Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 11

< 10 December	12 December >

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. With no prejudice against later recreation. Tone 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristijan Mesaroš[edit]

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

a player on the rise but not (yet) WP notable according to our criteria: not a top three ranking junior or with any junior grand slam titles; no ATP Tour main draw match wins or any ATP Challenger titles Mayumashu (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even if he didn't won any Challengers he won many Futures and he is amongst top ten singles players from Croatia. The 8th ranked player of the country. That is notable as far as I am concerned. (Gabinho^>:) 23:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than the listings at the ITF and ATP websites this article is without sources. The article does not seem to meet WP:NTENNIS and in light of no other sources to show 'significant coverage' falls short of the wider requirements of WP:GNG Pol430 talk to me 11:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage about him appears to be routine sports news coverage, so I do not find any indication that general notability is met. As for specific tennis notability, the Futures events are not part of the inclusion criteria because they are not sufficiently high level given the multi-tier structure of professional tennis. the improvements in his ranking certainly look like he will become notable in the future. And when that time comes, then would be the time for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 19:10, 13 December 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, sources were added, and nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barret Oliver[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, extant since 2007, with major neutrality issues. This article either needs sourcing by interested parties, or deleting. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw based on sourcing. Could someone wrap this up if they see it as closeable? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean it up. It's not so hard to make this a simple sourced stub instead of putting it up for deletion. Garion96 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but it seems no-one is willing to put in the time. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who add material, and those editors don't seem to be interested. No-one is willing or able to put in the work, and unless this AfD spurs people into sourcing the article, deletion is the only sensible option. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand what you're saying. Unsourced blp should go and I agree. But it only took me 2 minutes to get rid of the unsourced crap, find 1 source and have leave a decent (although definitely can be improved and expanded) stub behind. Garion96 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless someone puts in time and sources article at least a little PamelaBMX 04:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harumph Okay... since no one else will bother to do so, I'll use available sources[1] and work on the article some myself. I'll report back after some progress... and a note: no one else improving it is a sad reason for which to delete an improvable article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sad reason with most things, but if there's a BLP involved, it's a sensible reason. I don't have the time or the interest to reference the article, and I have no interest in answering an angry OTRS ticket from the subject. Many thanks to those who have referenced it. To quote the verifiability policy, unsourced information "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information [particularly] about living persons."". You may not agree with my methods for getting it sourced, but you can't argue that it is now sourced :-) 21:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It is and it is not. You could have reverted the article to a much earlier version. That way all the unsourced stuff would have been gone faster then it takes to put the article up for AFD. Garion96 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And too, a point worth considering, is that the individual's Saturn Award win and multiple Young Artist Award nominations were not difficult to find and source. I know it's sometimes easier for some editors to bring something to AFD and then have somebody else do the work, but it was possible that this AFD need not have even happened in the first place. However, the deed sir, she is done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant discussion in multiple secondary sources, literally hundreds of WP:RS sources. Recipient of notable award, the Saturn Award. Multiple film roles in notable films. -- Cirt (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now shows the Saturn Award win and multiple Young Artist Award nominations... all now sourced. Individual meets WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 12 December 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. Keep (withdrawn nomination, no opposition.) Several pertinent issues of the article title and article content were raised, please take those to discussion on the article talk page. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the LGBT community[edit]

