many of the people who qualify have been consistently recognized in encyclopedias on the sports that they play in. For the most part, the fans know the difference between big league competition and bush league. Even WP:NHOCKEY, which throws in some players from the minor AHL, has a rationale for doing it, having a 100 game threshhold, and taking into account that the NHL had only six teams for many years. The policy created by the soccer fans, on the other hand, is "in a league of its own". I think the big problem is that a list of fully professional leagues, made as a helpful guide, has been seriously misunderstood as a directive to bar players from the leagues of certain nations, and to include lesser level players of other nations. I think it's New Zealand where the national league is 93% professional, but not fully professional, buh-bye. I don't expect any single individual to know the relative level of competition of all of the leagues in the world, or the salary structure; and the soccer fans don't have the benefit of what would be a large player register, like we have for baseball and American football and such. But to me, the measure of a league or a division would be how many players it sends to its country's national team. I'm sure that the soccer policy will catch up to those of other sports, one of these days. Mandsford 21:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion wouldn't work. The majority of the Faroe Islands national football team players are drawn from the Faroese league, but nobody would seriously claim that playing in the Faroese league makes a player notable. It is also worth noting that WP:NHOCKEY allows all players from the fully professional leagues in other countries (Russia, Finland, Sweden), which is in line with the football policy. The 100 game requirement only applies to the relatively minor leagues (North American minor leagues or the Swedish second division). There is no such clear distinction in football between minor and major league. For example, the second tier of English football (Football League Championship) ranks ninth in total attendance in all sports in the whole world, ahead of the top divisions in France and Italy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But let's look at the other end of the extreme examples. You chose one extreme, the Faeroe Islands, which don't even have 50,000 people, to illustrate your point. Going the other way, does it make sense to apply that same reasoning to the Republic of Ireland, with more than 4,000,000? And when you throw in Northern Ireland, more than 6 million? Or to New Zealand, with 4.4 million? Clearly, the soccer policy isn't going to change, because there are too many in that particular project who think it's just fine. My suggestion wouldn't work, but I have a feeling that nobody else's suggestion would work either. Still, this isn't a discussion on changing that policy. For Mr. Donnelly, I'll simply say to people, look at the article about the League of Ireland and decide for yourselves whether it's semi-pro, or whether Donnelly's 100 games there weren't as a fully professional player. Mandsford 14:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject fails the WP:NFOOTBALL as he has only played in a semi-professional league, and there no indication he meets the general notability guidelines or made any notable achievements in his career. —BETTIA— ^talk 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CO-lapse[edit]

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

game in development. Unsourced and no indication of notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Noq, totally non-notable and unsourced. Support deletion of related article CO-Forma too as I imagine it will be contested. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:40, 6 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Film Organization[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion back in July 2009, which was declined because of an apparent claim to Oscar & Golden Globe nominations. In fact the article only claims these nominations for Connecticut, not the organisation itself. There is nothing in the article to suggest notability, most of the article is not even about the company. I can find no significant coverage of the organisation in reliable sources at all. Appears to be another marketing attempt from someone who is probably the "Social Media Manager at Media Haus Agency". See also related AFD for Tommy Swanhaus. Beloved Freak 12:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nom indicates, the article claims Oscar and Golden Globe nominations for the state of Connecticut, not for this particular production company. (Since those awards are not actually awarded by state, I assume the article means that productions filmed in the state received those nominations, but no source is provided to indicate that these nominations were received anyway.) The sources provided do not support notability of this company. The Newenglandfilm.com, TVWeek.com, and Variety.com sources are all about film and television production in Connecticut in general and don't mention this company. The source from Thestreet.com doesn't mention this company. And the Foxreality.com source is a broken link. Hence, there are effectively no sources. Also, I found no hits for this organization's name on Google News. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Metropolitan90. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORP. Possible redirect to its founder Tommy Swanhaus, if the founder's article survives its own 2nd AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Swanhaus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted in May 2008 for lack of notability. This version has existed since 2009 and I can't see anything that has been added that suggests he meets notability guidelines. There is mention of a "min" award, but it's really not clear whether or not that is what we would consider a significant award. It's also not clear from the reference whether or not Swanhaus was awarded this himself, as neither he nor Swanhaus Media, nor Interns are explicitly mentioned on that page. I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources, just a few trivial mentions, and significant coverage in social network/promotional sites. Beloved Freak 12:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Film Organization, four of the five sources provided don't mention the subject, and the other one is a broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per paucity of sources. The individual fails WP:GNG, and his being CEO of a set of companies that cannot themselves be determined as notable does nothing either. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've listed the notable (blue-linked) companies whose articles discuss their LIMS work at Laboratory_information_management_system#Notable_LIMS_providers. Sandstein 07:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of laboratory information management system[edit]

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

This list consisted of a large collection of external links to programs of unclear notability (see here for that version). Since then I have removed these in-text external links and replaced them by wikilinks. These are almost all redlinks, some could be redirected to an article on the company that produces these software packages. Some redlinks have been articles in the past, all were deleted as spam (a few several times). Not a single system has its own article. PROD was challenged, so I'm bringing it here to get more opinions. Personally I feel this list is mostly spammy and should be deleted, but I am certainly willing to be convinced otherwise. Crusio (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Most of links are redlinks; there's a total of five actual links in the list. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly merge to Laboratory information management system). I don't see enough actual products to justify a full list article, many of the bluelinks are in fact links to the companies, not the products themselves. OSborn^arf_contribs. 06:53, 9 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 sourcing is not sufficient for notability and for a BLP. The opinion of Kendrick7 is not taken into account as it is not based on Wikipedia policies. Sandstein 07:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifullah (detainee)[edit]

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

Subject appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and as such is not notable under the general notability guideline. The bulk of the references used appear to be primary documents per WP:PRIMARY and the article makes a number of claims about a living individual and as such has WP:BLP issues. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Misuse of primary sources in a BLP that presents the individual in a false negative light while secondary sources (here one [24] [25]) show that he is an innocent man that help the US and Hamid Karzai fight terrorists. In addition delete per general notability guideline as there is only one reliable secondary source that writes about him. IQinn (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and edit to stub - Subject is notable, even with limited news coverage containing his name; reference 8 has his name and date of release. However, the use of primary sources in this fashion, although seemingly just a laying out of the facts, makes the bulk of the info POV, in that it is told, through these documents, from the US government's point of view. It is therefore not surprising, for instance, that there is no document stating clearly how Sharifullah was treated during the 6 years he was illegally (according to international law that the US has previously aggreed to) held, nor is it surprising not to find a news story about it. How could someone write a full ariticle when the information is classified? On the other hand, basic information about his arrest and release, with a more neutral context could present a solid stub. How are other prisoners of the camp being treated on Wikipedia, is there a project working on this? I'm going to take a few minutes right now to look for other solid secondary sources. If I find them, I'll add them, and comment here. Nihola (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely having ones name mentioned and a date of release does not constitute "significant independent coverage", the threshold which must be passed to established notability. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and IQinn. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are a few more secondary sources. If the page stays, I'm happy to work on it with others. Nihola (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-20-guantanamo-transfers_N.htm http://humanrights.fhi.duke.edu/guantanamo-bay-beyond-the-laws-reach http://www.zcommunications.org/who-are-the-four-afghans-released-from-guantanamo-by-andy-worthington

- The Zcommunications.org article appears to be the same thing as this article which is already being used as an external link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you consider the other two sources acceptable? DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Zcommunication is just a copy of Andy Worthington the only sources that covers him in detail. The other two do not provide a lot of information so i would would say that this does not add up to "significant coverage" needed for pass WP:GNG. In any way i stub the article now to get rid of the BLP violations while GNG can be further discussed. IQinn (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Per the nom and IQinn, the subject fails GNG and BLP. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-20-guantanamo-transfers_N.htm – Sharifullah is mentioned in passing. ("The Justice Department identified those sent home as:
• Afghans Abdul Hafiz, Sharifullah, Mohamed Rahim and Mohammed Hashim.")
2. http://humanrights.fhi.duke.edu/guantanamo-bay-beyond-the-laws-reach – this is not a neutral secondary source. The page states: "The event will raise funds for Sharifullah’s and other detainees’ defense."
3. http://www.zcommunications.org/who-are-the-four-afghans-released-from-guantanamo-by-andy-worthington – this article is not a neutral source. The article states: "For now, however, I’d like to turn to the four Afghans transferred to the custody of the Afghan government, because, in contrast to the fearmongering of opportunistic Republicans, who continue to claim that Guantánamo is full of terrorists, the stories of these four men demonstrate instead the incompetence of senior officials in the Bush administration ..."
My own searches for sources in Google and Google News Archive have not returned suitable sources. I am not supporting a redirect because Sharifullah (detainee) is an unlikely search term. Cunard (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary sources are allowed as per WP:PRIMARY. There is no speculation being done here, which PRIMARY correctly notes as the concern (Original Research) with using primary sources. GNG etc are incorrect WP:CREEPs of the concerns in PRIMARY. Anarchangel (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want to change core policies that might not be the right place here. Primary sources do not count towards notability as per WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable for being an extra-judicial detainee of the U.S. government. Shame on Wikipedia if we insist on covering up such information. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shame on Wikipedia to have such a large amount (many hundreds) of crap articles about extra-judicial detainees. :) Article fails our basic notability guideline WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7, if you are going to argue that the subject of this AfD is notable please state what policy you are basing this on. Anotherclown (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little secondary sources. Fails WP:BLP.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it doesn't seem like there is enough coverage to warrant a stand alone article per WP:GNG. It is also a potential WP:BLP issue. Nevertheless, the subject could probably be mentioned in a parent article, so long as it was done in a way so as to not breach WP:UNDUE and so long as the sourcing is reliable. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Información Filosófica[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator after adding "reference" (link to DOAJ, which is not a selective database). PROD reason was: "Unreferenced stub with barely any information. Notability doubtful, apparently not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." This still holds, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weakening delete, but without prejudice, so article can go back up if secondary source for notability. Is it notable?

Mantenga débil - Hay aproximadamente 1,990 resultados en Google Académico para Informacion Filosofica, una indicacion buena para empezar. Whatever that means.Mantenga%20d%C3%A9bil%20-%20Hay%20aproximadamente%201%2C990%20resultados%20en%20Google%20Acad%C3%A9mico%20para%20Informacion%20Filosofica%2C%20una%20indicacion%20buena%20para%20empezar.%20 :) I added a source that it has been around since 1945, which for a philosophy journal is pretty notable in itself. As mentor-meta-me says, "I think this kind of duration is remarkable for a philosophy journal".

