Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 24

< 23 April	25 April >

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. JForget 02:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Historical Society (United States)[edit]

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

Apparently a tiny political fringe group (Holocaust deniers, according to source?) of dubious notability. Was entirely unsourced and the object of apparent COI editing earlier; PROD was recently removed and one source added, which however is merely a blog mirroring one opinion piece in a "Polish-American Journal" polemicising against the group; hardly any reliable information about the group itself. (More blog postings supporting the critical view here. Fails standard notability criterion of multiple and substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Enigma^msg 23:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Odds are that if this organization was really notable, they would have more than a one-sentence-long stub article. Significant notability appears nonexistent, thus I say delete. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joseph Smith, Jr.. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of monuments and memorials of Joseph Smith, Jr.[edit]

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

Merge with Joseph Smith, Jr. and then delete The page is not notable in its own right. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close merging does not require AfD, and Wikipedia likes preserving edit history, so the list-page-name should be left around as attribution history. After you redirect it, it will serve as a redirect, since the article it points to will contain the list that the redirect is about. I do understand that there's not much attribution history to be concerned with, but the page name could still reasonably search as a section link. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested deletion because the article name is not going to be a likely search string. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It belongs on the bottom of that article. That is where people would expect to find it. It only has 4 items, so no problem merging. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It should be mentioned in the article about Joseph Smith, Jr., but it's not long enough for it's own article, and too unlikely a search term to be a redirect. Perhaps the edit history could be preserved by moving the title to "Joseph Smith, Jr. memorials" and then doing a redirect. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article because it was awkward to include this incomplete list at the bottom of the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Despite this, I have no strong objections to its deletion as its own article, and have temporarily userfied the content. We'll find a better way to include this material in WP somewhere. The article's edit history was only me cut-pasting from the JSJr. article, and is not worth preserving. ...comments? ~BF izz 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the creation entirely novel list topics without a verifiable definition contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure). Some of the articles will be re-nominated individually. Huon (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism[edit]

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

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

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

I am nominating these 3 articles (also: Christian terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism) for deletion since they are based on original research. (WP:OR) They are just collections of records of violent acts by members of each religion. There is no evidence that their terrorism is "Islamic" or "Jewish" or "Christian," nor are these expressions even used by most of the sources cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I think that all should stay (even the first one, which only has 156 refs). There clearly is terrorism that takes place with religion being the rationale cited by the perpetrators. That is evidenced rather dramatically in the first entry on the above list. There are many books on Islamist terrorism -- this isn't OR at all, as asserted by the nom. That said, I think it is fair to say that the articles should be culled to make certain that they entries belong; but AfD isn't the proper place to make such pointy observations. Also, I recognize that there may be debate as to naming conventions for the subjects covered by this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to an article on the expression "Islamic terrorism.,Steve Dufour (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the suggestion. I would suggest you consider w/drawing the nom, given the reactions to it. Otherwise, it will just waste peoples' time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps rename to "Terrorism inspired by ... religious convictions", or something of the sort. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how can we know what inspires a person to do something? Steve Dufour (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most common way would be by their words, and/or that of the organization in whose name they commit the act. You know -- such as when an organization that commits suicide bombings as istishhad (martyrdom operations) calls itself the Islamic Jihad Organization, and says in its manifesto that its acts are done in the name of Allah pursuant to the Koran ... that might be an inkling that perhaps they would fit into the indicated article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then write an article about that group. But don't lump them together with Guy Fawkes. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had not realized Fawkes was in the Islamic terrorism article. Appreciate the tidbit. But you asked a question (how can we know), and I've answered it. The Fawkes comment -- as your response -- seems to me a red herring that has little to do w/your question and my response.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely not OR. While the articles may need improvement, for each religin we have clear-cut examples of terrorism inspired by it according to the perpetrators' own words and confirmed by reliable sources. Huon (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supersonic Speedy Keep ridiculous Nomination but does need clean up Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, also snowy at that.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename&cleanup. At the very least there should be some clear guidelines as to what goes into each article. For example, in Christian terrorism I read:

"The Nagaland Rebels of Nagaland, North-East India is a coalition of rebel groups including the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah, has been involved in an ethnic conflict that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths since the Indian Declaration of Independence."

I'm not sure in what sense these Maoist groups are supposed to be "Christian."

I also see no point in listing terrorists who just happen to be Christian/Muslim/Jewish. To justify the religious adjective, the articles should surely be restricted to terrorism supported and encouraged by the relevant religious leadership? Furthermore, those leaders should be mainstream within the relevant religion, or else the label is deceptive. "Islamic terrorism", for example, implies mainstream Muslim support for terrorism, while "Islamist terrorism" restricts it to Islamists. Certainly the activities of the Lord's Resistance Army, for example, are not representative of mainstream Christianity.

To put it another way, I could write an article called "Human terrorism" ("Human terrorism is terrorism conducted by human beings. Many terrorist acts throughout history have been conducted by such groups.") but it wouldn't be very helpful. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is strictly for AfD discussion. Re-name and cleanup issues can be addressed elsewhere. Addressing them in the proper place is more than a formality -- it assures that the right editors are alerted to the discussion. (and I've deleted the para in question, which I agree did not belong).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least one of the three articles nominated here is of no more encyclopedic value than Hindu terrorism was, so I encourage contributors to review Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism prior to taking a position on any of the articles at hand. — C M B J 02:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing to what we are supposed to examine in the Hindu AFD? scrolling though it seems like a vigerous debate but since i can see the article that was deleted i have no idea what i am supposed to be comparing. Secondly which are referring to as uncenclyopedic? Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, which article here you have in mind? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hindu terrorism" is hanging on as Saffron terror.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Google Scholar returns 163 entries with "Islamic terrorism" in the title. In his peer-reviewed journal article, Richard Jackson notes "The term 'Islamic terrorism' has become a ubiquitous feature of Western political and academic counter-terrorism discourse in recent years." "Examining over 300 political and academic texts and employing a discourse analytic approach", he goes on to "describe and dissect the central terms, assumptions, labels, narratives and genealogical roots of the language and knowledge of 'Islamic terrorism' and to reflect on its practical and normative consequences." He concludes use of the term in discourse is "unhelpful, not least because they are highly politicized, intellectually contestable, damaging to community relations and practically counter-productive". In the peer reviewed article The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism Bar points out "WHILE TERRORISM--even in the form of suicide attacks--is not an Islamic phenomenon by definition, it cannot be ignored that the lion's share of terrorist acts and the most devastating of them in recent years have been perpetrated in the name of Islam. This fact has sparked a fundamental debate both in the West and within the Muslim world regarding the link between these acts and the teachings of Islam." Clearly there is significant academic research on the topic. There is no reason to delete it from wikipedia.--Work permit (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable topics, and no concrete reason to support deletion. If there are content or scope disputes, deleting the article is not the place to go. --Ari (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The nominator’s reasoning doesn’t withstand the scrutiny associated with actually reading the articles. Greg L (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Islamic terrorism. This is certainly something real, and of course WP:Notable. The name is unfortunate since Islam itself and most Muslims do not support terrorism, but that is the name most often used for these terrorist attacks by groups who identify themselves as Muslim. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Christian terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism (and Saffron terror too). These are collections of violent incidents from history, in the case of the Christian article going back to the Reformation. They seem to have been created in an effort to be fair by showing that other religions can get violent too, not just the Muslims. There should be articles about each notable event and group mentioned in the articles as well as possible articles on Christianity and violence, Islam and violence, and Judaism and violence which would cite scholars who have written on these topics, not just list incidents. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Islamic terrorism is an established phenomenon discussed by verifiable sources. The reason that this article is so controversial is because of the intrinsically controversial subject matter.--98.228.32.33 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a important subject.Cmmmm 19:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong Keep. All three pages. This kind of AfD is getting to be a perennial. People take offense at the suggestion that something unattractive might be associated with a religion, and they want to wipe out the page instead of improving it. The nominator states that the basis of the nomination is WP:OR, but I infer from the comments that it is more specifically WP:COATRACK, since the pages in question are sourced. However, there is plenty of sourcing—reliable, secondary sources—that associate each of these page topics, that is, associate acts of terrorism with the history of the respective religions. The pages do not claim that the respective religions have terrorism in their nature, but that there have been acts of terrorism related to one another by their (sourced) motivations. Of course, what is really going on here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the correct solution to that problem is not to delete the pages, but to correctively edit them for any POV issues, such as any unverifiable claims that terrorism is intrinsic to the religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Am I the only one who finds it odd that the nom has not yet withdrawn his nom, to spare his fellow editors wasted time?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I have to say that, as a matter of process, the nom has every right to continue the AfD, especially since there has been a delete !vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- he has every right. He also has every right to withdraw his !vote as to all the articles, and his remains the only delete !vote as to one of the three articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can a nominator withdraw an AfD once it's submitted? Procedurally, how would one do that? I've never seen it before. The only procedure I know of to end a debate is an admin closing it.--Work permit (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to do it once, usually just ~~Striking~~ the nomination allows univolved admin to close it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. 1) Anyone can close a non-controversial AfD. Not just an admin. 2) If a nom doesn't wish to close himself, the normal approach is for him to reflect at the AfD page that he withdraws his nom, and invites another editor or admin to close the AfD. 3) I've seen noms do this more than once, when faced with (as here) overwhelming consensus that their nom is not supported. It is courteous to as-yet uninvolved editors, as it saves them the waste of time involved in adding their !vote. I've seen it done in nominations that were faced a lot fewer "strong keep" !votes than this one has already attracted.--Epeefleche (talk)