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

1) This article uses very few statistics showing how racism within the LGBT community is any worse than racism within the whole white community. 2) This is offensive towards LGBT people as it targets the LGBT community in a negative way. Whether its true or not it would be offensive to publish an article about how much more crime there is in the communities of people of color for example. I guarantee if I wrote an article on how much more crime there was in the Black community it would be taken down as racist. From a sociological perspective this article actually creates more racism and homophobia by pitting the minorities againist each other and creating inter-minority prejudice. 3) This does not reflect a global perspective on the issue. 4) This article does not have a counterpart article about Heterosexism within communities of color because it would be taken down for being racist. But this homophobic and transphobic article can still exist.I think thats a double standard.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not censored. If something meets both WP:V and WP:N, then there's no reason there shouldn't be an article on it regardless on whether somebody would be offended. I'm sure Evolution offends the Christian community, but we don't hear calls for it to be taken down. Now, as for whether or not this article is WP:NPOV, that's another kettle of fish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're are basically telling me that wikipedia supports hate speech. If this was so wikipedia would have been taken down long ago.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that verifiable, notable subjects should not be censored because they 'offend' one, or any, groups. Or should the woman who thought Fuck was an objectionable page be able to have it deleted? (Yes, this really was mentioned on the AN/I page, a woman objecting to an article about a phrase used against Poles (I think) said that she would be trying to get that deleted later. Thankfully sanity prevailed.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article claims to be about racism. However, it only addressed Latinos once and has not once addressed Native Americans, Asians, Jews, or Arabs. Are these racial/ethnic groups not notable? -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It did address some of those groups until, ironically, they were very recently taken out for the same reasons as your AfD. Quigley (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to admit it did address Asian Americans as I just looked it up. Thanks for catching me. However this part was removed due to lack of sources and the fact still remains that Native Americans, Arabs and Jews are still not addressed.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Race and ethnicity in the LGBT community. The title, as is, is obviously incendiary and limits the subject matter to something repugnant, which would make it a POVFORK. However, enough has been written about racial identities and relations within LGBT communities such that a good Wikipedia article could be written about it. By the way, I can't leave without comment your caustic treatment of LGBT people and people of color as separate entities. The most damning critiques on this issue come not from "homophobic and transphobic" people of any race or ethnicity, but from those who have been marginalized by racism in a community for which they might have had higher expectations of tolerance. Quigley (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT communities and People of Color are seperate entities that can't be disputed. I think what you are trying to say is that they often overlap and therein you would be right. However, both are minority entities which have faced years of persecution. Why should people expect that LGBT people are free of discrimination. They are only human. By your logic however, every minority group must be accepting of other minority groups and therefore have a higher expectation of tolerance. So why should there not be an artical on heterosexism and transphobia within the communities of color. I would personally fight to take this down as well. Racism and homophobia are both equally damaging therefore both issues Racism in the LGBT community and Heterosexism and Transphobia in Communities of Color should be discussed in an equal and non-biased (racist, sexualist (or in the case of transgender people) sexist fashion). -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename per user quigleyPamela BMX 04:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quigley renamed the article to Race, ethnicity, and the LGBT community, a slight modification on the post above. Subsequently Rainbowofpeace renamed it to Relations between the LGBT community and people of color. I strongly prefer Race, ethnicity, and the LGBT community, which is more inclusive, and I think more globally recognizable. --Pnm (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination but I think that the tile Race, Ethnicity, and the LGBT community sounds more like a term paper than an encyclopedia article. I changed it to Relations between the LGBT Community and People of Color because it sounded more encyclopedic. I also think this article's talk page needs to be archived but I don't know how. I would really appreciate it if someone could do that. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:18, 13 December 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. L Faraone 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krislund[edit]

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

No secondary sources cited and I can find nothing except promotional material and directory-type lists making more than a passing reference to this program. No other articles link here. Much of the article (particularly the "Contact" section) reads like an advertisement. Idhtns (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously copied from promotional material, and not notable even taking all statements as true. EEng (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as irredeemable spam, and also lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious copyvio with cut-and-paste text. It has neither an allegation nor evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC) This is not an obvious copyvio, but some is cut from here. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 15 December 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. L Faraone 03:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sakthi T. K. Krishnasamy[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noted Screen writer in Tamil films from 1950s and 1960s. online archives for Indian media begin only from 2000. So there is no coverage of him (or what exists is passing mentions in tribute pieces to actors of that era and re-reviews of 50s and 60s films ). His work in Veerapandiya Kattabomman is well remembered and is even mentioned in a Tamil Virtual University text book. As someone who wrote the script for a large number of notable tamil films he easily passes WP:ENT. I have offline Tamil books that have his film credits. If the article is kept, i will add them as references.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please add some beforehand, as that could ensure a keep. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All articles must meet certain criteria to establish notability (in this case WP:CREATIVE also applies) using reliable sources. The article lacks such sources. Unfortunately, just saying someone if famous or great is not enough to support an article in Wikipedia. If you provide adequate support per WP:RS and the article will survive, if not, it is likely the article will be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- First of all, if related articles given as links from Wikipedia cannot be trusted as reliable sources for this article, then why in the first place such articles are still kept in Wikipedia. Please search few times on the internet, then you will know that there are not many links or resources available on (South) Indian Cinema of the 50(s) and 60(s) especially. Given that scenario, I genuinely think that enough creditable outside links and references are added to this article to substantiate the subject, let alone the related Wikipedia references and links. I have read so many pages or articles in Wikipedia on Indian Cinema, where I have some good knowledge in particular. Many of these pages have hardly any resources or external links at all to substantiate their contents, let alone to prove their quality. How come they are all there in Wikipedia then? I am not going to argue anything anymore with you on this, as I really don't get any benefit out of adding some contents to this article. I am not going to write anymore and waste my time here. All the best for all your great endeavours like this (taking such abstract decisions). Sudhavijayau (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)SudhaVijayau[reply]