~~My vote is now weak keep, but I am not yet changing it to "strong keep", since I would like to encourage some other info to get into article.~~ A solid secondary source referring to its notability in some way would be best, but even pointing out some prominent article or author publishing in it would be a helpful start. ~~I will go check that its creators were notified of this discussion. PPdd (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)~~ From the department of redundancy department, "recitation of some notable articles or article authors would be helpful." PPdd (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PPdd. I added four references - two in Spanish and two in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noslackingnow (talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC) * I think that was a Keep from new editor Noslackingnow. PPdd (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Noslackingnow, if you want to keep, then you need to help out with some more info. PPdd (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1/ Philosophy journals have been around for much longer than since 1945. In any case, having been around for a long time is not one of the criteria for notability. If it has been around for so long and it has some notability, then sources should be available. Their absence is telling. 2/ The "sources" that have been added to the article are trivial. None of the listings given is a selective and notable database/indexing service. 3/ As for the Google hits, first of all, number of GHits is irrelevant for establishing notability. Second, there are not 1900 hits: searching for "Informacion Filosofica" I get 492 results. Many of those do not refer to this journal (the title means "philosophical information", so is bound to be used in other contexts as well). Indeed, one of the "sources" added to the article was about another journal (Pensiamento: Revista de investigación e Información filosófica; note that the previously mentioned Google search results will include this journal, too). None of the usual requirements for establishing notability have been met yet, as far as I can see. Given the paltry Google search results, I doubt this will be possible. --Crusio (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the "1945" is incorrect. The bibliographic info in the reference given indicates that this is about Pensiamento (see above). In fact, the home page of Información Filosófica lists only 14 issues, the first one published in 2005. --Crusio (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No additional info has been forthcoming from creating editor, not even reference to notability of any authors or articles. Crusio says the "1945 "info is incorrect. There is an inherent problem with foreign language sources, especially if the inserting editor does not provide clear tranlation for information in sources for verification. PPdd (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crusio. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:38, 8 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) 22:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Jay (director)[edit]

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

Promotional possible-autobiographical article about a filmmaker of questionable notability. No significant claims of notability (a short film in a festival, but no awards), no signifcant coverage in independent publications. Since "Ray Jay" is a very common term (over 2 million returns, most not about the subject) a Google search on his actual name ("Rehan Jainulabdeen") only shows 32 returns. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Links have been added to 2/3 [citation needed] areas. the reason to not have any references for the 3rd one (re-entry)at the moment is because the film is currently in pre-production. Ray Jay is a fresh filmmaker coming out from a country where cinema suffers because it does not have ways to get out. I believe that this young filmmaker deserves a spot here. this article will help Wiki readers from around the world know more about struggling filmmakers from poor country's. Please consider your nomination for deleting this page. There is a lot these people have to offer to the rest of the world but being unable to do so because of the lack of support that comes. Reena F.(talk), 18 February 2011.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because the films aren't interesting but because neither of the relevant policies WP:GNG nor WP:FILMMAKER is met. As the article does not make a claim of notability under any of the sections of WP:FILMMAKER, the real question is GNG. The sources in the article do not contribute towards the sourcing requirements of the GNG for the following reasons:
- "R13 Studios Website". WP:PRIMARY
- "Grindout Productions Ltd. Website". WP:PRIMARY
- "Hope - Short Film" WP:PRIMARY
- "South Seas Film & Television School Graduate Employment List". Link doesn't work. When the link is corrected to a link that does work, it is possible with some effort to find an entry which is likely the person that's intended [26], which certainly verifies some information but doesn't do anything to my mind to establish notability.
- "Med TVNew Zealand's original waiting room channel". Does not mention the subject of the article.
- "CHASE - The Showdown Begins". WP:PRIMARY
- ""Train To Kandy" Exported out of the timeline". WP:PRIMARY
- "Please Let Me Sleep on IMDB". WP:PRIMARY

I have made an effort to look for reliable, secondary sources to establish the notability of this filmmaker under the general notability guideline, and haven't had much success. The commonness of the subject's name does make searching more difficult, and it is certainly possible that I've missed other sources, so if reliable, secondary sources providing significant coverage of this artist are presented, or if I've misclassified one or more sources here, I'll be certainly glad to consider a change of mind. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 19:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "South Seas Film & Television School Graduate Employment List". Link works now.
- "Med TVNew Zealand's original waiting room channel". Does not mention the subject of the article-(because the subject does not work there anymore and the that company has removed all employed bio out Since 2008. Search 'Rehan Jainulabdeen MedTV" on Google and you will see the actual Medtv website appear but because the page was removed you cant see the page. If thats not sufficient, the south Seas Film and Television school link conforms that he was employed at Medtv.

He is known for his work in Sri Lanka but 98% of the local news papers do not have the articles published online until very recently . even then its only about 2%. Even the Television stations in Sri Lanka has just started making content available online.

Its up to you guys to do what you want. The tragedy is that these filmmakers will never have an opportunity to be known because they haven't been talked about in a Major paper or online source(international). How can they? when they do not have a way!--Reena F.(talk), 19 February 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Reena--Thank you for fixing the links! Unfortunately, that doesn't still leave us with a source that yet goes toward meeting the general notability guideline. Here's something that may help: One of the things that I should add is that it's entirely okay to source newspaper or magazine coverage from Sri Lanka, even if the article isn't on the internet, so long as the article really provides in-depth coverage of the individual. So if a reputable Sri Lankan newspaper (as an example) did a profile article on Ray Jay, that would be pretty significant. If a couple newspapers did (not republishing the same article, but different looks at the filmmaker in different years from different authors, say) that would be even more compelling. You'd want to make sure you included the newspaper name, author, publication date, article title, maybe a page number, so that other people who might have access to that newspaper could verify the information, but we do make use of off-line and non-English resources at times. It's also helpful in such cases to include a small quote from the article (a sentence or so that echoes without copying directly what's in the article), and a note as to what language the quote is in if the newspaper is not written in English. Hope this helps! --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 21:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentThat can be done. I will need a few days to gather all that information and make sure that i post them here the correct way.--Reena F.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 20 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) 02:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist is very good newcomer film maker from Sri Lanka and I think all people in the world also all Sri Lanka People living other country's needs to know about up and coming film maker from Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka television talk about him make film "Train to Kandy" recently on local film program. [User talk:Asanka Hits]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asanka Hitz (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Asanka Hitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Joe Decker, this article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER at this time. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be more Humane if the respected Wiki admins can change the notice from ‘considered for deletion” to “This article has multiple issues”. This filmmaker is supposed to appear on Sri Lankan National TV and another privately operating Sri Lankan Television Channel, Two news papers one English and one Sinhalese for his new film Train to Kandy. The announced timeline for the Television interview are in two weeks. This is really an insult to this filmmaker and other filmmakers from Third World Countries. They don’t get enough global publicity because of the cultural isolation. I am kindly requesting to keep this article until this filmmaker’s representatives submit more provable information to meet Wikipedia’s so called notably. ED HARRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Harry TKO (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — Ed Harry TKO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. While I wouldn't want to delete an article about a major filmmaker from Sri Lanka just because his films were not known in the United States, this article has not clearly established that this person is a major filmmaker. It is difficult for a filmmaker from any country to attain notability just by making short films, and apparently the only feature that Ray Jay has completed so far, Chase, is sourced only to a 30-second trailer on the IMDb web site. There is no indication that Chase has been theatrically released in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. As Joe Decker indicates above, most of the sources that have been provided so far are primary sources (his own companies' web sites, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) which are not independent sources to establish his notability. If Ray Jay is going to receive mainstream newspaper and television coverage in the future, that means that an article about him can be re-created in the future. Consensus can change; the more Ray Jay accomplishes as a filmmaker and the more he gets media coverage, the more likely it is that a Wikipedia article about him can be accepted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:34, 6 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 does not favor a strict interpretation of the GNG in this case. lifebaka++ 11:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarians for Life[edit]

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

Non-notable; the third-party sources cited are either trivial mentions of the group or do not mention it at all, couldn't find any better sources by searching. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I couldn't find other sources either. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are certainly a real group and in the 1980s were quite important (for example they had Ron Paul involved with them when he was their VP candidate. They have had other supporters as well, although they don't seem to be as active now. They really seem to have suffered in Wikipedia terms for the fact that they were mostly active before the Internet really took off, although I do remember reading about them in Liberty in the late 1980s and early 1990s. JASpencer (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help find sources on them, then? Being a "real group" doesn't make them suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:EXISTENCE), nor does their association with notable people (WP:INHERITED), but if you can find sources on the group, that could prove that they are notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible bars for the inclusion of coverage of political parties and their youth sections in Wikipedia without regard to their ideology. Libertarians for Life is an organized pressure group within the Libertarian Party and has been engaged for about 35 years. The group has been responsible for editing a special issue of the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. The Ron Paul movement looms large in American politics and, contrary to an argument made above, there is as case to be made awarding "bonus notability points" for a group's connection to an influential and historically noteworthy individual such as that Texas obstetrician. This is the sort of information that students will seek in the course of their research and it makes no sense to apply a stringent interpretation of notability guidelines in this specific case. Admittedly, sourcing leaves something to be desired; however, a cursory google search for the specific phrase "Libertarians for Life" returns a rather staggering 137,000 responses, indicating that this organization has more than coffee klatch status... Flag for better sources if you must, but deletion strikes me as ill advised and altogether draconian given the historical significance of the organization, its potential interest to Wikipedia users, and the fair quality of the page in question. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help find sources on them, then? You cite their historical significance, but this is not attested by any sources (note also WP:GHITS and that these hits are almost entirely from blogs and anti-abortion sites, rather than reliable sources). If any actual quality sources are found, I will withdraw. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Carrite, and the subject matter is notable enough to be useful, verifiable information --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Google books, Google news archives, and Google scolar. There are quite a few reliable sources listed there. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that I "couldn't find any better sources by searching," so your helpful suggestion of "search" is a bit useless. These are trivial mentions that do not satisfy WP:ORG (ie. mentioning the group in a big list of "pro-life" organizations). If there is a specific source that you have found, could you link it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly along the lines of Carrite's reasoning. There is sufficient coverage out there about this group to show notability, putting it beyond the vanity-political-party articles which get sent to AfD sometimes.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link some of this "sufficient coverage," then? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Carrite. - Haymaker (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link some of these sources which Carrite claims exist? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was also familiar with these guys back in the 80s and my own feeling is that they are notable. However, my own google news search only shows trivial mentions (ie mentions of various "Foo For Life" type organizations) so I won't bold anything. If there's coverage then it's going to be in offline archives of dead tree publications. I also suspect that may they have coverage in various college newspapers. I was also asked to comment on the non-admin closure attempt. When I started doing NACs back in 2008 I probably would have punched this "keep" but in my more experienced days I probably would have left this for an admin to close. However, in this case, Alpha-quadrant's close should not have been reverted by the nominator. (or any other involved party) The proper thing to do is to first ask the closer to revert his own close and/or ask a neutral admin to review the close.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do that if it should happen again on another AfD. Thanks. (As for sources, do you think it might be worth a resource request? Maybe someone has these old libertarian publications...) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Libertarian perspectives on abortion, the lack of significant non-trivial coverage precludes a stand-alone article. J04n(talk page) 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraan Amod[edit]

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

Fixing incomplete nomination by BANGALOREBUGGY (talk · contribs). Feel free to close as bad faith if it is so. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is not the best, a simple search reveals plenty. It's not bad faith, it's just a noob. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. as an admin you should know google searches are flawed for establishing numerous sources LibStar (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bearian is right.. a simple search turns up alot of info. I say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a simple gnews NOT google search shows a complete lack of indepth coverage. [27]. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 6 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) 05:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bosnia[edit]

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

Was listed for speedy delete "This article is based on the term made up on Wikipedia, by nationalists. There is no single source related to this term.. For valid criteria, see CSD.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a flamebait, or at least a flamewar magnet. It seems to have been created a while ago by a single-purpose account. Without a single reference, it's completely untenable. I looked around other translations and saw links to:
- a reprint of an article - V. Jerlagić, Ideja “velike Bosne” nikada nije zaživjela (The idea of "greater Bosnia" never took off), Avaz, 2007?
- a book - Tomislav Bogavac, Nestajanje Srba (The disappearing of the Serbs), Niš, 1994.
- a book - Gavril Zanetov, Западни български земи и Сърбия (Western Bulgarian lands and Serbia) История и етнография, 1917. [28]
None of these seem like particularly reliable sources to support the actual existence of the idea, or at least I don't see the notability. Certainly seems more like yet another fringe theory given undue weight with a standalone article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per Joy. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Doesn't appear to be a genuine and notable movement at any particular time. MLA (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "Greater Bosnia" has a few GHits (some are mirrors of this article), but I can find no generally accepted meaning, nothing to support this article, and nothing which appears to be a reliable source describing a notable concept. Also, Treaty of Berlin (1878), which is linked in the article, doesn't mention it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental issues with shipping[edit]

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

I am also nominating

Each of these are simply content forks of Ship pollution, some simply taking a few sentences and stretching them out into their own article. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand . These are 3 different situations that should have been nominated separately if nominated at all. . Environmental issues with shipping is a sketch for a more comprehensive article than the present Ship pollution. They should be merged, and the title environmental issues with shipping' is the better title. "Ship pollution" can equally well mean the pollution of ships as the pollution by ships. Ballast water and the Environment is a considerable expansion of the relevant section of the present article on Ship pollution, including a section of examples by country that can be when developed much too large to fit into the general article. Cruise ship pollution is again a considerable expansion of the present general article. I commend the effort to develop this topic, which can and should be the subject of a number of more specific articles; what is mainly needed is further expansion, not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination fork. "Env issues" is obviously the least developed of them, and it was not appropriate to nominate two other obviously better articles with this one as an example. Agree with merge for the main nomination, but not with the names; we have a rare chance here to get away from the rubberstamped WP name format, let's take it. Another term I would take every possible rare opportunity to avoid would be 'environment', which, as I understand it, is a synonym for the specific term 'habitat', and is used in an erroneously broad sense meaning all ecosystems; Ecological is almost always the better term, if there is a chance to use it. Anarchangel (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per above. Also, I've expanded a bit on a few of the sections. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 13:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Also, just because an article is not in the best shape does not mean it's worthy of deletion. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three since they are distinct and notable topics but Cruise ship pollution can almost be a merge and redir with Ship pollution. If anything all the nominated articles should be merged into Environmental issues with shipping being the topic that covers all the articles. However, I do not want that since the article should be expanded. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:18, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Jelly[edit]