The only way to close this discussion early (under WP:KEEP), is if there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Not only the nominator, but everyone else who argued for delete, would have to withdraw their comments. --Darkwind (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be willing to withdraw the nomination on Islamic terrorism since it is a notable, if bad, expression. I will then renominate the other 3, including Saffron terror since they were my real targets. It might have been wrong but I felt if I didn't include the Muslims people would say that I was anti-Islam. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We arent bargaining here either do it or dont Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, I suggest you AfD each article seperately. Each article covers a different topic, and should stand or fall on it's own. Don't AfD the articles on mass because You don't like the topic on principle--Work permit (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then Nomination withdrawn since the first article is notable, or at least the expression "Islamic terrorism" is, so it should stay. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Kitching[edit]

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

I noticed this article while patrolling for vandalism; I wasn't able to verify that Ms. Kitching meets the notability criteria. What do you think, o wise voices of AfD? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It looks like Kitching meets notability, but barely. This article could be helpful to a good amount of people, so we may as well keep it.~BLM (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's famous on the internet. Woo. She hasn't really done anything notable. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 22:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. unsigned, by 65.92.67.253

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,the article says her claim to fame is that she had a relationship with someone else, that does not make her notable. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't look like she has any significant third party coverage to establish notability, and a connection to Brendon Urie isn't enough to merit her inclusion. See WP:NOTINHERITED HarlandQPitt (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3D library[edit]

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

Spammy, unreferenced article that seems to be intended to promote a software portal site. Doesn't add anything worthwhile to what's already available at 3D modeling and related articles. Fails WP:RS and WP:CFORK andy (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no news hits, and general Google search leads to stuff unrelated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Embodies the typical useless Wikipedia article. Provides no meaningful information, only vaguely related blather. Pcap ping 03:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blather is a good word to describe it-- I've read this twice and still can't figure out it's talking about. An article that begins "The 3D libraries become a source of data" would seem to have been copied from the middle of something else, but if it is, I can't find it. Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a WP:COATRACK article for the external link. --Darkwind (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamas Erdelyi (mathematician)[edit]

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

~~Professor that fails WP:PROF. No 3rd party reliable sources to back up achievements. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)~~ Appears that I am wrong and this guy does have enough criteria to meet PROF. Nom redacted, somebody, please close. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 99 peer-reviewed papers, Web of science shows 10 with citations or more. Mathematics is a relatively low-citation discipline, but the number of peer-reviewed publications seems to show him an authority in his subject ,as confirmed by his coauthorship of a book in a major series, and his full professorship at a leading research university. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG; this is a full professor, at a major research university, with a huge stack of publications. When does he sleep? Bearian (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can the nominator explain how this is not a textbook allowing the subject to meet Criterion 4 of WP:PROF? Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Rossano[edit]

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

Seems to be a Non-Notable graphic designer. All of the "references" are trivial mentions at best. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided to meet WP:N. Nothing appears in e.g. Google News archive. Being an industry professional does not pass the inclusion threshold. Ty 01:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage for this resume. Nice photo, but no notability. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Stevenson (geologist)[edit]

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

No notability: "postdoctoral researcher" -- see Wikipedia:Notability (academics); No notability: "given a radio interview" see -- Wikipedia:Notability_(events). Original page Dr John Stevenson already deleted, possibly in relation to procedural error from my side. Mootros (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You kept restoring the PROD tag after it was removed and the admin did not notice that the prod was contested, but restored. Pooet (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Doesn't appear to meet the WP:PROFESSOR criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom - UtherSRG (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He clearly does not pass WP:PROF and I don't think his role as a radio-interviewee is enough to pass WP:GNG. As for his role on the MSNBC "Ends of the Earth" show, it's not clear that "starred" is an accurate description — the only "John Stevenson" I can find searching the MSNBC web site is a different one, the movie director. The recent history of the article is convoluted (prod, deprod, reprod, questionable A7 speedy) so I think the deleting admin is doing the right thing by restoring and letting it come to a full AfD, but I don't think it should end up changing the outcome of the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I watched the video clip linked as a source for the MSNBC piece. It's a four-minute mini-feature on Iceland, shown on the Today show. Stevenson has I think two five-second clips in it, one of which shows his name. Ten seconds of fame? I think that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not come close to passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - up-and-coming postdoc, but badly fails WP:PROF. When he gets a tenured position or chair, he can come back here. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the inital page was created by a "fan". Mootros (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelaziz bin Khalifa Al Thani[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Andy14and16 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 21:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 21:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members of the royal family of a nation, especially direct relations to the ruler are generally considered notable, per Wikipedia:Notability (royalty). But, regardless of that, I have added some other sources that confirm that he is (or was) the minister of Oil and Finance of Qatar, which is more than enough notability there. Silver seren^C 21:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) is a failed proposal and is not in itself a reason to cite for keeping an article, the subject was indeed a minister in the Qatari government per the sources cited. --Darkwind (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources verify he was a government minister. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced and satisfies the inclusion/ notability criteria IMHO. Scieberking (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news link at the top of the AFD. The New York Times thinks he is notable. Plus the rulers of a country are notable. Dream Focus 23:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result: Merge and redirect (non-admin closure) as any relevant information can be added to the pre-existing article, then redirect to the pre-existing article of the same name as it is redundant having two articles on the same subject.

Village Green, Los Angeles, California[edit]

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

Redundant to Village Green (Los Angeles). Both are covering developments in Baldwin Hills. The content from the two should be merged, and placed at Village Green, Los Angeles Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge I agree the articles are redundant, and the article currently titled Village Green (Los Angeles) has more content and is the one to keep. But I think the title of the surviving article should be Village Green, Los Angeles, California since that is the style for most neighborhoods in LA. For example Canoga Park, Los Angeles, California; Van Nuys, Los Angeles, California; Hancock Park, Los Angeles, California; etc. The same style is used pretty consistently for neighborhoods in San Diego, San Francisco and Oakland; I don't know about the rest of the country. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most style guides indicate Los Angeles is one of the cities that can be discussed without mentioning the state. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's right. There's actually a process going on as we speak to drop the "California" from most of the LA neighborhoods Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just merge any relevant information and redirect that article to the pre-existing article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge AfD isn't really the venue for this. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I put what little revelant information was in this article into the other Village Green article, and retitled it Village Green, Los Angeles Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it's safe to redirect the article and close this AfD? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. I just redirected the article, you can close the AFD. Sorry i didn't get back to you sooner. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Firdausy[edit]

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

Self-released album lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another issue for these albums by Modar is that there is no article for the band. Per precedent at the Albums Project, the band should pass the test of notability first, and then album articles can be created. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since no band article exists. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In My Meditation Time[edit]

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

Self-released album lacking coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another issue for these albums by Modar is that there is no article for the band. Per precedent at the Albums Project, the band should pass the test of notability first, and then album articles can be created. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since no band article exists. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inferior Symphony[edit]

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

No coverage of this album in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another issue for these albums by Modar is that there is no article for the band. Per precedent at the Albums Project, the band should pass the test of notability first, and then album articles can be created. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since no band article exists. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 You_Can't_Do_That_on_Television#Kid_Actors. Nomination withdrawn but redirecting per suggestion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Lindores[edit]

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

A non-notable former child actor who fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER according to Google web, news and book searches. The latter does appear to have turned up a brief reference in a book on motherhood, under her hyphenated married name. If so, it may be noteworthy that her acting career was not deemed notable enough for mention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, some might feel her featured on-camera role in You Can't Do That on Television meets the first criterion of WP:ENT: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I look forward to see what the consensus is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her role on YCDT would probably merit inclusion if it could be properly sourced; IMDb alone doesn't cut it in that regard. Possibly a keep if it can be referenced and cleaned up sufficiently, but in the absence of real sources, delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find what I would call a real bona fide WP:RS: there's certainly a few blogs and fansites. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, because cast listings of finshed projects can be sourced to the project itself, we can accept even per IMDB that she was in the project. IMDB is just no good for showing notability. As for RS, the woman is married now.. her name is Vanessa Lindores-Farah and her work CAN be confirmed in a few sources that are not not fansites or blogs.[1][2][3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see three appearances of her name, but nothing that confirms her role in You Can't Do That on Television. That said, I'd still be happy to withdraw this and leave it with a references needed tag, as it's pretty clear she was a featured player on the show for years, even if we can't find the RS at this very moment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN by nominator. With all due respect to Bearcat's delete !vote, I don't feel comfortable proceeding with this AfD on what I feel is a technicality. While I am too old to have charmed by You Can't Do That on Television myself, it appears to have been an internationally notable program -- still the subject of pop culture referencing -- and Lindores had a featured role for years satisfying WP:ENT, I now believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because she grew up and left show biz far behind her, sourcing is proving to be problematic. I believe a redirect to You Can't Do That on Television is the best outcome. She is already written of there quite a bit and in context to her work in the series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and ask that the closing admin consider this request. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 13:24, 24 April 2010 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "Marvel vs dc characters" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvel vs dc characters) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel vs dc characters[edit]