Keep Hey Guys, This section talks about a widely known (yesteryear) Tamil Cinema scriptwriter. Lots of his movies have been telecast in South Indian TV channels, especially the great historical classic of 'Veera Pandiya Kattabomman',which was repeatedly telecast on Indian Independence Day (August 15th) for quite number of years. I think this article is credit worthy and it should not be deleted. Chithra Anand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.95.176 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — 202.7.95.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – All articles must meet certain criteria to establish notability (in this case WP:CREATIVE also applies)) using reliable sources. The article lacks such sources. Unfortunately, just saying someone if famous or great is not enough to support an article in Wikipedia. If you provide adequate support per WP:RS and the article will survive, if not, it is likely the article will be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if related articles given as links from Wikipedia cannot be trusted as reliable sources for this article, then why in the first place such articles are still kept in Wikipedia. Please search few times on the internet, then you will know that there are not many links or resources available on (South) Indian Cinema of the 50(s) and 60(s) especially. Given that scenario, I genuinely think that enough creditable outside links and references are added to this article to substantiate the subject, let alone the related Wikipedia references and links. I have read so many pages or articles in Wikipedia on Indian Cinema, where I have some good knowledge in particular. Many of these pages have hardly any resources or external links at all to substantiate their contents, let alone to prove their quality. How come they are all there in Wikipedia then? I am not going to argue anything anymore with you on this, as I really don't get any benefit out of adding some contents to this article. I am not going to write anymore and waste my time here. All the best for all your great endeavours like this (taking such abstract decisions). Sudhavijayau (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)SudhaVijayau[reply]

Keep This article talks about a very famous writer of Tamil Film industry (esp. 50(s) and 60(s)). Many of his films were classics. It is sad that quite a few like this great film writer, who needs worldly recoginition, are not yet listed in Wikipedia. I am suprised somebody requests for deletion of this article even without knowing anything about its subject. Well I think we need to add more (film and literature) artciles like this guys. Tamilfilmsbuff (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Tamilfilmsbuff — Tamilfilmsbuff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – All articles must meet certain criteria to establish notability (in this case WP:CREATIVE also applies)) using reliable sources. The article lacks such sources. Unfortunately, just saying someone if famous or great is not enough to support an article in Wikipedia. If you provide adequate support per WP:RS and the article will survive, if not, it is likely the article will be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some references, materials and links related to the subject of this article as requested by you.

Tamilfilmsbuff (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Tamilfilmsbuff[reply]

First of all, if related articles given as links from Wikipedia cannot be trusted as reliable sources for this article, then why in the first place such articles are still kept in Wikipedia. Please search few times on the internet, then you will know that there are not many links or resources available on (South) Indian Cinema of the 50(s) and 60(s) especially. Given that scenario, I genuinely think that enough creditable outside links and references are added to this article to substantiate the subject, let alone the related Wikipedia references and links. I have read so many pages or articles in Wikipedia on Indian Cinema, where I have some good knowledge in particular. Many of these pages have hardly any resources or external links at all to substantiate their contents, let alone to prove their quality. How come they are all there in Wikipedia then? I am not going to argue anything anymore with you on this, as I really don't get any benefit out of adding some contents to this article. I am not going to write anymore and waste my time here. All the best for all your great endeavours like this (taking such abstract decisions). Sudhavijayau (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)SudhaVijayau[reply]