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

Non-notable webcomic; fails WP:WEB, as it doesn't seem to have received significant coverage from reliable sources. (The only good sources I could find are [29] and [30], neither of which seem particularly reliable.) It hasn't received any awards or had any appreciable impact on the wider world. I also note that this article was previously speedy-deleted in 2007 under WP:A7; that doesn't quite apply any more, but it still doesn't pass our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, absolutely nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, tagged as needing sources since 2008, fails notability, just a mess of original research. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:26, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shenyi Center of Chinese Medicine[edit]

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

Shenyi Center of Chinese Medicine appears to be an advert with no RS to support its existence as notable, yet it has been up as a one sentence article for three years, with only its own web page advertisement as a “source”. Its creator has made no contributions to Wikipedia except to create this advertisement[31]. An anonymous editor appears to be furthering this advert by posting a link attached to the completely unrelated “bear’s bile” paragraph, in the completely unrelated “endangered species” section of Traditional Chinese Medicine here[32], and again here[33], ignoring WP:UNDUE and WP:ADVERT (and the fact that it has nothing to do with the paragraph or section it was inserted in. This appears to have been done in order to create the appearance of not being an orphan, as explained in the edit summary here[34]. That article should not become a directory of TCM suppliers, notable or not. Normally, it would qualify for a speedy deletion, but it has already been up for 3 years, so I am bringing it here. PPdd (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No justifiable reason for keeping this unnotable stub. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 21:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, nothing to indicate notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 22:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HyperCast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Taking this to AfD as an article with this name was previously AfDed, I don't know if the content was the same or not.

Prod reason was: "No indication the software meets the notability guidelines." OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the PROD rationale; I honestly thought it was web content, which is why I tagged it A7, but this works just as well (and shows you how much I know about computing). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is the same software as before, but the article is considerably fuller, though still showing no independent references: relisting to see whether anyone can find any. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)notability[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note If you are looking for citations, try looking at http://www.comm.utoronto.ca/hypercast/papers.html Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per Guymacon.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 11 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 00:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Food Paradise TV[edit]

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

Article fails GNG. Sources are all to blogs, which in turn fails WP:V. Google search gets hits for a show on Travel Channel called "Food Paradise" and a website for what might be the company, but a website doesn't notablity make. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Nothing found at Google News. Google hits mostly relate to the Travel Channel show of the same name. The "references" at the article seem to be mostly paid advertisements on Yelp! --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 13 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 00:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talal El Merhebi[edit]

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

Quite obviously an autobiography by Tmerhebi (talk · contribs). Not sure about notability. bender235 (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a former member of parliament in Lebanon, and a former government minister with several portfolios, he clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged but are not forbidden. Improve through normal editing rather than deleting. Cullen328 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for his parliamentary membership? None of the refs in the article supports that claim. --bender235 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are two issues here. The first is the notability of the subject, which would be satisfied by a reference confirming the term in office. No problem there. The second, though, is the concern that the article is Autobiography. It's possible, and there is precedent (as I recall), that an article on an otherwise notable subject might be deleted if it is flawed beyond repair. Is the authorship sufficient to taint the article? I don't know. But deleting the article in order to make a fresh, neutral version might well be justified. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These sources linked in the article confirm that the subject was a member of parliament. As said by Cullen328 any neutrality issues associated with this being an autobiography can be addressed by editing, and deleting the article and its history would hamper any efforts to improve it. Nowhere in WP:AUTO or in deletion policy does it say that being an autobiography is a reason in itself to delete an article, so I would advise bender235 to stop nominating articles for deletion with that rationale. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article were so riddled with Non-neutral COI shenanigans and Autobiographical self-promotion that removing problem content would leave nothing remaining, then deletion should absolutely be the option. But if its that bad, chances are it would qualify for speedy deletion as spam, which is not the case here. Quite the opposite, per below, I think your source is sufficient to keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:AUTO was never my rational for deletion. It was just some additional information. --bender235 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep elected member of Parliament and apparently a Minister makes him clearly pass the notability criteria. MLA (talk) 12:58, 6 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. lifebaka++ 16:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Stans[edit]

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

The article does not unambiguously address the WP:ARTIST criteria. The stamp referred to was the result of his painting winning a competition with over 200 entries rather than a commission. The only mentions in GNews are of a couple of paintings being auctioned and the stamp, there appears to be nothing to demonstrate the types of significant impact defined by ARTIST. There are no significant matches in GBooks. The article has been flagged as needing sources for four years so improvement in the near future seems unlikely. Fæ (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm pretty certain European artists who have designed several stamps have been found non-notable in the past, though I certainly can't recall a name. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I'm raising for AfD rather than prodding due to the stamp being potential evidence of notability and worth wider discussion. In this case, as he was not commissioned directly as a designer but was a competition winner, I could draw a parallel if the winning artwork had turned out to be created by a school child - they might win a prize and have their design on a stamp, this would not make them encyclopaedic-ally notable. Consequently I believe the ARTIST criteria need more evidence that the stamp, such as having permanent exhibits in notable museums or public galleries. Fæ (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In addition to the stamps, he was commissioned for the 2009 Minnesota State Fair poster, and got a bit of coverage in the Minnesota press for that.[35][36].--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable, local credits perhaps, but seems too local...Modernist (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would keep because his work is widely known and searched. I have personally found his National Parks Series to be popular decor in offices and have found numerous searches online for information about the series. Based on my experience finding his work in Beloit and Janesville, WI, and seeing internet searches from across the country, he clearly has a profile beyond Minnesota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.166.112 (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly notable but not there yet. News and book mentions seem to very much in passing, and regular Google results don't appear to support notability either. Could possibly be something offline but without any evidence I can't support keeping. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Login System[edit]

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

Non-notable open-source project. Unable to locate any secondary sources. PROD contested in 2008. Pnm (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources for this article that has been around for over six years. The topic is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I support this very less trafic on page and seems without any reference and i guess non noteable to users also.--Its019 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't grumble, fix it. I just tried to log on to my Wikipedia account and found a new option I did not understand (and still am not sure about), "Gobal login". 1st thing I did was put "Global login" in Wikipdia. Ya' think? Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another come-and-go single-signon system without any indication of notability. Nageh (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glossu Rabban[edit]

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

Minor character in the Dune series and does not have significant coverage outside of the films and novels. Sadads (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character was major enough to appear as a credited role in both movie adaptations of the award-winning novel, and some of the later, cheezy prequels. Note that "Beast Rabban" redirects here, and is the more usual name for the character. Multiple Google News entries, multiple non-fiction references at Google Books (the first page is mostly the primary fiction, hence me linking to the second page of results), and Google Scholar reveals a gem or two like this. Finally, there's no good cause for deletion, because a merger to somewhere else (e.g., House Harkonnen) is clearly preferable to a deletion under Wp:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article may need work, but certainly all of the primary characters in 1965's Dune are notable!— TAnthony^Talk 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fictional character does not appear to have notability by itself since it appears that there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Google hits, be it in the main search engine, in Google Books or in Google news, are trivial mentions, reviews about the plot of Dune or any of its adaptations or primary sources. No reliable secondary source treats the fictional character in detail so it does not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline. The article itself is a plot-only description of a fictional work, so, with no critical commentary or real-world notability, there is no reason to keep the article. Dune is notable, but notability is not inherited to every content fork related to it. Jfgslo (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 6 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) 23:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M4V[edit]

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

Seems to be few references avaliable for this piece of software. May not warrant its own article TehMissingLink ^Talk 20:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion, but if result of debate is to delete, I suggest that M4V be turned into a redirect to List of M postal codes of Canada. This is the postal code prefix for much of central Toronto. --NellieBly (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MPEG-4 Part 14 as variation on file extensions for MP4 files. If possible, merge salvageable content describing Apple container details within the body of that article. Nate • (chatter) 09:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information that is presented is useful, to an extent, and in my opinion should remain available for others to peruse. 74.226.136.38 (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) WebSeeker[reply]

what uses M4V other than ITunes? TehMissingLink ^Talk 18:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 6 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nazzaro[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notability claim is winning some kind of recognition from a magazine. Too weak to meet guidelines.--v/r - T P 03:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(hang on) {{Deprod}} Prominent promotion executive Has met guidelines by work (a) has become a significant monument (Promoting Taylor Swift -instrumental in breaking the careers of Top40 artists Taylor Swift, Amy Winehouse, Colbie Caillat, Jay Sean, Kevin Rudolf, Hinder and Owl City selling over 50 million digital downloads combined. Nazzaro's achievements at Universal included promoting Taylor Swift's single "You Belong With Me", which on October 13, 2009 became the first country crossover No. 1 at Pop Radio since the radio airplay list adopted Nielsen BDS-monitored data in 1990. Also has won industry honor as listed in wiki (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicnewyork (talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd dispute that an award from FMQB is a "well-known and significant award". Secondly, notability is not inherited. A good example of a "well-known and significant award" are the Grammy Awards. I've removed the {{deprod}}, as this is an article for deletion, not a proposed deletion; I'd encourage reviewing WP:AFDEQ, WP:GD, and WP:ATA. tedder (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my above comment, fails WP:BIO with the sources given. tedder (talk) 22:09, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 6 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) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WiseStamp[edit]

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

It's a web browser extension for social networking, and it definitely exists. However, the article doesn't have sufficient independent references for notability - the TechCrunch review doesn't count toward notability, since it's just a one-time review - and the editor who declined the prod mostly made reference to sources that are just more trivial reviews. Unless there's evidence of real notability, this should be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote in the edit summary[37] the extenstion has been covered by more than one reliable sources[38], that's Wikipedias threshold for notability (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Please detail why this isn't notable ("that review doesn't count" and "this is trivial" is vague). In addition, according to the TechCrunch article it had 1 million installs in its first week.

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 6 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. If someone find more sources then this can be recreated. Will userfy or incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peeron[edit]

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

Can't find any RS for this article, just forum posts and the website itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is RS? I'm still adding more sources and external references, if that is what you meant. Please don't delete this, it is relevant. --ArachanoxReal (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it does suffer from single-source-only problems, but there are many other articles out there that do as well. I'm sure this will improve as time goes by. Can we please close this and not delete the article? I'm pretty sure it's not irrelevant so it does have its right to exist I believe.

--ArachanoxReal (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that other articles are sourced in the same fashion as this one does not make it acceptable. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, the problem isn't that the article relies on a single source, its that none of the sources are independent of the subject. That is a very common reason for deleting articles. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to be a reasonably well-known site, but it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I do find it mentioned and listed as a resource but that's not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if some more RS could be found that would be tend towards a "keep" in my opinion. Other sites mention and link to it, do any of them comment on it? At the moment it doesn't look like a keep. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:56, 12 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 00:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayano Koshiro[edit]

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

WP:N -- Probably accurate, but I can't find reliable, secondary sources which provide coverage for this video game character illustrator to establish notability or even really verify the primary claims here. Additional sources would be warmly welcomed, of course. joe decker ^{talk to me} 07:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Completely agree with the nominator. The best I could find was this and it only lists her in the credits, when I looked at the site closer I realized it was a fan site so even this brief mention isn't sufficient for inclusion. Reading the article one would think her work on Ys was significant but she is not mentioned in that article. J04n(talk page) 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources have been found yet. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 14:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:09, 9 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. JIP | Talk 09:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beer tac toe[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Wikipedia is not for things a few drunk people made up. -- Selket ^Talk 07:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no claim of notability for something made up in a pub one day. MLA (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I usually tag these sorts of things as hoaxes, and they usually get deleted as such; something made up a day ago by some drunks doesn't (to me) qualify as something that really exists. But I suppose AfD will work just as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. see here Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral district of Ingleburn[edit]

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

CSD was declined by Grahame. This article has information and text similar to http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Electoral_district_of_Ingleburn. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 06:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the wordlingo page is a copy of the Wikipedia article, not the other way around. There are many mirrors and forks of Wikipedia that have copies of our articles. In fact, the page you linked has this text in its footer: "the original article is from Wikipedia. To view the original article please click here." If you're in doubt about a potential copyright infringement, you can post on WP:Copyright problems where other editors can examine the situation instead of immediately tagging for deletion. Zachlipton (talk) 07:08, 6 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 for deletion, default to keep. Big Dom 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Levin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet even the basic criteria established in WP:BIO. After looking at the sources, and the available information found on the web. I see no reason why this page should be kept. The only reliable source is the "Register" article talking about how he mismanaged OPN funds, the rest are just links to freenode.net, unreliable "chat news" sites (the citations to which I have removed), and a page that he himself wrote. In addition, this seems more like a memorial than anything else. A guy who has been dead for years will most likely not become notable in the future, either. LiteralKa (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale behind the second AfD is even more relevant than ever now:

WP does not have an article on the creator of DALnet, Dalvenjah, nor the original admin of EFnet, Greg Lindahl. Those networks have at times been much more popular (and are much more legendary in the IRC business) than Freenode. There is no reason to consider it as anything else. [...] It isn't notable enough to warrant anything other than an article about the network itself (which we have).