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

First tagged for {{db-vandalism}}. Initial contributor has removed speedy deletion template. Then prodded with the concern = Not an encyclopedia article. This tag is also removed. Vipin Hari || talk 17:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy - clearly WP:OR but fits WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3. Also WP:CRYSTAL. I'm deleting this now. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Bondoc[edit]

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

NN musician. delete UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [4] [5] [6] [7]. Emily Jensen (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per at least two of the sources cited by Emily Jensen. See also [8]. Note also the fact that he has released an album on Sony Music Entertainment and on BMG and Star Records. Moswento (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the sources found by Emily Jensen are probably reliable, at least in the Philippines media. The article needs expansion pretty badly, so someone should add those sources. I might have time later. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - famous Filipino singer; reliable cites are available online as noted above. He passes WP:MUSIC as having a CD on SONY, national tours, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn but the discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Rennie[edit]

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

Google web, news and book searches do not reveal independent WP:RS indicating that this individual meets either WP:BASIC or WP:ENTERTAINER. Not be confused with psychologist and author Pauline Rennie Peyton, who may actually merit an article of her own. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and tag for referencing. The IMDB credit list is very likely incomplete, and her career appears to date back to the days of radio. This article behind a pay wall clearly has her as the primary subject. The snippet available for view shows that her work goes back much further that the Care Bears. Seethis google news search and look at the result for "RADIO PROGRAMS SCHEDULED FOR BROADCAST THIS WEEK" which does indicate that she was working in radio. She is also mentioned in these two books: [9], [10]. I suspect that the bulk of her career predate the internet and would have offline sources documenting this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. While the Toronto Star article is just one WP:RS it's an awfully important one. I'm withdrawing on that basis. If you could add that ref to the article it would be most helpful, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I was just about to add it myself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha! Edit conflict! I was just going to note that I had added the ref. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made since nomination and the nominator's withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC Barah, Author.[edit]

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

Contested prod. Self-published author with no credible assertion of notability, Google returns only false positives and primary sources. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inadequate references, especially for a WP:BLP. Emily Jensen (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published. It is hard lines on a writer who starts his own publishing company to be lumped with the lulus - but the same lack of editorial check applies. I do hope that their publications are proof-read rather better than the website, whose 'about us' section I read with growing impatience at the lack of an 'edit' button like Wikipedia's.... "DC Barah, Author is a fictional figurehead established in 2010 by RazorSharpe Publishing Enterprises.[1] in keeping with the advice of publicist Jo Blanco a publishing representative of Xlibris, located in the Phillipines and is already a large part of the landscape at RazorSharpe Publishing Enterprises, making it possible to promote the publication of contemporary literary works of fiction and fact alike on a myriad of topics including but not limited to: Politics, Religion, Fantasy and Philosophy." is a statement that I'm not sure I understand. The grammar is convoluted, and I'm not sure if it all means nothing more than 'we publish all sorts of books books under the name DC Barrah'. (For reference, Xlibris is a self-publishing company.) "DC Barah book titles to research" - well now, chance would be a fine thing. Apart from the article in question, the major search engine doesn't appear to have heard of them. Searching for 'Beast in the Basement' needs to be done avoiding Garfield. Neither of the first two titles showed up. The biography one I didn't bother with, as too many false positives were looming on the horizon before I even typed the title in. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, Self criticism, is the worst and other would be critics hold anyone involved in publishing to a tighter line than most. Please remember to check release dates for the books I am quoting or linking within my article submission. this is all pretty new to me still. I would appreciate anyone having something they would like me to hear/read personally, edit it in the my talk on my article submission please. I'll be sure to see it and that is where I will get into discussion on this matter after this. Also I'm certain there are some of you, who have never completed your dream novel/book or possibly even a Wikipedia article. So keep in mind that in publishing, we get more accomplished by helping each other. If someone has a bad comment or critique to make, pleeeease follow it up with a helpful suggestion, ok? That's how it goes, tit for tat one critic for one piece of help. And really, am I the only one in this thing who's guilty of using bad grammer??? I wonder if I chased down every link connected to those who lean towards rudeness in measuring me what I'd find? Be kind my friends. Kindness begets kindness. BTW Peridon, who r u anyway? My publicist's name is [deleted, we don't post contact info here, regardless of accuracy] feel free to ask him about what parts of my bio are worth checking out before dismissing them, or be rude about someone else behind their back! I don't accept rudeness from strangers. O yeah, have you written anything of importance I should know about? And lastly, I don't claim to be the best anything except maybe the best rythm guitarist in the joint, lol but seriously, my company RazorSharpe Publishing Enterprises [razorsharpe.net]is in business to help others. The publishing is my way of giving back. My article was no ploy at solitary self-promotion. I don't only about about (that's a little joke repeat for you know who) promote DC Barah, Author, if anyone else is interested in at least claiming to have a publisher interested in them, visit the website, get in contact, and I will do my best to help you with your own writing goals. And don't worry, at the office I got real editor's! it's just the web thing is my new hobby. You know, like my own wordpress,blogging got blogspot too, but I PAY for Wordpress! I enjoy that! my own domain, my own writings. etc. Y'all know what I'm sayin? Now... very, very peacefully, to you all... bbioh! Fire away n' let me have it.(bye bye i'm outta here!) Rotsap (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Rotsap (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OUTING before posting your publicist's contact information. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Peridon. Outside, I have other identities that I do not mention in here to avoid any suspicion of self-promotion. As DGG says below, "Occasional self-publishing authors have become notable" but this is usually notability developed over a long time. A self-published book COULD be the next Harry Potter. If it is, we'll have evidence. If it isn't, WP:CRYSTAL and/or the guidelines on self-publishing apply. The comment about 'release dates' by Rotsap suggests that WP:CRYSTAL does apply here. The comment about 'get in contact' is a bit promotional, to my mind, and a 'publicist' would be one of the last people we'd ask to give info or support. We need reliable INDEPENDENT sources. No blogs, forums, press releases or editable sites like LinkedIn. If you have any of this type of reference, let us have them. So far, we haven't found any. I am fairly good at internet searching, and so are the other regular contributors to AfD (like Blanchardb and DGG inter alia). Most of us would rather save an article if it can be. But... We do need the help of the creator. Peridon (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are many good sites (and RL places also) for writers to help another, but Wikipedia is dedicated to providing one particular kind of help: it provides an encyclopedia giving information about people and things that are already notable. Occasional self-publishing authors have become notable, but it's not easy, and neither is starting a notable publishing company. When there is good third party evidence that these have been actually accomplished, then there can be an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Xtzou (Talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to keep. Improve article with in-line citations and remove clearly OR entries and content. Mike Cline (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney references in Enchanted[edit]

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

This seems like something that is better off on an independent site like IMDB or something reputable. I also think WP:NOTGUIDE applies here in a way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Amazingly, List_of_Disney_references_in_Enchanted#References shows that this particular topic has received significant coverage in WP:RS, meeting WP:NOTE. Emily Jensen (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly been discussed enough in the mainstream media to warrant its own article. Moswento (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The references need to be spread throughout the article. Just sticking them in a the references section doesn't allow the reader unfamiliar with the subject to know what specifically they are referencing in the article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I will admit that I expected TenPoundHammer to be the one to submit this to AFD, per previous conversations that he and I have had on similar articles. From a reference viewpoint, the original article listing contained info direct from a Disney press release. Since then, the film itself (blu-ray) contains specific reference items from the writers/director of the film. Any other entry beyond those items -- especially those from recent anon-IP editors insisting that there were references to 2010-released films(!?!?!?) -- to me qualifies as either vandalism or WP:OR. There was coverage on the references in the mainstream press: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2364190520071124, http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3041063.ece, http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1574092/story.jhtml to name just three. SpikeJones (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic well-covered in multiple reliable sources. Article indeed has sourcing. Many more are available. AFD is not intended to force cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the creation entirely novel list topics contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree about pruning the WP:OR items from the list. The Blu-Ray release specifically has "pop-up references" dictating exactly what the filmmakers included as a tribute. See also the legitimate news articles listed above. SpikeJones (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcrap and trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is of a very fixable nature because of multiple reliable sources. Deletion seems unnecessary in this case. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let My Puppets Come[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:NOTFILM EuroPride (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The uniqueness in 1976 of Gerard Damiano's softcore puppet film pretty much guaranteed that such a topic would receive notice and coverage... and that's what I have found. Article is being sourced and improved even now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given sources now in the article it appears to pass WP:NOTFILM. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on Google news and Google book search. Read through the summaries. Clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 23:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as a hoax page; user has been blocked either way (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killian Buckley[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO, contested prod. No active references in article to check notability, Google search is unproductive. WWGB (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going a bit further than the nom and saying complete and utter... hoax. No sources found for the one hit wonder French band that he was an asserted member of, nor the UK number-one-achieving band "Micellaneous", nor for the band that got to number 38 (with a bullet :)) in the Irish Charts. I wasn't expecting any sources to be honest, but I did look. The book asserted as a source seems to only generate ghits for the article and as for offering an unpublished interview in the RTÉ Guide as the other source, well.... (The RTÉ Guide exists, of course, but an unpublished interview?) Sorry, this article is a wind-up from start to finish. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hoax. Snappy (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again I'm coming clean. This page is a joke. When I told my friend about my fake Wikipedia pages(Eric Banner and The Martian-Earth Wars), he begged me to make a page about him, so I did. Maybe I went a bit overboard with this one, but still, a harmless joke that all my friends found amusing. Sorry if I upset anyone.Delete those pages if you want. No use having fake joke pages on Wikipedia I guess.(Once again, great work Flowerpotman. You really are good at this). User:Daedulus Caan 15:20 25 April 2010