Comment – Since there is no mechanism to insure that accuracy of Wikipedia articles they are not considered as valid references for an article. See reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability of the comments in the article. Unless the article has the references needed, it will not survive the AfD. It is the author's responsibility to insure the adequacy of references – it is not the reader's responsibility. As far as other article that may or may not be lacking they have no bearing in this discussion since all articles need to stand on their own merits. It is a shame you consider the addition of references to the article a waste of time. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- More references, relevant and trust-worthy links added to this article including a relevant article from an Indian National News Paper site, which talks about this subject. After reading the comments and testimony written by others (who really have knowledge about this article's contents) in support of this article, it's genuine subject and quality worthiness, I feel good that I wrote this article. I sincerely thank other supporters for their valuable time, efforts, comments and citations provided. Nothing more needs to be done from our side to substantiate anything else on this matter. Thanks to all and thanks to Tony as well. Bye all. Sudhavijayau (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC) SudhaVijayau[reply]
Keep per reasoned comments by User:Sodabottle as to the noteworthiness of this individual to Cinema of India, and in consideration of the difficulties inherent in Westerners finding online sources for pre-intenet Tamil films. I will gladly assume good faith that if Sodabottle says he has access to hardcopy books, and promises to add them as sources, that he will do just that. As the article is not a violation of WP:BLP or WP:NOT it serves the project to allow its continued improvement through regular editing. If it is not improved, then a second AFD might be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added the relevant sources, to establish notability. To reiterate the points made in my keep vote,, he meets WP:ENT as the sole script writer for multiple notable tamil films (the full number is near 20). I have added sources for that. He is the recepient of the 1963 Kalaimamani award given by the Government of Tamil Nadu.(reference added). He is most known for his dialogues in Veerapandiya Kattabomman (which incidently won an award in the Cairo International film festival) and is remembered for the still. He is praised in a text book lesson on "language of Tamil films" as The credit for changing the trend of making mythological films to films with social themes belongs to Sakthi Krishnasamy. He is also the one who wrote the blistering dialogues for Veerapandiya Kattabomman. (source added). As i have mentioned earlier it is difficult to find sources online, but offline sources do exist. For example, the one i am using (A history of record making Tamil films) is a book commissioned by the Govt of Tamil Nadu and published in 2004. I hope this satisfies the notability concerns--Sodabottle (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Even though I started this article and added quite a few references and links to substantiate its subject, the work our user, "Sodabottle" has done here is exemplary and outstanding. Thanks for all your efforts "Sodabottle". You enriched this article with excellent and relevant references, citations and Bibliography. People like you actually encourage people like me to write more for the benefit of our society. I kind of focus on “lost heroes in the modern internet world”. There are many (Indian and other world greats, the people I am well aware of), who became great legends in their own areas of work, by their splendid life time contributions and achievements, are still not available in Wikipedia pages to search and read. Adding pages on them and their work should really benefit our literary world community. Hats off to you again "Sodabottle". Thanks to everybody else who contributed to this article and other useful and resourceful Wikipedia pages. Regards. Sudhavijayau (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Sudhavijayau[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 19:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in Aruba[edit]

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

Article is non-encyclopedia 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - article suitable. Other countries have such lists Maltesedog (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, this is a standard type of article for a country, even if it does need expanding. Also, as a note, the article was prodded by an IP, then expanded by another IP who (rightfully) removed the prod. Then this new editor, who has not made any edits other than to this article to send it to AfD, AfD'd it with the edit summary "Readded Article for Deletion which was improperly deleted by [IP] prior to the 7 days expiry". Clearly somebody has an improper understanding of how the PROD works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Clarification: I am User:71.101.84.3 and if you look at my edit history (Special:Contributions/71.101.84.3) you will notice that I have been editing on Wikipedia since November. Now that's not a lot of time to be editing but still, I think there should be some consideration. Further if you look at the notice template it states "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Therefore as I am to understand based on this User:76.66.194.212 violated this rule by deleting the AfD before the discussion had been properly discussed and the AfD was properly voted on and closed, So I DO have a full understanding thank you very much. 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that, however, User:76.66.194.212 was fully within his rights to remove the tag. The article was not at AfD when he removed the tag. It has been Prodded, or 'Proposed for Deletion', which is an entirely different deletion process. And the PROD tag says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." So he was entirely proper in his removal of the tag upon his expansion of the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize mate and I see the point you've made. 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like the procedural issue has been resolved, so hopefully we don't have to argue about that any more. Substantively, I don't see any good basis for objecting to this article. When I came here, I expected to see a comment along the lines of "there's only one airport so we don't need a list" or some such, but I see that's not the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (laughs) I guess if you want to get technical there is only one airport in Aruba Queen Beatrix International Airport in Oranjestad and to be perfectly honest not sure if De Vuijst Field is even active anymore, I did a Google and only found one article and that's it, the same goes for Marine Aerodrome at Savaneta Beach, but whatever. 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this not encyclopdic?! Part of a bigger scheme of Category:Lists of airports by country. Clearly defined inclusion criteria for a list. Lugnuts (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I can see no rationale for deleting this article... Pol430 talk to me 13:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as lugnuts describes it. TheGrappler (talk) 17:59, 14 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Blom[edit]