Sad to say, I find no citations for his death AT ALL, his death, even, is hardly notable.

I would also argue that the PDPC is not notable, but I will wait and see how this deletion discussion goes, first. LiteralKa (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Let me see... IRC is notable, Freenode is notable, and was founded by him. The previous couple deletion discussions were practically Snow Keeps. An important piece of internet history. Eauhomme (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited. LiteralKa (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Computers are notable. Computer Security is notable. I helped found Goatse Security which is also notable. Can I have my own article? nprice (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED, which specifically recognizes that notability is regularly "inherited" between notable creations and their creators. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I would argue PDPC is not notable. Second, WP:NOTINHERITED also says that "parent notability should be established independently". Can you establish independent notability for Rob? I sure can't. LiteralKa (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge As best as I can tell, he is a very successful person who is "notable" in the general sense of the word but does not meet the technical requirements for notability here. He doesn't appear to have had articles written about him specifically, so I think the relevant information about him should be merged into the works that he has created. There are only a few paragraphs here, so that should be pretty easy. I'm more than willing to strike my !vote, however, if someone with better research skills than me can find some detailed articles about Mr. Levin himself. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support a redirect for the reasons that Mr. Marshall eloquently explained below. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same. LiteralKa (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep sorry, he's notable, he was notable then, he is notable now. notability is not lost because people do not want to think that the history of an irc network is not notable. please revisit and rebut prior afd's before nominating with the same old same old, if you think you can argue against those afd's and win, fine. but this nomination is the 4th, even jimbo said lilo is notable, i mean come on.....--Buridan (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where did Jimbo say that? Would you be so kind as to provide a link to him saying that? (You should probably read WP:JIMBOSAID.) I would also suggest taking a look at the dates of the last AfD's. (Hint: they were right after he died, the entire reason for keeping the page was because he died.) LiteralKa (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - it is actually in the archives of the discussion page... and no... they aren't right after they died. two were, and the last to were a year and around the next year. still doesn't change the situation, notability doesn't go away and you should have read the old one first and not even started this one. and one thing you really shouldn't do before an afd is to stip the article for content... it makes us question the purpose of the afd.--Buridan (talk)

Strong Vote for PURGE (delete) There's very little redeeming quality in this. I've got to agree with the person who nominated this for deletion, there's only one real reliable source for this, and we can't accurately call the freenode.net or freenode blog sources "reliable". --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep This is an obvious troll Kunwon1 (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)— kunwon1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yes, an obvious troll with noble intentions. Go back to plotting my downfall, kunwon. LiteralKa (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Vote for Keep I'm not sure how a person can not be notable and yet have their death as a major story on Slashdot: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/06/09/16/2152243/Rob-Levin-lilo-of-FreeNode-Passes . Rob created freenode and ran it. Maybe he would have done interviews with blogs and that sort of thing if he had known that some jerkfaces were going to come on here and continually try to make this page not notable. The man has been dead for years now, and this continues to keep going on? Seriously, this is childish. The deletionists need to back off. User talk:The_Tick —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC). — The_Tick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Slashdot is not a reliable source, nor was it a "major story". You are greatly exaggerating the importance of this man. I would also appreciate it if you didn't call me a "jerkface". :x LiteralKa (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say that Slashdot is a source of variable reliability. I think it's sufficiently reliable in the case of this particular story. --RussNelson (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - They cite IRC logs. Not very reliable in this case. LiteralKa (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Maybe he would have done interviews with blogs": then he still wouldn't have any reliable sources! LiteralKa (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I do NOT believe this is a legitimate CfD since the person issuing the call had eviscerated the article prior to deciding that it should be deleted. This kind of behavior should not be rewarded. RussNelson (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CFD applies to categories, not articles. The page literally cited IRC logs and blogs about IRC. These were clearly not notable and needed to be removed. And there didn't need to be a section on the origin of his nickname, either. LiteralKa (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that this behavior was unhelpful, but it doesn't automagically invalidate the policy-based arguments in the AfD rationale; just like we shouldn't reward LiteralKa, we should not keep a deletable article just to punish them. WP:ADHOM. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize for removing citations to blog posts and an "IRC chat mag" as well as a section about the origin of his IRC nickname. LiteralKa (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - When police use unlawful means to get information, they are punished by having that information banned from the courtroom. Applying the same principle, this CfD should be immediately resolved in favor of Keep. If, at some time in the future, someone else (not LiteralKa) is inspired to delete this article, they can re-open a CfD. Perhaps you disagree? Then I think at a minimum, LiteralKa should be prohibited from arguing his case, since he tried to prejudice it by removing arguable citations. If there is no penalty for prejudicing a CfD, it will happen again, and again. --RussNelson (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think someone is removing reliable sources from an article it is best to bring the matter up at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. It would be wise to review the page on Identifying reliable sources first though. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The nominator does not really own an AfD, the closing admin makes a decision based on the entire input received. If a user is acting in a disruptive manner, this weighs heavily against them and may even get them blocked. But if an AfD discussion is grounded in the deletion policy, it continues. Had this process been entirely improper, an admin would have closed it already. The criteria for that is described at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been plagued by subjectivity since many years ago, and this discussion is following suit, sadly. AfD is not a vote and if everyone registers strong opinions that just looks silly. Anyway, the article is really short on quality sources. Significant coverage by secondary sources is very scant. IMO, Rob Levin's personal notability could derive from the basic fact of running OPN/freenode/PDPC for some time, but this may reasonably be contested as not particularly notable per se, not only because of the general notability guideline but because several other people held positions of similar importance/relevance in these organizations and aren't considered notable enough just because of it. However, again IMO, the actual source of his personal notability would be his running OPN/freenode/PDPC in a manner that attracted much negative attention in the community at the time. This should help the notability argument in general - he didn't just fulfill a role, he did it in a manner that was noticed. Yet, that could be contested as unverifiable because apparently we've lost (or never had) the reliable sources attesting to the variety of peculiar practices that made him stand out in a negative manner. Once the article is gutted of this information, it does look non-notable - a lot of people found charities and a lot of people operate IRC networks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the meantime I skimmed the previous AfDs, and found that none of them seemed to demonstrate much in the way of WP:RS for notability - it was mostly people offering personal opinions on notability, rather than demonstrating reliable sources for it. This looks like a good place to remind people of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge With the unreliable citations gone, the article does not have much basis. I suggest full deletion, or possibly merging with the PDPC or Freenode articles. I think a delete would be best though, due to the limited number of citations. Harry (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

are they gone, or did someone remove them without first checking to see they were in archive.org? or otherwise available? --Buridan (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that by "gone", he meant "removed from the page, as they failed WP:RS". LiteralKa (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strange they were reliable for what 3 or 4 years.... and now they aren't. i wonder why the webpage doesn't mention the change in standards somewhere. --Buridan (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were never reliable. The page was deleted during the first AfD because of that. That's a logical fallacy: "because they were used for so long, they must be reliable". If this were a more well-known article, perhaps that would be true. But it isn't. LiteralKa (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - This biography already passed AfD three times, the last two not even close. Notability is not temporary. Improve through normal editing. Move along. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC
- It failed the first one, and the only reason the last two passed were because people were emotional because of his death. Also, the last AfD is five years old. LiteralKa (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guys, please stop using this quick retort style, you're not helping your arguments and it's detrimental to the discussion process in general. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate how your comment isn't a case of WP:NOTAGAIN. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eauhomme, although there is a possibility that some of the content could be copied and pasted from http://sportifi.com/Persons/Rob-Levin/bio without permission of the copyright holder. Minima c (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge As per nom, fails to meet basic requirements of WP:BIO Acostoss (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peer-Directed Projects Center. I can see a convincing argument that Rob Levin is not independently notable, but "non-notable" doesn't mean "delete". "Non-notable" means "shouldn't have his own article". And if we've decided he shouldn't have his own article, then it's very stupid to turn Rob Levin into a redlink that encourages an inexperienced editor to write one; and besides, "Rob Levin" is a plausible search term. We can be more helpful to our end users than just giving them a redlink. A redirect would take them to some of the information they seek, and there's no reason why Peer-Directed Projects Center shouldn't contain a sentence or two about Mr Levin. In terms of our formal procedures, we're supposed to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before we delete this material, and a redirect is a perfectly reasonable alternative.—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dismayed at the level of emotional investment that LiteralKa is showing here by feeling the need to post a retort to every "Keep" vote. Make your own arguments and let them stand on their merits, please.
Myself, I'm leaning toward keep: the article has only one RS right now, but I find it very hard to believe that more could not be found. Obituaries, for example, are published, so someone who's willing to do the research would likely find his (which is probably in an ungoogleable 2006 local newspaper), thus sourcing the bottom section. I say that "improve before deleting" applies here -- people have put work into the article, and that work shouldn't be lost simply because some Wikipedians would prefer to delete an article than to find sources that almost certainly exist. rspεεr (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- believe me, I tried LiteralKa (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - LiteralKa, please stop doing that. You already pasted the same link above. Once is sufficient, twice is annoying, especially in the form of a one-liner. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously the person above did not see it. LiteralKa (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is a cursory Google News search relevant here? You said above that you couldn't find a reliable citation of his death. I suggested that it might be in a newspaper not indexed by Google. You retorted with the same Google News search you posted before. I am aware that simply dying does not confer notability, but in my view the article isn't lacking notability, it's only lacking verifiability which a newspaper article would easily provide. rspεεr (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I linked to it to show that I did try and find sources. That's not (nearly) the only thing I did, just an example of it. LiteralKa (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in case you did not page back through the history to see the fairly well cited version of the page [39] with the non-notable sources that if we look back through who put those non-notable sources there.... in the history of wikipedia, etc. --Buridan (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:RS. LiteralKa (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have, thanks, i just find that things like slashdot are reliable sources, and I know the gentleman who ran the other major source writes for various newswires and is a professional journalist, or at least was at the time. The sources that are there are wp:rs reliable sources, could they be encyclopedia articles... and as such even more reliable.. yes, but they are perfectly reliable as is. I know you have your perspective, but, i'm not sure you should take it to extremes of enforcing that opinion over top of several prior afd's, but a bit of what we call 'judgment' and consensus-building is sometimes called for in these cases, much more so than your perpetual attack and defense. --Buridan (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure who you're referring to as the other major source, but let's discuss Slashdot, I searched it a bit. Keith Dawson published user submissions about Rob Levin's death [40]. Timothy Lord once published a submission by Rob Levin himself [41]. As for freenode, Rob Malda published one submission about a freenode incident [42], and Jeffrey Bates published a submission about an OPN upgrade [43] as well as a submission about Debian channels moving out [44]. There were also some other passing mentions of OPN and freenode, and nothing about PDPC. Even if we take all of the above as notable coverage, I'm not sure it really qualifies as significant coverage of Rob Levin. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - i was referring to chatmag and slashdot primarily, which constitute the majority of removed sources, though there are some others that could also be retained without wp:rs concerns. As for notability, I think that has been already established in prior afd and the policy is that notability does not disappear. the question then is what happens when the documentation or opinion about the notability disappears. 90% of the professors listed here as notable won't be notable 100 years after they die.... then what do we do. We either delete everyone that was once notable, like we are doing in this debate, or removing them. I think it is something very interesting to debate, but I don't think this is the forum, and as such I think we should still keep this as a marker of history. but as a researchers I'm very big on preserving verifiable data.--Buridan (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe your assertion that the previous AfDs "established" notability is correct. Each discussion had numerous people indicating in pretty clear terms that they didn't see how the notability was demonstrated, and in fact the one that had happened while he was alive had resulted in the deletion of the article, and not just because Rob had requested it himself. The thing is, we need to apply the same criteria on him as we do on all the old professors. The gist of it is - if people had *ever* written a modicum of secondary sources about him, then that supports a Wikipedia article about him. It doesn't matter if they were written while he was alive, when he died, or 100 years after he died. Right now, there's a single such The Register article listed. That's the whole point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        but there was much more a week ago, and they were perfectly fine sources. There were over 10 sources about his life and work. Yes, in the past, some people disagreed about notability, but he passed notability 2 times and they were all arguments about notability. We will in 100 years be able to strip most bio articles of content based on lost sources I'm betting. That's how history works. If we put the sources back in, or just revert the article to the last article version that passed afd on notability, it should be fine. My argument is that 2 fold here, to reiterate. 1. he is notable and we have had in the past verifiable sources toward that effect and 2. that he is notable because prior arguments about his notability, while some disagreed, the consensus, several times was that he is notable. Following from the idea that notability does not disappear, just because someone edits the article, or time passes, then a once notable article subject is still notable. --Buridan (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        They weren't perfectly fine sources. There was a blog about IRC "news" and a slashdot story that referenced IRC logs. That fails WP:RS, hard. LiteralKa (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        chatmag wasn't a blog, we had this discussion above. it was the journalists website. it was meant to be what was... in the day an electronic magazine, that never found funding. --Buridan (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "Welcome to Chatmag.com, the leading Internet Directory and assistance site devoted to Internet Chat." -- Uh, yeah. It's a blog. LiteralKa (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        assumptions are awesome aren't they... they make you think you know.--Buridan (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep per Eauhomme and Buridan. Bellagio99 (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as involved with at least one notable organization/project (freenode) and also cited as involved in newsworthy controversy. Per Reg article, he's apparently got some personal independent notability besides just some guy involved with freenode (i.e., it's not just inherited). I'm troubled by deletion of some of the content and blanket claims that certain sites are completely non-reliable, even for simple factual statements. For example, archive.org isn't responding for me right now, but do we really not trust http://lilo.freenode.net to be a viable source for freenode.net's main figurehead's death-date? Baby, bathwater, etc. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm mainly troubled by the fact that he apparently wasn't notable enough for anyone but bloggers to comment on when he died. LiteralKa (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete No prejudice to recreation if notability can be demonstrated, but no arguments made in favor of keeping. Mandsford 13:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Yong[edit]