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BowlsEnglandChampions[edit]

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

A huge uncited list of Bowls champions from England, with no article and no references to go with it. Even if it were in the form of an article, and even if the article had references and proper context, it's not clear to me that this meets notability requirements, since there's no context for the particular competitions either. It's not quite "indiscriminate" information, but close enough not to be an encyclopedia article. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast delete. No inbound links, no context, no references = junk. --hydrox (talk)"

Keep. Could someone please explain to me as to why this is up for deletion?! This article has been extensively researched over more than 12 months from old paper sources by many people. There is a lot more information to be added and cleaning up and formatting to be done. All existing records were lost by the national governing body 3 years ago, therefore this is an extremely important historical record for bowlers. Kamikaze josh (talk

Then please cite the sources, even when it's just the news papers. Nageh (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An extensive entry. It seems there is a vendetta to rid Wikipedia of any British events, quite unfairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbu98mlb (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Bowls England champions. It'd be great if the documents that the research has been compiled on would be cited. matt91486 (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break up This article contains unique information not found anywhere else. Opps. That's OR then or it needs a better title and clearer scope. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listify (e.g., List of Bowls England champions), and provide the references. Nageh (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant summarized information--it does not particularly matter whether it is arranged as a table or a list. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Criticism of Islam. JForget 01:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversies related to Islam[edit]

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

A controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate. This list includes everything (from concepts, events, people) that somehow relates to Islam, regardless whether a prolonged public dispute or debate has taken place. It also mirrors Category:Islam-related_controversies Mootros (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Ankimai (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Islam. This article doesn't appear to add anything of value beyond what is in category:Islam-related controversies.—RJH (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RJH. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Force Online[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references from reliable, third-party sources, especially sources recommended by WikiProject Video games. Virtually the same article has been created and deleted multiple times, as Soldier Front (see deletion discussion), Special Force (online game), and Special Force Online. Recommend salting so that if this game does warrant an article in the future, it can go through proper deletion review procedures. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Game seems notable at least in the Philippines, although judging from the fact that the article still fails any notability tests, then I guess we need to have it huffed (read: deleted) for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't see any notability to this. If there is any, it's non-English and needs proper refing. The article is fancruft and guide at best. From previous deletions, I don't see that it has gained much English coverage. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt -- may be notable under the Philippines Wikipedia, but there are no reliable sources to establish notability that I could see. Seems to have a little coverage in the Philippines, but it's hard to establish any of those sites' as reliable. --Teancum (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a merge discussion on the article's talk page strongly encoraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosley v United Kingdom[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! It is not known whether this case will be accepted. All what happened someone filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights which itself is not a notable event. Mootros (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However, WP:CRYSTAL states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" and "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". This article is clearly verifiable, due to the excellent numbers and quality of the sources. It is most certainly of wide enough interest, since it could greatly affect the privacy laws of the UK. It fulfills the notability guideline and is entirely certain to take place. So, regardless of crystal balling, the subject matter of the article is still notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Silver seren^C 06:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not see any source that states that this case has been accepted by the ECHR. A fast-tracked application does neither mean accepted, nor certain to be accepted. See page 60 of this document [11] for targets on a decision on admissibility I guess we are looking for possibly another 12 month of CRYSTALBALLING whether there will be such a case or a failed application post-Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited. Mootros (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if it fails to be accepted, will that not also be an important statement? Regardless, my points on WP:CRYSTAL still apply. It is verifiable and notable and, as far as we know, certain to take place. Silver seren^C 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not just "someone fill[ing] and application to the European Court of Human Rights". It is Max Mosley, in response to this very high profile case filing a brief with the Strasbourg court which, in an unusual manner, has been fast-tracked. This has been the focus of much media intention, including journalists filing their opposition with the same court. Moswento (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a redirect, since the two cases are overthe same issue involving the same central figure. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not really - one is a consequence of the other, in a sense, but they are distinct. One is a High Court case concerning a single incident of invasion of privacy, the other is a case at the European Court of Human Rights concerning the English privacy laws as a whole. Moswento (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the topic is demonstrated by its sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:NOTE. Emily Jensen (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary. I quote: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability... routine news coverage... is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article" Mootros (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - major case, obviously, but I'm not sure it should have its own article, for navigation and readability purposes. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A High Court case in England is distinct from a case at the European Court of Human Rights. But we don't know yet whether there will be such a case at the European Court of Human Rights; at the moment we are looking into a CRYSTALBALL. Mootros (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't a case yet. It's just news. What if he settles out of court or withdraws the suit? Then we've got a totally useless news article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that does happen, then it can be merged into the other case that already occurred. But if the case does occur, then it would most definitely warrant being around. Which is why we should keep it, as there is enough verifiable sources for it to be kept for now. Silver seren^C 20:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't put the cart before the horse. If the case actually happens, then someone can write a useful article on it. I agree there are verifiable sources, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL are both policy and overrides any level of sourcing that the article can present. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out how WP:NOTNEWS applies here and i'm failing to do so. This article is not a "Plot-only description of fictional works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics, News reports, Who's who, or an FAQ." So, how exactly does that policy apply to this article? And i've already explained how this fits into WP:CRYSTAL above. Silver seren^C 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be certain that this case will be admissible? Nine out of ten applications aren't. (See Reference above) How can you be certain Mosely won't die before such a case? How can you be certain that he does not drop the case? How can you be certain that both parties settle out of court? What are your sources? Mootros (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Moswento Francium12 03:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata. In particular the WP:NOT policy trumps the WP:GNG guideline. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail WP:NOT, as i've described above? Silver seren^C 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT_A_CRYSTALLBALL. Isn't that obvious? Mootros (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, in above comments, I have described how it does not fail WP:NOTNEWS, since it has nothing to do with that policy, and I also described in my initial comment how WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Silver seren^C 09:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator has now changed the title of the article away from referring to the case, breaking title requirements for WP:TITLE. I shall assume good faith, but this seems to me to be an attempt to affect the outcome of this AfD by changing the title to reflect the nominator's argument, furthermore, not following what appears to be consensus (though the closing admin shall have to corroborate this) to keep the article as it is. Silver seren^C 09:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The move was undertaken in good faith, as this discussion is coming to a close here and it looks like the article will be kept. Are you saying that after this AfD the article shall not be edited anymore? Mootros (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what i'm saying is that consensus appears to be that it should be kept as the title being the case as it is, not changed to reflect an application. Silver seren^C 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that there is a consensus here about reliable sources which clearly state that there is such a case. All I can see here in this discussion is that some editors agree there is some "notable" going on regarding Max Mosley.Mootros (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually inclined to believe that the recent changes (including the move) have fixed most of the WP:CRYSTAL problems. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then the title still need to be reformatted, as I do not believe it fits WP:TITLE. Silver seren^C 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. The case certainly does WP:CRYSTAL; "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". This is not possible to determine yet, since it may well set no case law. As such, the best option here is to remove the article until it can be shown that the case is important. It also fails Wikipedia:Notability (events); on the first point, "lasting effects", there is (obviously) no evidence this has led to anything important or groundbreaking. "Depth of coverage" is key here; "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident". This case is only considered important by the news because of the previous cases; as such, it should either be deleted until some kind of importance can be shown past a brief flurry of news coverage, or merged into the main article on the previous case. This is merely an extension of an other case, and in many cases it is more appropriate to include the information in the original article than a new one. Ironholds (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see - in future pages like this should just have been a new section in the page on the previous decided case (Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited). If the application for the hearing is granted, then it should obviously have a new page, because then it'll be a substantive case. But it's there now, and we might as well see whether the case is admitted for a hearing before deleting. Though in future it'll be better practice to not create new pages ahead of time, so Ironholds, and the others above are right that it is a bit crystal ballish. Wik idea 09:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-edit. The article skirts around crystal ball by making statements like "Mosley is also intending to challenging the state of English privacy law and" should be re-written to "Mosley has also stated the intention of challenging the state of English privacy law and" with a CITE at the end. I think as is the case passes WP:N. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battle of Takur Ghar. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neil C. Roberts[edit]

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

These individuals seems to fail WP:ONEEVENT and do not seem to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MILPEOPLE. This seems similar to several other recent AfDs (here, here, and here) of people failing ONEEVENT for a different, though even better covered, event. The event these individuals participated in was the Battle of Takur Ghar. Below is the other article I am nominating for this reason:

Novaseminary (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Neil C. Roberts lacks enough notability to be kept, and should be merged to Battle of Takur Ghar. However, I don't agree with Jason D. Cunningham, the award of the Air Force Cross is high enough (second only to the Medal of Honor) that I feel his own notability is sufficient for an article and kept. Beside that, his article much better developed and referenced. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Cunningham article is definitely much better developed and sourced (though that is not the standard). The current consensus per WP:MILPEOPLE, though, is that the Air Force Cross doesn't qualify alone for notability. If not in under MILPEOPLE, and his only other notability is for one event, how does he meet notability? Novaseminary (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both: sadly, I don't see that either of these two articles satisfy the guidance in WP:MILPEOPLE. A redirect to the battle article might be the solution though, as some people may search for their names, and then they would be able to find some information. Any merge, however, needs to take into account WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, though. (I'm not against a merge, just saying it needs to be done with these policies in mind.) — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Neil C. Roberts qualifies as a notable person by earning our nations second highest honor for valor and by contributing to a significant military event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.15.11 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 April 2010

Comment Again, per WP:MILPEOPLE, the second highest award is not enough, and his contribution to a significant military event (the same for which he won the award) does not get past WP:ONEEVENT. In response to the editors suggesting a redirect, I do not think that would be a huge problem, but I think the better course is to delete. For more, see my comments toward the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norm Hooten. Nonetheless, if others disagree and the consensus is to redirect, I would suggest a delete and redirect because there is not likely anything that would be merged into the target article that is not already there. Novaseminary (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage not sufficient to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Novaseminary per the guidline clearly states one award of a service cross does not sufice an article.Feickus (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. getting a consensus especially on the fact WP:NOTDIRECTORY JForget 00:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox parishes in Washington D.C.[edit]

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

There's nothing particularly notable about a list of parishes, few of which are themselves notable. Even if the handful of cathedrals are notable (St. Nicholas and St. Sophia certainly are), we have List of cathedrals in the United States, Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in the United States, and could have List of Eastern Orthodox churches in the United States, limiting that to churches with articles on Wikipedia. I'll also note that an equivalent list for Arkansas has been deleted, and that if kept, the title should be changed: it's Eastern Orthodox; it's "Washington, D.C.", with the comma; and neither the Maryland nor the Virginia portion of the Baltimore–Washington Metropolitan Area, which this list encompasses, are part of Washington, D.C. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally we would handle these as a section of the article on the diocese, but since they belongt a variety of organizational bodies, this seems a reasonable alternative. We should have some way f handling them, since the individual parishes and churches most of them are not notable enough for articles. Of course, as an alternative, we could decide to broaden our standards there, and simple define every church with a congregation ,present or past, as notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quite disagree, for several reasons:

1) There aren't that many high-quality articles on dioceses, but looking at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, a featured article, we find it has "118 parishes and missions"; we do not find a directory-type listing of every parish. The number of parishes in a particular diocese is relevant; the name of each parish is not.

2) If most of the parishes are not notable enough for stand-alone articles (and they're not), and if listing them is going into a level of detail not normally found outside a telephone book, why do it at all? Of what encyclopedic value can a list of parishes be, any more than a list of Laundromats in Washington D.C. (which after all serve thousands of customers) or of Ethiopian restaurants in Washington D.C. (likewise)?

3) I know of your preference for broadening notability standards to consider every parish notable. Thankfully, we're not there yet, and just as one non-notable parish is undeserving of an article, so is a list of a couple dozen non-notable parishes. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is similar to the following article, which maintains an existence on Wikipedia: List of Shia mosques in NCR. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX is not a valid argument, particularly since the list you pointed out has not been through AfD. You should state why you think this particular list is notable, and I have given a number of reasons why it is not. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A plain violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Notable parishes could be collected into an appropriate category. Mangoe (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning toward delete) Note there doesn't seem to be a 'lists of Episcopal/Presbyterian/RC churches in Washington DC', but rather those 3 denominations have a category that notable churches can be/are placed in. OTOH, I think this could be useful ... but I'm a sucker for lists, so I'm biased toward wanting to keep this... David V Houston (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a solution I've proposed here and elsewhere might go some way toward balancing your concerns. How about a List of Eastern Orthodox churches in the United States? If we limited ourselves to notable churches, we'd have a couple dozen cathedrals and perhaps that many parishes as well. It'd be pretty manageable, since there aren't that many possible entries (as opposed to say RC or Methodist). And it'd be useful and encyclopedic as well. This, on the other hand, is telephone-directory material. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that this can be handled better, in my opinion, with categories. The issue really is that most EO parishes aren't notable, just as most Episcopal parishes aren't notable. Mangoe (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a particularly encyclopedic list per criteria noted at WP:LIST, especially as a standalone list, it does not contain links to actual articles or potential articles, instead its merely a directory. The internet is filled with places where such directories are appropriate. Wikipedia is not in that part of the internet. --Jayron32 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That it's novel doesn't mean it wrong--it just means we should do this for other cities also. the OR in assembling what count as Orthodox churches is about as trival as that involved in judged what constitutes Washington DC. (signed belatedly, sorry) DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this topic is "right" or "wrong", the "truth" or "lies" should not concern us here. Either the existence of the topic is verifiable, or its not, in which case its unique to Wikipedia and as such is original research. It it is verifiable in some way then it would not have been brought to AFD. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword tracking (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Technical AfD. Pros was removed and restored. Article needs to be deleted. Andy14and16 (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Could you please give a reason why this needs to be deleted? NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 05:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the PROD tag^[12]: "Previously deleted article that still has the same issues: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyword tracking." The result of the first discussion was speedy delete, WP:G11. — Rankiri (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Result from previous discussion was Speedy Delete. Andy14and16 (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a wp:dictdef, and poorly written to boot. No references. The are a ton of SEO books these days. If someone can fix the issues, and there's more than a dictdef to it, then it should be kept, otherwise, bye. Pcap ping 02:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 per previous discussion. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider incubation. This is a worthwhile topic. Maurreen (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the whole shebang. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, if any of these can be shown to be blatant copyvios then they are still eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G12. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ambush (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)

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

This article presents no notability whatsoever. This has not been improved upon for nearly a month already, and the article does not show anything beyond copyright vios and has no encyclopedic value. I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason - some moreso than others:

--haha169 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes. None of them are inheritably notable, so merge tothe revelantlist. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure how many of them are notable, but its probably most or all. Searching for sources on the first one, I found [13][14][15][16][17] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why these should not be kept, when I see no deletion warning for Buffy The Vampire Slayer episodes, amongst numerous other TV shows. — Batou san (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:29, April 24, 2010 (UTC).
Keep all without prejudice to someone who wants to merge them intelligently into good, season articles. Star Wars is a huge fictional franchise, with tons of secondary sources. The fact that these articles aren't in a good shape now says nothing about whether they can be improved into standalone articles. Based on my work with List of Veronica Mars episodes, I'm guessing that there's plenty of sources with which someone can make a great article, whether of individual episodes or a season summary format. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument included the fact that the article has not been touched for a month. It is clear by now that the original creator has no intent to improve the article, and it does not seem as if anybody else is up to the job. As it currently stands, there is no reason why these articles should remain unless somebody fixes it up.--haha169 (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kkThere is no deadline for improvement. What would have happened if we had discarded all Wikipedia articles that had not been improved for the whole time of an entire month at some point in their career? As for tis group, the summaries in List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes]] are too short to be meaningful--a combined listwould be fine, if it contained some intermediate amount of information. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many stubs have an established notability, whereas in most of these episode articles, it becomes difficult to locate any production and reception information (which is pretty much required in articles based on fictitious worlds). Although the pilot episode seems to be an exception (I see that many media sources commented on the pilot episode in anticipation of the new series), a great deal of the episodes simply do not carry weight. They are pretty much written in a completely in-universe style with no encyclopedic value. However, I would not reject proposals to drastically minimalize most of the articles or simply redirect them.--haha169 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into relevant list article. As stand-alone articles, the episodes fail the general notability guideline. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IGN and TV Squad probably review every single ep, and theforce.net probably has production info for each. There are other sites as well, I imagine. You'd be very surprised at the number of sources available for TV eps. I've never watched the show, and don't care enough to improve them all, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 copyvio. Tim Song (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Stauffer[edit]

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

Article appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people). Article was tagged for notability on Jan 28. Google searching doesn't indicate that he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. He has authored several books, some of which are self published. I can't find evidence of their notability and consequently his notability as an author either. He was a consulting editor for 'The New Pilgrim Bible, KJV By Oxford University Press' but other than that his name doesn't seem to come up in RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous copyvio of http://www.mccowenmills.com/dr-douglas-stauffer.htm - why has this remained since 2006? Anyway, the subject is President of McCowen Mills Publishers, who publish his books. That virtually makes him a self-published author. Non-notable. St Anselm (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G12. Article tagged as such. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Payne[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable TV personality, only reference is to her bio at her employers website, so fails the "independent" criteria required of sources to prove notability at WP:N and WP:BIO. Article is likely an autobiography, given tone and style. Jayron32 02:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] show notability. Emily Jensen (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several of those links are to different archives of the same article, and all except one are about a single incident; they all appear to be short superficial articles about her absence from the news broadcasts due to a specific health issue. The last is gossip column about romantic interests. There is nothing in any of those references that indicates that they are substantial. If having your name appear in a newspaper is a baseline for notability, then I am notable. I don't see any evidence of substantial or non-trivial coverage in your references. I will gleefully withdraw this nomination if such sources materialize. However, I still don't see it. --Jayron32 04:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the articles each have different word counts and different dates, I find your claim that "Several of those links are to different archives of the same article" to be most questionable. By my calculation, the articles total 3038 words, are primarily about Payne, and appear in a reliable source. While WP:NOTE provides no precise quantitative information to assist in determining "significance" of coverage, 3038 words is probably enough. In asserting that "all except one are about a single incident", you've ignored the first article, concerning the scholarship Payne established. I urge you to revise your comment in light of its factual deficiencies. Emily Jensen (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been able to verify that Allison Payne has won at least six Emmy Awards for her reporting: [24] [25] [26] [27], which shows that she is notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Emily Jensen (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 14:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 14:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Thanks to Emily Jensen for doing the hard work of finding the relevent references to improve this article. Now, the best option, given the awesome sources Emily Jensen has found, is to incorporate those sources into the article as part of a rewrite which will remove the problems that led to it being nominated for deletion in the first place. Emily Jensen did some awesome work in digging up references, and the article should be improved to reflect that awesoem work. --Jayron32 14:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recyclone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician. Article does not cite reliable and independent sources