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

Is this artist notable? Nothing in the article gives me an impression that he is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. To answer, I don't think he is - not yet. Google searches turn up nothing much to indicate notability, and clearly a web page in China has his art showcased - but it's a single website. Going weak because I'm not a specialist in Chinese art, let alone art in general, but I'm inclined to defer to those a little closer to the general scene and can do this without there being a conflict of interest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was completely unable to find any mention of him in any news articles when I looked. I don't believe he meets WP:ARTIST at this time. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 07:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 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. NW (Talk) 03:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger blood[edit]

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

Created as a hoax (if you don't know what this is about, google Charlie Sheen Tiger Blood) Yaksar (let's chat) 04:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is indeed a hoax. This page can be seen linked as a joke on Reddit, in fact. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 05:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 (hoax). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Definite hoax. Would suggest disciplining creating user as well. LiteralKa (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. It may have been created as a hoax but tiger blood is indeed used in traditional medicine. There is no hoax content in the current text of the article, and speedy G3 certainly does not apply. Thparkth (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Changing to neutral. Persuaded by TheFreeloader, I have no opinion on whether the topic justifies a separate article - but I am certain it is not a G3 candidate. Thparkth (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge/redirect. Originally it was created with some Charlie Sheen nonsense, but that bit is gone now and what's left has been rewritten - and tiger blood really is part of traditional Chinese medicine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per the two comments below, I don't think we can justify a standalone article - I support merge, possibly with Traditional Chinese medicine, and redirect
Delete or make into a redirect to tiger. While tiger blood may have some role in traditional Asian medicine, it has not been established that that role is significant enough for this subject to warrant its own article. I think, until that can be done, this topic should be discussed in the section on traditional Asian medicine in the tiger article.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per TheFreeLoader. Even 'mainstream' small-parts-of-big-animals, like rhinoceros horn, don't get separate articles. gnfnrf (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I badly want to see this redirected to Charlie Sheen, but perhaps Tiger is a more fitting target. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this has the potential to become a notable meme–so I have no prejudice against recreation if it does. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Charlie Sheen. If y'all take a look at the very first version of this article, just started, it's clear that the intent of the article was not to educate about a valid aspect of Chinese traditional medicine, however esoteric, but rather to write a Wikipedia piece about Charlie Sheen's recent bizarre phrase about himself having "tiger blood." In short, the entire intent of the article was specious. If there's a need for discussion of this topic in Chinese medicine, or the destruction of rare wildlife to create such a product, this is most certainly not the place for it. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the speedy was rejected. I'm in favor of a redirect, but redirecting to Tiger on account that Charlie Sheen says he is infused with it is not logical. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The justification for redirecting/merging to tiger is that tiger blood is a minor element of traditional Asian medicine, and we even have a citation for it. Charlie Sheen is a red herring. gnfnrf (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, indeed. Good point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this should be redirected, it should be done on the basis of what most people over the longer term will be expecting "Tiger blood" to be about - will people expect it to be about tigers or about Charlie Sheen? Surely the former is of much wider global significance than a one-off utterance by an American movie star? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, this Tiger Blood obsession of Charlie Sheen's is getting mentioned quite a bit, at least in the U.S. [45] I will agree that it is too early to redirect "Winning" to Mr. Sheen, however. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The incident seems to be pretty much unheard of here in the UK (and I'd guess anywhere else outside the US) - that TV show doesn't appear to be much of a hit here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just found this, which talks about his being fired and quotes a sentence with the word "TigerBlood" in it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

My latest google news search got 2,827 hits for "tiger blood" ("tigerblood" got about 500), but you're right-they're almost all American (but a few Canadian!) outlets. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where this could potentially redirect to is an interesting topic. Tiger blood use in chinese medicine appears to be scant and trivial, so I would oppose that. A redirect to Tiger would be logical, but then again seems wholly unnecessary; as dumb as it seems, I think Charlie Sheen may be the most logical redirect location if a redirect is made. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it does seem to make sense. In the end, the encyclopedia is for the readers, and, at least for now, most of the people searching for "tiger blood" are probably doing so because of Charlie Sheen. But then again, I think an outright deletion makes the most sense, and I also would completely understand if somewhat disagrees with my logic behind what the best redirect would be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect I really think that deletion just is not the answer. Redirect to Charlie Sheen while it is still current (however long that will be) or even Tiger, but either way Tiger Blood is all too relevant in this day in age for deletion. You're either with me or you're with the trolls on this one.--fatmandan420 (let's chat) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:AGF and please don't call people who disagree with you "trolls" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For those who haven't been following every second of Charlie Sheen's life this week, Fatmandan's !vote above is quoting Sheen's new tagline: “You’re either in Sheen’s korner or with the trolls!” in his above vote: [46]. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, my apologies then - please allow me to withdraw my admonition and replace it with a smiley - -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this does seem encyclopedic on its own. No reason we can't have a little disambiguation notice at the top sending people to Charlie Sheen, at least for awhile (the long-term staying power of Charlie Sheen memes remains to be seen). Kansan (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand A minor ingredient in "Traditional Chinese medicine" does not merit an article of its own, but has some encyclopedic merit. While not strictly applicable, the principle behind WP:1E should be followed. By the time this discussion closes, this brief notoriety may well be forgotten. There's enough behind the article that it should be kept in the context of the bigger picture, but renamed "Tigers and traditional Chinese medicine" or something like that and discuss all body parts/components and the impact of bone (not blood) on endangerment. If done, it should be a "See also" for Traditional Chinese medicine#Tiger penis.Novangelis (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing to expand. There's one source that makes a passing mention of tiger blood in medicine, but it is certainly not "widely" or significantly used. ~~The other source seems to just be there to strengthen the hoax, and has absolutely no mentions of blood in medicine at all.~~ Turns out both sources do address blood, although I still stand by the fact that they are incredibly passing mentions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the sources more carefully. I added both of them to the article, and I was not involved in the original hoax - in fact, I don't know who Charlie Sheen is (and I'm quite happy in my ignorance). This source says that tiger blood is claimed to "build up the constitution and strengthen the willpower". This source repeats that claim, and references 2,000 year-old-texts for the belief. Neither is intended in any way to "strengthen the hoax" and both explicitly mention tiger blood. Thparkth (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I echo what Thparkth just said. The article has changed significantly since its initial creation, so any claim that this is a hoax needs to be claimed because it is now reliably sourced. Kansan (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to expand would be to focus on the major ingredients (mostly bone) and their impact on wildlife and to bring the minor role of blood into context. Just about anything that could be said about the blood is already written, and will never stand as an article on its own, but the temporal discussion of tiger blood revealed a previously under-explored (see Tiger, Tiger in Chinese culture) topic which merits encyclopedic inclusion. The first source in the article is enough for a bare bones (no pun intended) expansion and there are other sources available. It might be merged into "Traditional Chinese medicine" or another article after expansion. Without expansion, merging would give blood undue weight.Novangelis (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Speedy delete as joke, redirect to Tiger. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Once again I am dismayed to find some flavor-of-the-week from the cable media's tabloid-like obsessions is a actual wikipedia article. A dumb charlie sheenism cannot be salvaged into a legitimate topic. Some minor twaddle about traditional medicine can't rescue this term from its unfortunately eternal meme associations. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we shouldn't even acknowledge Charlie's stupidity. Redirect to Tiger#Traditional_Asian_medicine is appropriate. -- Y not? 16:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted directly above - this doesn't need to be its own article. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 9 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 Maryland Route 200. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Maryland Route 200[edit]