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 02:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the last debate, which closed as no-consensus, none of the sources cited by anyone voting "Keep" were actually reliable sources as defined by WP:RS. The only things we have on this person are a) self published or b) blogs, forums, or other self-published sites. I see nothing substantial in reliable sources to indicate they meet the minimum standards of WP:N or WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. --Jayron32 03:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The news search yields nothing to do with this artist. The general search yields environmental stuff, MySpace's to other artists and bands with the Recyclone name, and products that have nothing to do with the artist. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Blake[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person, contested prod. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:CREATIVE. Claim to minor achievement as a cover boy. Written by a single-purpose author, most likely a vanity article. References unhelpful in confirming notability. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Condensed down, its about someone who is only notable for winning a cover model competition twice in years when the competition apparently wasn't running Men's Health UK. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding nothing noteworthy for a global encyclopedia here. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Divide trilogy[edit]

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

Non-notable fantasy trilogy that is unsourced and entirely made up of in-universe descriptions. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim back to stub it was hard to find, but got the publisher names and isbns and linked the artists article to these books. artist for the books is highly notable. the books appear to have been initially published by a small press, then picked up by Scholastic, one of the major trade publishers, so there was likely a fever of word of mouth bookselling which drove the publisher to pick them up. there are some mentions in trade journals that recommend titles for booksellers. there was an extensive book review from a trade journal on amazon, but i cant find it now. the contents are not notable, no one has written about them, so i say just trim back all but the publication information and a brief plot summary. post harry potter, most fantasy novels like this that are picked up by trade pubs should be considered notable. the authors of this article simply hadnt done their job at all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am unwilling to say that all fantesy novels by trade publishers are notable, but these particular are, being each held in almot a thousand WorldCat libraries [28]. Reviews are of course needed. I am not convinced the character list is irrelevant or inappropriate, but that's an editing question. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. i will take up the trimming of the article on its talk page, if it passes afd, and just say that the character section doesnt add or subtract to the subjects notability, unlike reviews, etc. you are of course correct about all trade fantasy not necessarily being notable. case by case would apply.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD. [29] Times Online and Wizard News mention the writer is notable for the trilogy, her opinion sought out in the Times article. Dream Focus 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus on non-notability JForget 00:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xee[edit]

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

Limited notability, unreferenced. ℳøℕø 02:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is about an image browser for Mac OS X. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete unless someone adds evidence of independent coverage. Pcap ping 18:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete as a non-notable project/ organization. 2 says you, says two 01:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable, and trivial (it does much the same, but a lot less, than Preview) so it unlikely ever to become notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I opened a file and saw that this was the default application. As I had never heard of Xee, I wanted to get some objective and concise info and landed on this Wikipedia page only to find out you're planning to delete this entry. Oh well. Maybe it's not as "notable" or well-covered as Preview, but sometimes I'd like to know stuff about obscure applications without resorting to company PR materials. Is this no longer one of Wikipedia's purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.126.25 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Heroes of Olympus[edit]

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

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL ℳøℕø 00:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source is a fansite, recreate when the books are actually published. 2 says you, says two 01:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. I quote, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This will take place. Books are already on pre-order. We have solid evidence when this series will come out and what it will be about. I have added some more references to back up my claims. Airplaneman ✈ 01:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - since consensus is clearly leaning towards "delete", I'd like to request userfication, either to my userspace or the creator's. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 23:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No longer violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--ℳøℕø 02:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The afd was previously closed by the above poster, but I re-opened it, as I felt it could use some more discussion. I have no opinion on the article itself, however. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator may withdraw and close his own AfD. So you're renominating? Airplaneman ✈ 03:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the rule that the nominator can only close the AfD if there are no outstanding Delete votes? Silver seren^C 05:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, that's correct, which is why I re-opened it, as before the nominator withdrew, someone else had made a good faith vote for delete. As far as I can tell from WP:SPEEDYKEEP, that means its should remain open even if the nominator withdraws the nomination. Otherwise, its a pretty slam-dunk overturn and relist if someone takes it to deletion review. And in response to Airplaneman, as I stated before, I am neutral on the artcle. My re-opening should be considered procedural only, and not a vote to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Saying that this is "almost certain to take place" is stretching things considerably; the author could be run over by a truck before he's written anything but the first book. When the first book is published, write an article about it, based on the reliable sources that will no doubt discuss it in detail and establish its notability (mentioning, of course, that it's the first novel in a projected series). When the others are published, write articles about them; and when reliable sources report in detail on the series as a whole, write an article about the series. For now, a mention in Rick Riordan is probably all that's appropriate. Deor (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, not enough solid info/sourcing right now. • ɔ ʃ → 19:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK#Not yet published books: "Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged" This is six months off publication: the references are two fansites and three bookstore preorder listings (actually two - Amazon is listed twice). I don't think there is enough independent comment and interest for this to come under the exceptions in that clause. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was see explanation after original deletion rationale. 2 says you, says two 16:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Videosmarts[edit]

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

I vaguely remember having this as a child, but I never saw it anywhere else. None of my friends had it, I never saw it in a toystore and it wasn't advertised on television, nothing like that. The closest thing I could find to a reliable, third party source was this.

The manufacturer, Conner Toys, is redlinked and google doesn't show anything on them. Although Amazon.com does have one of the tapes for sale in the marketplace, no matter how I try to spin it, I just can't see Videosmarts satisfying WP:N. 2 says you, says two 00:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling this AfD, along with the one for ComputerSmarts. I don't think there's enough significant coverage for it to stand on its own, but I'm starting to agree that if Videosmarts, Computersmarts, and music Videosmarts are merged into a single article under Conner Toys or Smarts series, the threshold for WP:N should be met. 2 says you, says two 16:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources. There seems to be at least enough information out there to satisfy notability requirements. Silver seren^C 02:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal hits in the Google news archive, and nothing on the parent company either. Seems pretty non-notable. AniMate 04:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue. If not, then Delete. It does have some marginal sources. That aside, none of them seem to point out any WP:N. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news hits on Google. General search provides links to video sites shows commercials/what it can do and places where you can buy it. I never heard of this till I seen the article up for deletion. If it was around for a year and a half to two years, then it must not have fared well in the video game market when you had to try and rival the Nintendo. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "I've never heard of it" is an invalid reason to vote delete. -Thibbs (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thibbs, You obviously missed my reasoning in the first sentence. The second sentence was a general comment. I am sorry if that has to be pointed out to you. We are all old enough to know the difference. We are not children that need everything pointed out. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in bringing up your personal anecdotes then? I believe they are inappropriate arguments for an AfD. As for your suggestion that Google News doesn't cover the system, please examine the news links on the article page. Surely you'd concede that those are reliable sources, right? -Thibbs (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some reliable sources already exist at the article and I see at least two good sources under google books. References should be improved obviously. -Thibbs (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that WP:IDONTKNOWIT is a poor rationale for deletion, but my point was that the product was either very poorly marketed, or didn't do well because I can't remember Videosmarts being carried or advertised anywhere - and that fact is frequently an indicator of non-notability. While the sources given are reliable, they are all at best marginal mentions, and this doesn't satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. 2 says you, says two 02:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your personal experience with Videosmarts is not at issue here. It's an interesting piece of trivia about you but it has nothing to do with notability of Videosmarts. If it wasn't carried anywhere and if it wasn't advertised anywhere (both doubtful given the sources) then that may indicate non-notability but your personal memories indicate next to nothing. (NOTE: I apologize if I'm coming off as harsh. I'm just trying to be clear and precise.)
In regard to your concerns that ALL the references are trivial, I disagree. Both the Sun Sentinel article and the second Chicago Tribune article (both included in the article's External Links section) cover the Videosmarts system in detail. Of course the links only lead to abstracts, but that doesn't invalidate the coverage in the full article. -Thibbs (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that many of articles provided are in fact, abstracts. One article has absolutely nothing to do with Videosmarts (music videosmarts is a completely different product, by how its described). The remaining abstracts give a word count, which is frequently small enough to show that its coverage of videosmarts cannot be that in depth. 2 says you, says two 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Music VideoSmarts seems to be a sister-product produced by the same manufacturer. It appears that Connor produced a whole line of "XSmarts" educational toys. This lends support for Ost316's suggestion that a merger would be more appropriate than an outright deletion. As for the suggestion that news articles have to be a certain length to qualify as good sources, is this actually Wikipolicy? I agree that longer articles typically will cover topics in greater depth, but some of the articles cited in the VideoSmarts article approach 1000 words. Does this fall short of the threshold requirement for article length? Is there even such a threshold that must be met? -Thibbs (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this article isn't about Connor toys or the "____smarts" series. 2 says you, says two 00:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well "merge" is still a valid consideration in AfDs especially when multiple related articles are up for deletion. As Ost316 pointed out, the article on ComputerSmarts (another sister product) has recently been nominated for deletion and I also noticed that two of its sub-articles have been PRODed as well... A merge could perhaps save some of the information in these articles as well. I mean obviously nobody is interested in deletion just for the sake of deletion.
Anyway, even putting merger aside I don't think a vote for delete on the topic at hand (i.e. VideoSmarts) is justifiable solely on the grounds that one of its listed sources isn't on point and that the source articles are shorter in terms of word-count than would be ideal. We're talking about threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, not promotion to FA status. -Thibbs (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage is accepted to be somewhere between one and two sentences. Anything longer than that is considered, within reasonable bounds, to be significant coverage. Silver seren^C 21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it looks like there is some coverage to show it's notable. Can this be merged with ComputerSmarts? They both have similar logos, as seen on this Amazon page. —Ost (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article has also been nominated for AfD —Ost (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on sources/notability JForget 00:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Kusters[edit]

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

Non-notable Dutch politician. Article borders on an attack piece, very poorly referenced. Unable to independently verify. (Contested PROD). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree this does not meet WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are additional references at nl:Constant Kusters. Several news articles in Dutch can be found here Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
Comment. I considered to put this up for G10 but thought if it could be pared back to one sentence the attack element might be avoided. The article was in a disgraceful state. I have no views on the notability of this one although there does seem to be a raft of coverage in Dutch press; just wanted to explain my blanking of nearly all of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say, from the 70 hits on Google news that appear to be good coverage and the reasonable state of the Dutch version of the article, that this is worthy to keep. It just need to be expanded in a NPOV way and utilize the sources at hand. It would also be reasonable to translate the information from the other article. Silver seren^C 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has received a lot of attention from the Dutch media - unfortunately, I don't speak Dutch, but his name is in enough headlines to suggest he's a notable figure. Moswento (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced in Dutch version of article, so it can stay a stub until someone gets around to translating that article and corresponding sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Straub[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article on a non-notable person. Probably WP:AUTO as well. bender235 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear evidence of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable under WP:CREATIVE, since he has had solo exhibitions of his photographic work. --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to be notable for his works. Silver seren^C 00:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His work may have been published, but where is the commentary on it by independent and reliable sources required by WP:N and WP:BIO? Edison (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, Edison. I would imagine that there would be some in photographic publications that happen neither to be on the web nor to be indexed on it. I have a hunch that there is, somewhere, more commentary on his work by independent and reliable sources than there is on that of the average, say, Playboy "playmate", or bit actor in some science fiction teevee show, or person who once kicked a ball in front of a teevee camera, or several other varieties of human that have vociferous support among the simple folk who tinker with Wikipedia. Meanwhile, note that the exhibition I cited above is not in some hole in the wall somewhere (not that I have anything against such holes; I'm off to one later this afternoon) but an actual museum (one that has its own article in this WP and two others) and also that there's another exhibition here at Leica, which again I don't suppose is the kind of event that can be achieved by just any well-heeled dilettante who cares to pay for it. It seems reasonable to infer that such exhibitions were preceded by at least some commentary by independent and (what WP would call) reliable sources. Ergo, the sensible course of action is to leave the article where it is, try to ensure that it makes no unsupported claims and that no retard adds his own sexual or other fantasies to it, and hope that it picks up steam later when some editor with a brain happens to pick up a magazine, book or newspaper with material about Straub and cares to augment the article accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC) .... slightly rephrased Hoary (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the bais of the two significant solo exhibitions. This meets WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has copyvio problems, I think, the text is largely lifted from the first reference. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely copyvio (and also found at the artist's webpage), as there was no indication of an acceptable license, so I have removed a good portion of the text. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is something of a messy stub, but he passes notability by way of solo exhibits at major museums/galleries. Nothing ordinary editing can't fix. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (A7); non-admin close TheTito ^Discuss 09:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play.Me[edit]

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

No external or reliable sources that aren't from the company's own website, except the one. Cynof Gavuf 10:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I intended to close this "no consensus" with leave to renom like I normally do with non-blps but pushed the wrong button. Oh well what's done is done so lets give it a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom hits nail on head, ℳøℕø 00:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable website. 2 says you, says two 07:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no real consensus for deletion/seems more of a consensus to keep based on sources/notability JForget 00:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bekim Bejta[edit]

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

Self promotional article written in superlative, not notable and the main contributor to the article seems to be the user with the same name as the article. kedadial 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to KosovaAlbaner, he received the Kosovo National Literary Prize for the translation of the work by Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio. See also [30], [31], [32], [33]. Btw, is the karate world champion and recordman of the same name the same person? I doubt it. Vejvančický (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...It is of course possible that Shakespeare translator broke eight push-ups world records, but this is... well, very unusual. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Questions. I do not think he meets WP:PROF with one linguistic publication. No hits in google scholar. Youtube is not a reliable source, so there's no source for his being a world karate champion in the article itself. Is being a Guiness Book record holder sufficient to establish notability? The award looks good though, for that I'm on the fence. Also, while foreign languages sources can be reliable, I believe they are supposed to be accompanied by translations--Vejvančický, can you provide translations of relevant material from the sources you mention above, and incoporate them in some form in the article? I'm willing to lend a hand editing the language if there are some better sources to work with. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an author on the basis of the translations as well as the academic books. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Neutral Really on the line. Although extensive and with sources, I see notability established - but unsure if it is enough for WP inclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no opinion yet on his work as a translator, but his work as a linguist seems thoroughly non-notable. His presumed "main work" was published with L'Harmattan, Paris, which is essentially a self-publishing outlet with no quality control, and its impact in scholarship appears to be zero – no references to it anywhere in the academic literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is concerning to me is the karate/push-ups intermezzo. I'm convinced that the article describes two different persons. The sources mentioned above ([34], [35], [36], [37], [38]) clearly say that Bejta has won in the "best translation" section of the Kosovo National Literary Prize. I can't speak or read Albanian, I'm using Google translator. Perhaps the nominator, who seems to be a native speaker, could say more. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That the literary/linguistic Bejta and the pushups Bejta should be two different persons seems unlikely – both aspects have been in the article from the very first edit, which was made by the apparent autobio account Bekim Bejta (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted that, Fut.Perf.. However, I don't believe that. None of the independent sources treating literary/linguistic Bejta mention his second profession, and none of the sources treating Bejta karatist mention his literary skills, only Wikipedia and its mirrors. Bekim Bejta (talk · contribs) (karatist or linguist or completely unrelated person) made confusion here, in my opinion. We need people fluent in Albanian language to resolve this problem. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I've also looked a bit at photographs to clear this up: Here and here are videos of Karate-Bejta. He's the short-haired blond guy apparently. Here is a press photograph of the prize ceremony where Literature-Bejta was honoured. Though both the karate videos and the photo are quite low resolution and low quality, it does seem fair to say that none of the guys on the literature prize photo look like the guy on the karate video. If these are indeed different people, the account who created the article was not just a run-of-the-mill autobio n00b, but a deliberate vandal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... if our assumption is correct. Thanks for your investigation and for the work on the article. Vejvančický (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've not been able to verify his status as a Karate champion here, at the website of the Karate organisation that ran the championship. Note that this "WKA" seems to be a rather small and not particularly prestigious organisation, not to be confused with the World Karate Federation that runs the better-known Karate World Championships. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Delete'~~, Looks like the pushup claim is bogus as well, see [[39]] and [[40]]. All righty then, if the Linguistics publication is non-notable, and the karate artiste and translator are two different people, and there's no pushups guiness record. my opinion is that however many people we're talking about, none of them are notable. Many thanks to Future Perfect. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the national literary award for translation, Nuujinn. This is an official recognition, is it sufficient for inclusion here? --Vejvančický (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since you brought that up I thought about it a great deal. By WP:PROF, the relevant criterion would be "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". The sources are in albanian, and google's not good at translating that, so it's difficult to assess the significance of the award. The other issue is whether Kosovo should be considered a nation. My feeling is that this does not quite reach the level of notability, but if there's someone who can provide a good translation or if there are any other sources, I'll be happy to reconsider. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need help of a native speaker. In my limited purview, I compare with a similar literary prize awarded in my country - Magnesia Litera. The competition has very similar structure and level and is considered as a high recognition within the Czech Republic. The experts select the best literary works in a national language. It is not the Man Booker Prize, of course. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but if one considers Kosovo a nation (I'm on the fence, it's arguably a de facto nation if not de jure), and we can substantiate the award a bit better, it would count under WP:PROF. I'll poke around and see what I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm late for the discussion. I reviewed the given links and they cover more or less the same event. Here is my translation: "Bekim Bejta, was awarded with the prize of literary for translating Raga. Approche du continent invisible by Jean-Marie Gustave le Clezio". The award was given by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Kosovo, on 4 March 2010. Cheers. kedadial 20:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuujinn Kosovo is definitely a de facto state, that is a fact. If it is de jure, depends entirely on your point of view. Outback the koala (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether Kosovo is de facto or de jure nation, however, the local literary community awarded a person, who made a good translation and enriched the local cultural scene. I'm not sure with the status of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Kosovo, I'm not familiar with the complicated and sensitive situation in that area. Unfortunately, the online sources are very weak and nobody here seems to have access to the specialised literary journals in Kosovo. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Kedadi, thanks for the assist. I've withdrawn my delete vote, given that the source looks clean, and that Kosovo is likely going to stick around for the foreseeable future. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the discussion above - sourcing seems adequate to establish notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sakis Rouvas European Tour[edit]