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

Do not need an article to ramble on about the opposition of the road. This could be condensed into a paragraph in the Maryland Route 200 article. Dough 48 72 04:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge horribly NPOV, tons of quotes, should be covered elsewhere. Not sure if anything can be salvaged here to be merged, though, the content may need to be rewritten. --Rs chen 7754 05:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge back into parent article. The article is well-sourced, and there was significant opposition to the highway while it was in the planning stages. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the section had not been split out of Maryland Route 200 in July 2009 for being so large, and so if we don't keep the material on this title, it should be condensed and merged back to the main article about the highway. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Half of the article is quotes (a Wikipedia no-no), and it is horribly NPOV. "Well-sourced" is not the only criterion for a decent article. --Rs chen 7754 05:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then one can certainly refine the article without deletion. There was indeed significant opposition to building the highway, and to delete the article in whole would be a back-handed way of dumping the content about the opposition. It's certainly encyclopedic and sourced, but could certainly stand to go through a few rewrites. That's what I'm getting at - put it through a few rewrites and perhaps a merge, but don't dump the subject matter outright. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am changing my !vote to a straight keep, but that said, the article certainly needs a few rewrites. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wrote much of it, and I do not consider myself to be the best writer out there (and I appreciate comments above and below). Opposition to this highway is one of the major (maybe the major reason?) that construction on the road did not start until about 2008, and that opposition needs to be documented. It also documents a very important policy issue in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties from about 1970 to 2008. I probably would prefer it being part of the main Md. 200 article but I don't feel strongly either way. Cpzilliacus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I strongly disagree with Dough4872's contention that this article could be condensed into a paragraph in the MD 200 article. The opposition (lowercase letter O) to MD 200 is well documented, very in-depth, and an integral part of the history of the highway. I recognize and fully agree that the article itself is none of the qualities in the last sentence, is poorly written, and violates many, many of Wikipedia's guidelines. That does not mean the content is insignificant. Whatever our reaction to what is in the article now, we must recognize that this article has great potential as a standalone article if it is done right. This is a process that will take a lot of time and energy and involve the work of multiple editors. The information in the article should be kept and gradually refined until this article starts to become a product from which we do not recoil and perhaps have some pride in. V C 05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been much opposition to other highways in the United States. Do you support having "Opposition" articles for each and every one? --Rs chen 7754 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not supporting Opposition to Route X articles here, although I realize what I said can be interpreted as such. I dislike the fact that this article exists. Rather than trying to set a precedent, I am arguing against hastily getting rid of this particular article at this point in time. I am arguing for giving this article a chance to become something much better than it is right now. In that process, the editors may find there is sufficient information for this article to exist to fulfill Wikipedia's guideline of summary style. Or the editors may find the information in this article would better work being integrated into the history section of the MD 200 article or included in the History of Maryland Route 200 article. I argue for keeping this article at this moment in time because I do not agree with the rationale provided by the originator of this deletion discussion and, frankly, think it is hasty and poorly conceived. V C 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then the article can be sandboxed. As it stands right now the article is horribly unencyclopedic, and by definition, the scope is NPOV. --Rs chen 7754 06:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) That's a bit of a loaded question, because you know full well that no one would support a wholesale creation of opposition articles for every single highway project that ever had opposition. However, if a section about opposition to a highway is well-sourced and becomes too large for the article that it is in, it should be split out as the need arises. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the point here is that I'm sure that MD 200 isn't the most opposed highway in the U.S. So why does MD 200 get an Opposition article when no other USRD article has one? What makes MD 200 so special? --Rs chen 7754 06:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the original route 200 article. A minor note is the South Pasadena gap section of Interstate 710, but more importantly, the article does not need a split for size at this point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, merge and redirect to the parent article. As a case study, M-6, the South Beltline Freeway in the Grand Rapids area of Michigan was proposed in the 1940s, seriously proposed in the 1960s, added to state transportation planning and funded by a gas tax increase in the 1970s, studied and opposed in the 1980s, finally engineered in the 1990s and built between 1997–2004. The article on the highway covers all of the events without undue weight, without NPOV issues, and it does so in one article. There are way too many quotations, and just too much detail that in necessary for this highway. It borders on, if not outright breaches, WP:RECENTISM. Major cleanup is needed. My tool of choice would be a machete, not a scalpel. Imzadi 1979 → 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article and the history section were spun down from the main MD 200 article in July 2009 per WP:SIZE. The main article is now 56K, the history is 39K and this article is 40K. Also, a merger proposal was left open for 16 months without a merger back into the main MD 200 article. This top has drawn considerable press attention for three decades and has been a major topic of local political debate and election campaigns. I nominated the history article for GA, which prompt a few editors active in WikiProject US Roads to get involved in the three, and to quick fail the GA nomination. We must apply general Wikipedia policies and realize that the topic covered here - major environmental litigation and political activism - is beyond the scope of any one WikiProject. WP:GNG governs and the press coverage that the opposition to MD 200 drew over the past 30 years is sufficient to establish the notability of this subject. Racepacket (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the items you cite about MD-200 also apply to M-6 in Michigan, yet one single, concise article was written that does not give undue weight to any one part of the subject, nor did it require the creation of subarticles. I have several dozen additional news articles at my disposal on the South Beltline Freeway, an article you reviewed at GAN, but that doesn't mean I need to clog the article with more and more and more detail until it bursts at the seams. There are two options to deal with large articles. One is to split them up. Another is to condense the information to avoid giving undue weight to topics. I don't believe that MD-200 needs three articles in total for a 20-mile highway in a suburban setting that's been proposed for 40+ years and spawned major opposition and significant press coverage, when the analogous situation in Michigan is done in 3000 words in a 38-kilobyte article. Imzadi 1979 → 08:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That comparison requires an analysis of the extent of press coverage and reliable sources for the opposition of the two projects. Is M-6 become a big issue in a state-wide campaign for governor? If so, I would support a separate article. The only legitimate concern is avoiding a POV-fork. I would not want to see the proponents of a project isolating the criticism and opposition into a "Opposition of Highway X" article. That is not the case here. This article meets notability and complies with WP:SIZE so it should be kept. Racepacket (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have merged the information from this article into the opposition section of the Maryland Route 200 article. Dough 48 72 02:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've undone your merge since there is no consensus to do so, but I have taken the merged text and placed it here, which is still a very substantial article that takes care of the quote farm problem and explains it all very well. This is a perfect example of one of the rewrites I was talking about. Thank you for proving my point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My merge solution was intended to show that this article can be deleted as the information would be covered elsewhere in a condensed format. Now this article looks awkward by using my condensed section version. Dough 48 72 03:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then let's give it a few more once-overs. That's why I said "a few rewrites". SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You still fail to show how this information cannot be adequately covered in the MD 200 article. --Rs chen 7754 04:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some way shape or form. The ICC has been one of the most contentious road projects in the DC area, so the article is clearly notable. On the other hand, the amount of text is enormous and too large to cut and paste merge back into the original article. I wonder if it might make more sense to have an "ICC controversies" article instead that included the existence controversy and maybe the bike lane controversy? I would also support a condensed merge. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MD 200 article along with the history article also need to be condensed, cutting back on excessive quotes and redundant information. With the material from this article merged with the condensed main MD 200 article, the article size will not be too bad. Dough 48 72 17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once notability has been established, the AfD inquiry is done. Editors are then free to add sources and details as they see fit to the article. Again, this article is beyond the scope of any one WikiProject, and general Wikipedia standards should govern its further development, regardless of the preference of any particular Wikiproject. Racepacket (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of excessive quotes and detail is still poor prose quality, regardless of WikiProjects. Dough 48 72 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A major objection seems to be the extensive use of quotations in the article. However, WP:QUOTE says, "When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editor of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be 'from Wikipedia'." I believe the use of quotes and the resulting length in the article is appropriate. Condensation with a "machete" is not needed here. Racepacket (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to use direct quotes when what is being quoted can be summarized. Dough 48 72 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The quotation from WP:QUOTE takes a different view. Racepacket (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - While the quotes follow the guidelines, they are still not needed as there is no need for direct quotes on this subject. Dough 48 72 14:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main measure of notability for WP is if the subject has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." So people who want to save the article should be looking for sources which tell the story of the opposition, not references which tell the the individual facts of the story. I feel confident that the former is out there. Currently the article is full of the latter. If the story of the opposition can be shown to have received "significant coverage" such as two or three feature articles in a major newspapers or periodicals, then it should kept. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MD 200 has received notable coverage concerning opposition. However, this coverage can be mentioned in the main MD 200 article. No other U.S. road has a separate opposition article. Dough 48 72 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SPLIT says (and I quote), articles greater than 60K "Probably should be divided" The size of MD 200 was raised on its talk page and the consensus was to split it into three. This is one of the split articles, so it should be separate from the main MD 200 article. The second argument regarding "No other U.S. road has a separate opposition article" makes no sense. Montgomery and PG Counties are 32% of Maryland's population, so a high portion of Marylanders are affected by MD 200. The ICC was an issue in the campaigns for Governor. Just because Grand Valley State University does not have a in-depth article does not justify stopping editors interested in writing multiple high-quality articles about Harvard University from doing so. The test is not whether the article has a depth of coverage of interest to one WikiProject — the proper test is notability. If people interested in Maryland politics and Maryland history want to generate in depth coverage of the Intercounty Connector, then WikiProject US Roads has no right to stop them or to insist on only superficial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the stuff in the MD 200 article isn't encyclopedic and doesn't belong there. --Rs chen 7754 07:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is a content dispute question that is not resolvable at AfD. It is also not governed by WP:USRD/STDS. Racepacket (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with a significant shortening back to Maryland Route 200. This is an overly detailed content fork, and having this as an independent article is a POV issue. It should be summarized in the main article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and History of Maryland Route 200 into Maryland Route 200 The actual content of the two subsidiary articles is not that large; WP:RECENTISM has simply made far more material available to the online researcher on a controversial road with a complex history, and in each case most of the content of each article is in references which are pretty much duplicate two and three times over. There's no real need to split these out especially since the historical/controversial matter is really what is of most interest; the niggling detail needs to be cut back. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Maryland Route 200 - the latter is only 50kb total and can soak it up. We have lots of bigger articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - nothing really warrants this being its own article. The article on MD 200 would still be of an acceptable length if this information were to be placed there. Still, nothing warrants a delete. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question that needs to be decided here is whether the topic is encyclopedic, which is established by guidelines, and which it is. The merge back to the base article is best left unresolved here, leaving that decision up to the involved editors. The POV treatment in the Opposition section of the main article speaks to the decision that was made for a separate article. Regarding the current version of the article, it has been properly sanitized, removing POV and excessive quotes, but probably needs some zest added with responsible and appropriate short opinionated quotes. Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the content fork, and any remaining POV fork contentions now that the article has been sanitized, these are discussed in WP:Content forking. Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV states, "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view." Unscintillating (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps merge. The current article suffers a lot from WP:PROSELINE. The subject of the controversy over the construction of this road definitely should be covered, but at least as of now what is at Maryland Route 200 and History of Maryland Route 200 is better written. Furthermore, WP:NPOV (section containing "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally") would seem to advocate a title like "controversy over" and/or the "history of" one, rather than "opposition to". I don't think the coverage of this subject should be shorter, but I would focus more on the various pros and cons and less on the "on such-and-such a date, so-and-so a politician had a news conference" kind of stuff. Kingdon (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see Interstate 69 in Indiana#Controversy and Interstate 69 in Indiana#Protests, where two-dozen "protestors" spray-painted the state capital building in 2005. In comparison to "opposition", "controversy" seems to be an idea that people can't be opposed to a road without also being controversial about it (could be true, seems POV). Unscintillating (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "controversy" is not a POV term. Wiktionary defines it as "A debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife." I would say that by that definition, this was a controversial road, and I would support such a rename, because it actually is a bit more neutral than the current "opposition to" title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan for keeping this article separate, but were it to be, it needs to be "Controversy of" or "Criticism of" or something more neutral. --Rs chen 7754 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Controversy over Maryland Route 200. "Controversy" does not take an "of". SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (I guess it could be a plausible search term) per Jim Miller, who sums it up succinctly. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Seesahai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vishnu Seesahai

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

I can't find any reliable and independent sources confirming that Vishnu Seesahai is a notable filmmaker. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete a look at the IMDB profile claims he's directed 2 movies, both of which are so obscure they haven't received the requisite 5 votes to get a star rating. Most high-profile work seems to be martial arts coordinator on something called "Zombie Strippers". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The martial arts claim is verifiable, but is a bronze medal enough to be notable? At the very least, references to his film work should be deleted since he did not play an important role in any films of note. Rotmo (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rotmo, could you add any reliable links confirming his Taekwondo medal, please? If so, I'll gladly withdraw my nomination, third place from a World Championship is in my opinion notable enough for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:58, 8 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 per CSD-G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Discovery (Born of Osiris album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL Eeekster (talk) 00:39, 6 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) 04:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women Teachers Training College[edit]

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

Notability - appears to fail WP:EDU. No real information.