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

Didn't happen and highly unlikely to happen anytime soon as per recent career developments. Imperatore (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete WP:CRYSTAL balling. Plus it says in the infobox "TBA 2009." That right there shows it won't be happening anytime soon as 2009 has come and gone. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greekboy (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless the tour consisted of a couple of shows in Moscow (i.e. the Eurovision Song Contest 2009), the tour never happened, so the page should be deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It's 2010 now and it seems the large scale tour never took place other than a few sporadic appearances. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online Timeshift Auctions[edit]

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

Non notable patent. Google of the term shows a patent application published in March 2010 and nothing else. No indication of this existing outside the patent application. Disputed Prod. noq (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no coverage [41]. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist exploitation[edit]

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

"Exploitation" is not a "phenomenon" (i.e. A state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning) plus there is a poverty of reliable sources which combine these two words as a common name. Pinned together with a "Boycott The RIAA" external link, this article whiffs of WP:SOAP. Wikispan (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is an issue in the music biz, but an encyclopedia article would have to be far better sourced (from research in entertainment law, possibly) and better constructed than this. In its current form it could become an indiscriminate list if examples of ripped-off musicians are added, and it'll always be soapy without much stronger sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Actually, artist exploitation is indeed a phenomenon -- it has taken place since before recorded history and in defense of it, a foundational theory of copyright law, better known in legalese as "droit de suite", was created. I edited the article to reflect this, but perhaps the article should merge, with another article having to do with copyright law. Sctechlaw (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete over -general article coving a very nonspecific and broad topic. No evidence for this being a standard phrase. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feel there are a multitude of problems with this article. But in particular; the word "artist" in modern usage is very very vague. as a term it dose not describe an identifiable sub group with clear economic or social commonalities in any modern society . The term can refer to almost anybody human and thus 'artist' exploitation' is not by its nature a definable concept. There is frankly a lot of sentimentality and fog around the usage of the term 'artist'.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dogwoof Pictures[edit]

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

WP:NN company failing WP:CORP. While the company has distributed highly notable products, that doesn't make the company notable. If that were the case, every corner store that sold Coca-Cola would be notable. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An international film distributor is hardly a corner store. By that reasoning, Walmart, K-Mart, and Lowe's might also not then be notable because they also sell occasionally notable products, including Coca Cola. Is not notability to be determined by possible sources, rather than WP:NOTINHERITED? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that they're not international - rather a UK-only distributor. Yes, WP:N relies on third party coverage of the company or awards directly to the company, not awards to the products they sell, etc.. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having read through sources in regards this company, it seems they've made a deal with CISCO and are expanding to take their product to the internet.[42] So, while still based in the UK they will now be servicing a world-wide marketplace. I can see that having only a UK branch, the company itself is not international, but simply services (or will service) internationally. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their role as distributor seems to have been significant. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources show significant coverage of the company, itself. Emily Jensen (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources are available that provide in-depth coverage of this company, so it has at least prima facie evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Additionally, we shouldn't give too much weight to WP:NOTINHERITED in an industry that exists for the purpose of distributing others' works. --Darkwind (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per having coverage that shows notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raydesk[edit]

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

I declined the speedy deletion request on this but it nonetheless appears to be lacking coverage in reliable sources and be overly promotional in tone and intent (although, I think, not sufficiently so to speedy delete). CIreland (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~I'm not sure why the speedy was declined~~, but there's really no assertion of notability and no apparent reliable coverage. jæs (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because articles about software are not eligible for A7 speedy deletion. CIreland (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the promotional edits to desktop virtualization by the author, I initially mistook the article for being about the "Stickfish Raydesk" software company, as opposed to just the "Raydesk" software product. In any event, the only mentions I can find — for either the company or the software — are one or two wire press releases (and a bunch of duplicates). jæs (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent coverage for now. Pcap ping 00:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability hasn't been shown. Emily Jensen (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Outback the koala (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raw and Un-Kutt[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable, currently unreleased album. May be notable in the future but at this point it definitely does not deserve it's own article. WP:CRYSTAL WP:GNG Marokwitz (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as I can't find multiple reliable and independent sources confirming this album's release. Once the album is released it can have its own page if warranted per reliable sources, or else a simple redirect to the artist's page. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Myspace and Youtube don't establish notability. Emily Jensen (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Mutacene Chronicles characters[edit]

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

Deletable under WP:LC. The underlying fiction is non-notable. RJ (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, in that the book has a popular underground following, and while it may not be notable to the masses as yet, it could be the next Twilight or Harry Potter series. To consider the first book of a multiple book series as non-notable before it is able to achieve the numerous followers it is capable of is irresponsible to those who already enjoy it. Also, Wikipedia is a source for information on all matters, and this book / list of characters is existent enough to warrant a page, small as it may be. There are many other books here the masses have not heard of, some the masses may never hear of, but their place on Wikipedia is cemented, as should this series be. DekkanRhee (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. See WP:BALL. When you say, "To consider the first book of a multiple book series as non-notable before it is able to achieve the numerous followers it is capable of is irresponsible to those who already enjoy it." We cannot and should not predict the future on Wikipedia. Be careful of WP:AD. An article on Wikipedia should not be thought of promoting the series but come naturally as a result of notability. I would like an article on the Mutacene Chronicles itself before a listing all the characters. NOVA: The Seven should be looked at for AfD. What you need most are secondary citations and awards to prove notabilty. From pre-emptory internet searches, I have been unable to find such proof. Providing reputable sources as evidence of notability would help to keep these articles. RJ (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? Really? The page is not speculating, it states verifiable fact (about the fiction of the book.) This series (which is still on the first novel) looks to be very good if the initial book is any indication. I know at least a dozen people who have read it in my local area, and found someone online 400 miles away who is familiar with it as well. The book may still be 'underground' but unless you are a part of the comic book fandom that followers of the book belong to, you could not understand the importance of the books. The first book transcends stereotypes and combines the mediums of novel and comic book, unlike graphic novels, in a completely written form. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. DekkanRhee (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is an unsourced collection of fan trivia. Reyk _YO! 22:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the Amazon link in NOVA: The Seven, the first part of this series, it was published using Amazon's self-publishing service CreateSpace, what some uncharitably refer to as vanity publishing. There are no apparent reliable secondary sources covering the book in detail, needed to comply with WikiPedia's notability guideline, so any sub-articles are in the same boat by default. Someone another 09:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Definitely cruft. The book itself spectacularly fails WP:BK and WP:GNG, and its article has now been listed at AfD as well. Even if the book's article survives AfD, said article isn't large enough to require the character list to be broken out anyway. --Darkwind (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listing fictional characters from an unnotable book is not needed. Clubmarx (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland in fiction[edit]

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

At a recent requested move, User:Labattblueboy commented "The article extends beyond the traditional realm of fiction. Beyond that, the article contains no citation at all, screams of original research. A merger or an AfD are likely the best routes here". I have closed the Requested Move as opposed, and started this AfD. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the criterion for listing hee has to be not mention of Newfoundland, but it having a significant role in the plot or setting of a notable wok with an article in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't get how "the article extends beyond the traditional realm of fiction"; there's not a single thing listed on it that isn't a work of fiction (a term which is inclusive of scripted television and film), so it's not extending so much as a quarter of an inch outside of what it says it is. Accordingly, I went to scope the edit history at WP:RM to see if I could find more information about what the proposed rename was and why it was opposed — and I can't find any indication that the nominator ever edited that page at all, or that User:Labattblueboy (who has edited that page in the past, but not recently and not pertaining to this page in any way) ever had anything to say about this particular article either. If the discussion took place somewhere other than WP:RM itself, then the nominator should have linked to the actual discussion instead of to WP:RM. And it's not original research to say that a work of fiction is set in Newfoundland if that fact can be objectively verified just by looking at the named work of fiction itself, either; it might be OR to speculate that a work of fiction set in a fictional place is based on Newfoundland, but it's in no way OR to say that The Shipping News and The Adventure of Faustus Bidgood are set there given that they're explicitly depicted as taking place in Newfoundland right in the work itself. That said, this kind of thing is usually handled by "X in fiction" categories rather than list articles (I'm not aware of too many other "Place in fiction" lists that haven't been crapcanned), so I'm not sure it's actually needed — but I would still like further clarification of the nomination rationale, because as written I'm just not seeing it. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sources would be better, but I'm inclined to keep it. Hopefully, it can be improved at a later date, but as is, I still don't see why we would choose to lose this page of information. Outback the koala (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyle (band)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Fails WP:BAND and WP:N no significant coverage or charting that I can find that will allow it to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add all discography to which this page links to this afd. Not only is this band not notable, but there are also other articles on their albums, songs, and other works that should be up for deletion. There is just one source, seemingly their own, that is used to source all these pages. Dew Kane (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG; I was unable to locate any reliable sources. --Darkwind (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Nehme[edit]

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

WP:NN performer, host of a NN TV show couple of random commercials, etc. Toddst1 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I gave the article a cleanup to make it somehat prettier, but am unable to read the Lebanese language sources availble through the G-News search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references at all in the article. The news hits are not in English, so hard to verify them. A general Google search turns up directory listings, profiles, Facebook, and pictures. Nothing that can be used to assert notability. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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