The nomination is incomplete. The college appears to be real, but the article is not even a stub. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched on the Internet for sources, and found lots, but about different colleges and schools. I'm not sure any of them are notable. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some sources and created content for the article. I believe the school is notable -- it's the only school of its kind (although I don't yet know what "kind" that is) in Bangladesh, it has existed since at least 1952, and it occupies a building of historical and architectural interest. For future reference, the trick on finding sources was including the town name in the search string. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of Orlady's excellent work in expanding and referencing this article. Cullen328 (talk) 15:20, 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) 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass the bar for educational institutions, pretty well cited at this point. Also, looking at WP:EDU, I didn't see any standards for an article to fail. Monty845 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, when this article was nominated, it had no text or references -- only an infobox. By most "standards", that's not an article. --Orlady (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Orlady's improvements.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:19, 6 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 Centrozoon. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Wöstheinrich[edit]

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

I don't believe that this person is notable enough on his own, and this page should perhaps redirect to Centrozoon D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article has had a {{merge to}} template on it for nearly three years, but seemingly without the required discussion being started. Is there any reason why the nominator didn't simply follow up on that tag by starting a talk page discussion or simply boldly redirecting this? Merging and/or redirection don't require an admin to hit the "delete" button. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. As far as a merge tag with no discussion, I've been doing these for a while and about 75% of them have no discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to centrozoon. No indication of separate notability via GNG after a search for sources nor WP:MUSICBIO, redirects are cheap. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Butler (author)[edit]

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

After looking through a variety of searches, I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this person in detail. It may be that I just can't find them, but unless they are found, article does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG; I don't believe that the Mythopoeic Award itself is notable enough to guarantee notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as an author according to our rules: first, his most important academic work, "Four British fantasists : place and culture in the children's fantasies of Penelope Lively, Alan Garner, Diana Wynne Jones, and Susan Cooper" is in 236 libraries, and has been reviewed in the standard book review source CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries Dec 2006 v44 i4 p645, School Library Journal Oct 2006 v52 i10 p192 , Reference & Research Book News August 2006-- & the academic journals Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 32, no. 3 (2007): 273-275, Children's Literature Annual 2008 v36 p251(6) , Marvels & tales. 21, no. 1, (2007): 172 (Wayne State University Press). Another academic work, Teaching Children's Fiction is in 148 libraries. . And for his fiction: Timon's Tide is his most widely held and reviewed: over 300 libraries & reviews in Publishers Weekly July 3, 2000 , Center for Children's Books Bulletin Sept 2000 v54 p9, Kirkus Reviews June 1, 2000 v68 p792 , School Library Journal June 2000 v46 i6 p142, School Librarian Summer 1999 v47 p98 , Voice of Youth Advocates June 2000 v23 p123 His other fiction, Death of a ghost "The fetch of Mardy Watt" i, "Calypso dreaming", The Lurkers" all in about 100 libraries and with reviews also. Summer 2007 v55 i2 p100(1) The library holdings are minimum figures--he's a UK author and I'm giving the counts from WorldCat, which greatly undercounts UK public libraries--and this probably makes more difference for children's fiction than almost any other genre. . 3rd party reviews in reliable sources are the secondary sources that prove the notability of creative people or all sorts. CHOICE is as reliable as they come. I have added the above information to the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, CHOICE review. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the AfD, based primarily upon the addition of the reviews. I don't think being found in a few hundred libraries meets any of the criteria listed under WP:AUTH or WP:GNG, but the multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews is sufficient for both GNG and the specific guidelines for creative people. DGG, I'm going to drop a note on your talk page regarding the reviews. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - To elucidate, I consider the presence of books in very large numbers of libraries as showing , for academic works, widespread influence in the subject; for fiction and popular non-fiction, best seller status. The number the shows this varies with field and nature of the book. It correlates very strongly with book reviews, because libraries buy books in large part on the basis of book reviews. The book reviews were found with Book Review Index a paid service, but available in most libraries. A complementary paid service is Book Review Digest. There is no free equivalent. I will be glad to check these when asked. They are immediately available to me and it takes only a few minutes. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 6 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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bytemobile[edit]

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

Advertising Corvus cornix_talk 05:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author and not sure why this is being suggested for deletion. The page is not an advertisement, simply general information about the company. If there is something specific that I am in violation of, or that should be altered, I'm happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile Generation (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author, and have gone through and modified again to be sure that any possible "ad verbiage" has been removed. Can you please remove our listing from the "articles for deletion" category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile Generation (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References listed on the article are mostly from the corporate web page or are press releases - these don't convey as reliable sources. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything interesting except for a quick blurb or three - mostly press releases. This said, we're not a repository for corporate information - this is what a corporate web page is for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References are to press releases, top 100 lists, and the like. Vague PR-style description of back-office software: provides network capacity management software for operators of mobile networks delivering multimedia services to their subscribers. No showing that this product has had significant impacts on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author, thank you very much for your comments. We are currently working on updating the content that will fall better in line the your guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile Generation (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TechRadar[edit]

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

Article only exists to identify that this site exists, but does not indicate why it is notable. Appears to fail WP:WEB and WP:NOT#INTERNET. Only references are from Alexa and the company that owns TechRadar. BurtAlert (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes this article is skimpy but an Alexa search indicates TechRadar.com is in the top 300 web sites in GB, nothing to sneeze about. Maybe it is just a matter of getting someone interested to edit it? - I would hate to see this go down the drain Ottawahitech (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has nom gone to the trouble of doing a google news search? I'll admit I'm not familiar with the site, but even 30 seconds of searching shows that this easily passes WP:WEB. I just wonder why nobody's got round to writing a proper article about it. Bienfuxia (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No reliable source to establish notability —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Pocketbook[edit]

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

"Source" provided in the article mentions it extremely briefly and in passing, and doesn't appear to be necessarily reliable in any case—it looks rather like a blog. Searching for sources doesn't yield anything better, just their own Facebook page and the like. It does not seem that there are sufficient sources to sustain this article. Author is, according to his edit summaries, affiliated with the publisher for this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 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) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Distinct conflict of interest, and the article is somewhat promotional flavored - but not enough to make me call G11 on it. Aside from this, this publication still doesn't seem to have much in the way of notability. Can't work with that unfortunately. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real reliable source to establish notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:38, 7 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 Extended periodic table. Big Dom 00:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbitrium[edit]

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

Redirect to extended periodic table (as do other unnotable synthetic undiscovered elements). This article basically includes just trivial information; the predicted atomic mass is unsourced. The "trans-periodic table" has a complete lack of resemblance and relevance to the standard periodic table (link: [47]). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Until the time when there is scientific activity in terms of attempted synthesis, relevant theoretical study, etc. to add to the article, it is best redirected to extended periodic table. ChemNerd (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 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) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No purpose to it having it's own article space. Anyone actually searching for info can just view what current info there is at the extended periodic table.AerobicFox (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, with a nod to the fictitious acknowledgement in Star Trek. Unfortunately, beyond that, I don't see this working in WP yet. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has information like the Star Trek info in the bottom and is verifiable. 174.112.211.143 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's a fictional use of unbitrium, and besides, the trans-periodic table has no resemblance at all to the normal periodic table (see the link I gave above). If that's all there is to say, we can redirect the article and place the Star Trek info in the articles mentioned by Guy Macon. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. star trek trivia can be placed in the extended periodic table article, i suppose.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extended periodic table. The star trek trivia belongs in List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles and/or List of Star Trek materials, not in Extended periodic table. Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is science related, and elements 122 and 124 have articles. Fotaun (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If someone is reading through Wikipedia articles, its convenient to have continuity of articles up to the edge of understanding. Fotaun (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note

Element 122 is notable because of Amnon Marinov's claim he discovered it in natural thorium samples.

Element 124 is notable because of GANIL's claim to have synthesized Element 124 nuclei.

Element 126 is notable for being located at the theoretical island of stability.

Element 137 is notable because, as Richard Feynman noted, in the Bohr model, anthing larger would require electrons that exceed the speed of light.

Elements 123, 125, and 127 through 136 are not notable.

Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh, and to finish up:

Element 119 is notable because of Lougheed et al's attempted synthesis.

Element 120 is notable because of JINR's attempted synthesis, GANIL's claim of synthesis and GSI's and RIKEN's planned future attempts at synthesis.

Element 121's notability was disputed by me, but its AfD was closed as keep.

Elements 138 and above are not notable.

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for creating Template:Infobox unbitrium, and for introducing me to the magical land of Meta-WP, where templates are created for articles which are deleted; I hope the template will be used at some future date. Anarchangel (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Template:Infobox unbipentium for another example - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbipentium (2nd nomination). (Incidentally, although the 1st nomination ended with redirect, it was for some reason not followed through!) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is simply not going to be considered significantly until unbiunium (121-ium) or unbibium (122-ium) get synthesized. Even though this is my first edit at AfD, I have something to say about this element (123-ium) and other transactinides: other than their discovery, they are pretty much non-notable because they are so radioactive. (Thanks, La-138!) FRE YWA 07:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Other things aside, high radioactivity could be an argument to keep. Fotaun (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but by that same token, we ought to keep every period 8 element and period 9 element, just because they are all highly radioactive. That's obviously not going to happen (editors are not that logical), but keeping this (which has no useful information at the moment - no claims or attempts at synthesis, for example, which is a huge blow to the article's notability) might start off a chain reaction of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untribium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the consensus is pretty clear now. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For a fairer assessment, the article needs to add some of the theoretical physics work done on this element. Is there a nuclear physicist that can help us? Fotaun (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge- I think at the moment Unbitrium is quite interesting _{I realise that alone won't stop it being deleted} though stubbish, whereas extended periodic table is very dense and overly technical. The Extended periodic table article doesn't mention the word Unbitrium, so it would be confusing for a reader to end up there from the redirect. Does the claim that Unbitrium would be the most stable make it notable? If we decide this isn't notable then merge, but it would be a shame to lose the information altogether.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would think that it's not too notable (as it mentions that Ubt-326 would be the most stable Ubt isotope and not the most stable isotope) - unbihexium could really be the most stable isotope of all elements in this region, which is why it wasn't even nominated for AfD. Extended periodic table does link to systematic element name, which explains the naming. (As of now, elements with Z > 139 redirect to systematic element name and those with Z ≤ 139 that aren't notable redirect to extended periodic table, but you could bring this up at WT:ELEM for discussion.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:50, 13 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Centurion[edit]

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

Article created by a member of the organisation, via AFC. The cited sources fall into four categories: (1) The organisation itself; (2) Dead links; (3) Trivial passing mentions; (4) No mention at all.

The article as written is therefore a directory entry with no independent sources to demonstrate notability. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 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) 00:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob House 884 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Bob House 884 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see what there is to rescue, the article is a decent stub/start its just that there are no significant references to the org. Current refs are 3 dead links, 3 articles about Ms Hotaling (who had nothing to do with the organisation it seems, they have adopted her legacy) and one self published art which confirms Laura Lederer is indeed involved in GC.

Gnews grabs 9 results, of which a couple are obituries of people who have donated to GC, but most seem to mention it once, and only use it to establish Ms Lederer's credentials (e.g. 'the vice president of policy and planning for Global Centurion, an organization that fights child sex trafficking') - do we not need to establish notability before investing in rescuing the page?

(I'm not a SPA by the way, over-zealous Sinebot I think) Bob House 884 (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kansas City considers the organization notable enough to mention it and quote the head of the organization who they seek out to question for the article. Google translation of a Spanish news source [48] shows much of an article about human sex trade covers this organization and its founder. Her research and work is done through this organization. Dream Focus 14:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The source DreamFocus cites mentions the organization, but as we all know, a source must discuss the subject in "significant detail" to qualify, which it does not. Furthermore, WP:ORG specifically debars "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" or "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" as being valid evidence of notability. Would anyone care to provide multiple, reliable sources which discuss the organization in significant detail? Ravenswing 13:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not yet received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass our inclusion guidelines. Robofish (talk) 01:58, 13 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 00:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xaryab Haschmi[edit]

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

Very likely autobiograhy by Muntakhib (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:CREATIVE.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 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) 00:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of available reliable, secondary sources found, unsourced BLP. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unsourced BLP, <400 results on google search — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob House 884 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Decker. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Wikipedia is not the only website in this world, so do not show prejudice because of an explicit writing style of a poet. beware of the legal implications of such an act, plz consider it as an advice not a threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.7.190.219 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:53, 11 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 Sanctuary Point, New South Wales. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bay and Basin Community Resources[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. a minor local organisation. nothing in gnews [49]. 3 of the sources in the article are its own website. the other sources are mainly a local newspaper. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant text into Sanctuary Point, New South Wales, perhaps. Fails WP:ORG - just. There appears to be an amount of coverage in local papers (the good old South Coast Register). Background images on the website show numerous press clippings and the text mentions a press clipping book. If only the coverage was a bit wider to take it out the local area. Perhaps someone could dig through the clippings to see if there is some regional or NSW coverage in them? Bleakcomb (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems to be a reasonable solution. --Stormbay (talk) 03:28, 9 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. NW (Talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARMIS[edit]

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

"Armis" is a particularly complicated chess variant, commercially sold. The current article is an advertisement combined with the game's rules. The only references are links to a copyright search and a trademark search; the only external links are to the game's company's website, a link to a rules listing (already present in immense detail in the article), and youtube videos on how to play. This, in and of itself, is not a problem, if the article could be fixed, but I believe it can't. There's no indication anywhere, other than the game's website, that the game has made any impact or that anybody is playing the game. The lack of possible secondary sources for this subject indicates that this article should be deleted. ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete It is difficult to see the game has any clear novelty so I must agree with Arglebargle's points. The current WP:SPA doesn't help the case. There is an extensive promotion campaign happening on the net but it is still lacking the sites to give it credibility. Ironically this behaviour eventually might achieve its aim but it is a long way off yet.Tetron76 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
question i was just wondering why this article is up for deletion. there are other articles about board games on Wikipedia. how is this one different, like Risk and Stratego, for example? SophiaAntonette (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at the Risk (game) article -- multiple non-trivial references. Armis doesn't have that. Risk has sold millions of copies -- Armis hasn't. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See anything about sales figures in WP:N? Anarchangel (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great idea, and I like this - but unfortunately a listing on the US Library of Congress and the US Patent and Trademark Office don't convey notability - those just means the game exists. Good luck in getting it out there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P M Radhakrishnan[edit]

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

No notability per WP:ATHLETE. Pretty obviously an autobiography by Ashok.radhakrishnan (talk · contribs). bender235 (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be an autobiography as the subject was deceased before the article was submitted. But it appears to be an obituary for a man with decent life achievements, though none appear sufficient to meet the notability guidelines, so delete. Keep based on supplied ref/info. AllyD (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an autobiography but definitely written by somebody close to the subject; we must remember that Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Nothing of note can be verified, so not worthy of an article, sorry. Giant Snowman 02:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject was a member of Tamil Nadu state football team that played in Santosh Trophy, India's premier football tournament. The article needs a drastic cut to make it encyclopedic. Salih (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Edited page, severely, trying to make a more neutral, relevant article. Used reference given, from The Hindu newspaper, for inline citations. References should be improved, but I think notability is established - a player for the 1973 Santosh Trophy, and a well known, long standing coach in Chennai. Nihola (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Louisville Marching Band[edit]

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

Rejected speedy deletion following the talkpage hangon: "the band has the honor of playing "My Old Kentucky Home" on national television every year just minutes before the big race." which may satisfy WP:BAND. Listing for broader evaluation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say they meet item 7 of WP:BAND having been highly idnetified with the Kentucky Derby as noted by this book on the University. This ESPN story is probably typical of most coverage which notes that the band plays "My Old Kentucky Home" for the Derby. This sort of news coverage spans different news organisations over multiple years. And the most substantial item would be a full profile devoted to the band in USA Today. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since the notice of deletion was first tagged to this page, information on this page has increased greatly, and more is steadily added daily. It now cites many publications that have at least mentioned it if not been the focus of. The article appears to be about up to par with other college marching band articles found on Wikipedia. Its contributions to the Commonwealth of Kentucky are great, and, as mentioned by others on this deletion article, its annual participation and coverage during the Kentucky Derby are of importance as they may meet WP:BAND item 7. Jaceymon05 (talk) 00:17, 11 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 for foundational copyright concerns. If permission is verified, it may be appropriate to launch a new AfD so that the contents can be considered on their merit. However, copyright problems were foundational, and the information actually about the organization was entirely suspect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romania Green Building Council[edit]

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

Nothing indicates the subject of this article (authored, I might add, by single-purpose account RoGBC); there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to that effect. Let's look at the footnotes for a moment:

Notes 1 and 12 are from the RoGBC website, and not independent.
Notes 2 and 3 have nothing to do with RoGBC.
Notes 4 through 11 are legislation and ordinances. While they may be used to document facts, they cannot make up for the lack of secondary sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - The article lead paragraph, and probably other parts, have been copied from their website with has a CC no commercial use, no derivates license incompatible with Wikpedia's. I have tagged this as a copyright issue. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 6 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of IIT JEE Toppers[edit]

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

This is a not-impeccably-sourced article about living people: in particular, the top-placed students in the admissions test to undergraduate study at the Indian Institutes of Technology. There's no doubt that the exams themselves are very challenging and prestigious, but I am less sure that a list of top-finishers is a suitable article for Wikipedia. This isn't a major prize as such, although it's true that there can be media coverage of the "winning" high school-leaver so I suppose a GNG case could be put forward. Yet not all of the entries seem well-sourced (some entries are sourced to the former student's linkedin page, for example). There may be a cultural question here that as a non-Indian I am not best-placed to comment on, but the acknowledged non-notability of most people on the list, the paucity of sourcing for some of the entries (with BLP in mind), and the fact this is a pre-undergraduate exam, suggest there's a case for deletion. TheGrappler (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move so that the title refers just to the title rather than the individuals. The title itself is clearly notable as it appears to recieves regular (annual) national news coverage and the recepiants name appears to be included. I think either a complete list of winners, or a partial list of 'notable winners' is definately justified. Bob House 884 (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of "IIT-JEE Toppers" is notable with heavy coverage every year in the indian media. Though it is only an undergrad entrance exam, there is huge fascination among indians for all things IIT and this reflects in media coverage--Sodabottle (talk) 15:42, 7 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 The Famous Five (series). A tricky one but the delete reasons are stronger IMO. However, leaving a redirect as a plausible search term. Tone 20:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirrin Island[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as unreferenced since May 2008 ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's concern can easily be addressed by editing, as I have done using a couple of the hundreds of results from the Google Books search linked in the nomination. This must be one of the best-known fictional locations in British literature. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination rejected: Lack of references doesn't mean references don't exist.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of real-world notability. The article itself is a plot-only description of a fictional work, written with an in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective, and it is an unnecessary content fork. The subject of the article does not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline since there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability. All Google hits show notability for The Famous Five book series, but, with the exception of mentions about the book Five on Kirrin Island Again, all mentions about Kirrin Island are trivial and do not show significant coverage for the fictional location. Jfgslo (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources in the article, and the hundreds more found by the Google Books search linked in the nomination, not significant coverage in reliable third party sources? Please address this particular article and discussion rather than copy and paste an argument that you have used elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple. Most of the Google hits from Google books that mention Kirrin Island are for mentions about of the book Five on Kirrin Island Again, not the fictional location. If you add -"Five on Kirrin Island" to the search, no reliable secondary source appears in the search, merely trivial mentions and almost all of them related to the plot of the series, not even one that treats in detail the fictional location of Kirrin Island. The two sources used in the article also don't treat in detail the fictional location. The first one only mentions it four times within the text and they are passing mentions in regards to the plot, not in regards to detailed commentary about the fictional location. The second source mentions Kirrin Island also four times, and again it's not commentary about the fictional location but commentary about the plot of the series. And two sources do not constitute significant coverage. So, with no detailed commentary about the fictional location or significant coverage in third-party sources, there is no presumption of notability to warrant the keeping of the article about the fictional location. Jfgslo (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -Any concerns can easily be addressed by editing. Deleting this is not the answer at all. For me strong keep on this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an internet search it appears that TV/film adaptations exist. Information about what location was used for Kirrin Island could be added to this page, and would be "out of universe" coverage. There is already some out-of-universe description here, but it's fairly near the "trivial" line. Searching for "Kirrin Island" with -"Five on Kirrin Island" is not helpful: any non-trivial source about e.g. inspirations for the island would be likely to mention that book title. TheGrappler (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I accept that this is a difficult one but I have to agree with Jfgslo. No-one would question the notability of the Famous Five books, or that Kirrin Island features frequently in them. But it does not seem to me that the island has any significance outside that context, and that it is within the Famous Five article that it belongs. I accept that Wikipedia isn't always consistent in dealing with fictional places and characters, and that Google isn't the only basis on which to make that judgement. But if we take the opposite extreme, that of Lilliput where the fictional place has overtaken the original book in popular culture (to the extent that Hollywood apparently cannot tell the difference), we can try to place Kirrin Island somewhere on a continuum and for me it lies within and not outside the books. But I can understand the passion of those for whom Kirrin Island may perhaps have had a very real hold on their imagination. I note, too, what TheGrappler has to say about the real world setting and that might indeed tip the balance.AJHingston (talk) 01:01, 6 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. NW (Talk) 03:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver James Phillips[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability; speedy deletion opposed on basis of participation in a single event (WP:ONEEVENT), that hundreds of others have participated in to date. No sources found to indicate particular notability in this field. Rest of article consists of general biography, hobbies. Appears to be written by the subject for WP:PROMOTION. — Pretzels^Hii! 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would however add the subject of the article is a national representative and has a lot of references which back up their notability. Also the work they have done on the mosquito is rather fantastic, and has gone far in changing legislation in the UK, look at Sheffield County Council for example, Blackpool, Kent. The various edms and parliamentary support he has recieved. Weternhuttle (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could show these sources, the campaign itself could be notable; but still not Oliver Phillips. Besides, the majority of coverage of the mosquito campaign seems to be on forums, Twitter, and Oliver's personal blog - which are not valid reliable sources. The one story that does crop up in a few publications ([50]) merely says that he is happy about something unrelated to his actions. — Pretzels^Hii! 00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable.[edit]

I just want to say, that this young person is most definitely notable. He was one of the first ever young people in history to debate in the house of commons. No one has debated in the house of commons other than elected MPs before the Youth Parliament did in 2009. He was part of that debate, making him clearly notable. olik8 23:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with the notability guidelines for people. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" - would all x hundred members involved in the debate be notable enough for a Wikipedia article? — Pretzels^Hii! 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't a local representative he is a national one. He is extremely notable amongst young people. Let me get this straight, because he is an MP for young people, an MYP. He isn't as notable as someone who those over 18 rather than those under 18 voted for? Weternhuttle (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Youth Parliament, a pressure group with no power, does not qualify as "major political office". Oliver's page says he was elected in Stafford to represent that area; whether he is prominent internally has no bearing and does not make him a national representative of young people. — Pretzels^Hii! 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was elected by young people, to represent them at a national level surely making him a national representative? It says on his page he was elected as a representative locally and was subsequently elected to a national position. Weternhuttle (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The group he was elected to, the "Procedures Group", is described and sourced on Wikipedia as "decisions regarding the development and progression of the organisation". Therefore, it is not a role to represent young people nationally, they represent the members of the parliament internally; more like a civil servant, if anything.

Note: User:Weternhuttle has been blocked as a sockpuppet. — Pretzels^Hii! 11:29, 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) 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would suggest this individual comfortably lies below the notability criteria, although may not always remain so. It is clear that an MYP cannot be usefully compared to an MP. TheGrappler (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks more like a biographical page about somebody that I would see on MySpace. As far as the articles, the only thing I was able to derive from them is that he's a MYP and he was bringing campaigning against the mosquito devices. None of the other articles refer to him at all. I'm going with WP:ONEEVENT and stating that, based on this, he is not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable vanity page as speedily as is possible. MYPs are inherently non-notable and have no claim to notability. MLA (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The same biography was discussed a year ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oli Phillips Speedy G4 or has new material been added? Putney Bridge (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably no for a G4 - on account that the article was brought into AFD and A7'd the same day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no comparison between Parliament and the Youth Parliament. One is a body with sovereign power over a country, the other is a powerless body that debates issues. The power and influence of MPs is vastly more than that of MYPs. Yes, he's a "national representative", but so are representatives of many trade unions, pressure groups and so on. The rules is the same for all of them - you get an article only if you get significant coverage in reliable sources. Out of the six sources quoted here, three are from local papers, one is from the local section of the BBC news site, one don't mention Oliver Phillips at all, and the other is a self-published MP's webpage. Nowhere near the notability threshold in WP:GNG. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here's the assertion of encyclopedia-worthiness from the lead: Oliver James Phillips is a young parliamentarian from Stafford, Staffordshire, UK. So, is a member of a Youth Parliament inherently notable? Not in my book. Photo of "Oli" posing on the empty floor of Commons is additional evidence that this article is, in essence, promotional fluff. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 6 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 Robert Pirsig. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject-object based metaphysics[edit]

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

This article has had a notability tag for quite some time. It seems to be a term used only by Robert Pirsig, and the term doesn't appear to be vital to Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 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) 01:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to section in Robert Pirsig. Doesn't have to be notable in itself to be in his article, as long is he is notable, and it is not UDUE in relation to his other work. PPdd (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per PPdd. What he said. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs) per G11. Goodvac (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimetrica[edit]

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

COI spam. (See Talk:Kimetrica) The references appear to be primary ones- the articles in question are written by employees of the company. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising: capitalize on emerging information technology and this has enabled for the rapid development of the Africa based software companies with a global reach. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ki-projects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. As it's unambiguous, it should have been tagged to begin with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:41, 6 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.phobia-fear-release.com/nlp.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] ttp://www.phobia-fear-release.com/nlp.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]