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

Largely a page filled with gossip; there is no proof that Viktor Blom is Isildur1 (and there is a page on Isildur1 anyway) and Blom isn't otherwise notable enough to warrant an article, what with having only a single cash on the HendonMob list. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He is not notable. Just onother online Grinder. -Koppapa (talk) 13:12, 12 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Rude[edit]

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

5-year unsourced biography, marked BLP unsourced since June. Tommy1964 (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources provided. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 December 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. Tone 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Posey[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP written by User:Benjamin C. Posey, and deprodded by same. Claims to be a trumpet teacher/performer. No sources even verify this person exists, let alone passes WP:MUSICIAN. Abductive (reasoning) 19:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable even if all the (unreferenced) claims are true -- Eagle Scout, summercamp counseling, and so on notwithstanding. EEng (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eeng. Ray^Talk 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No strong assertion of notability combined with no coverage in reliable sources means he does not meet the inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fully support educators but not all of them are encyclopedia material. The information in this article is already covered in his professional website, and that's sufficient until he becomes notable in the news. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Teachers at the secondary level are not notable per se and this article shows nothing beyond that. Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 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. L Faraone 19:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese pop culture in America[edit]

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

I initially redirected this article to Japanese popular culture twice, but the creator reverted it both times (I didn't do it a third time because I didn't want to violate WP:3RR). I was then going to ask for assistance at WP:3 but considering what the creator wrote in this edit summary, it's clear that s/he doesn't quite understand what Wikipedia is all about. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs perhaps a retitle and some cleaning up, but as a subject it is clearly notable as being covered by many scholarly sources. See [2] and [3] as newspaper sources, this one here: [4] is a book length treatment of the topic, here is an NPR podcast. Had the OP done WP:BEFORE merely by typing the title of the article into google, as I did to find these, it would have confirmed this seems to be a perfectly deep enough topic for an article. --Jayron32 19:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I tend to agree. Unless there is another article on this topic to merge to, this is a big topic that needs an article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The writer does seem to have had little experience with WP, hence their plea when such is useless, but I get the distinct impression from their plea that their sense of what it is has become quite clear, if it was not before. The failing here is in the nom not being able to use Google, not the author's writing ability. WP writers got scooped by an English writing project - Snap!. So what's it going to be? Hubris or humility? Anarchangel (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And? Anarchangel (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant I didn't understand what you said. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway... Keep - The article seems large enough and has the potential to expand sufficiently to warrant its own article. Which I believe was the OP's rationale for deletion/merge. Pol430 talk to me 14:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is just flat out original research. In fact, this edit summary proves the point that this is someone's research paper. —Farix (t | c) 14:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that wikipedia is not a place to post your own work, the impact on Japanese pop culture in America is big and goes beyond just anime and manga so in a way its ironic that this topic was made by someone who was just doing an english paper. I feel this article just needs to be rewritten and have some TLC for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farix, a research paper is presumably heavy on the research part as well as containing some OR... --Gwern (contribs) 22:40 16 December 2010 (GMT)

Keep - seems like an analogous article (if simultaneously broader and more narrow in scope) to anime and manga fandom or Japonisme, and seems like a potentially notable topic. I'm disappointed that there doesn't seem to have been an attempt to explain why the redirect was done, and I'm disappointed by the tagbombing of the article, rather than any of the alternatives explained by the editing policy. This is precisely the kind of bitey behaviour which leads to Wikipedia not retaining new editors. Susan J. Napier's From Impressionism To Anime: Japan As Fantasy And Fan Cult In The Western Imagination may assist in the building of the article. --Malkinann (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Japanese pop culture has had a huge impact on America in the last decade that goes on strong today, I fully see potential in this article, although parts of it need to be rewritten and sourced. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Like Malkinann, I wonder if we don't already cover this topic already under another name or perhaps as a very big section of another article; Japanese pop culture's reception and uptake in the USA is such a legitimate and obvious topic that it seems hard to believe it only got an article in December 2010. --Gwern (contribs) 22:39 16 December 2010 (GMT)
Keep It is a notable topic. I'm sure there are books written on the subject, and news coverage listing something about this. There is an interview linked to and referenced in the Exo-Squad article, where the American creator of this animated series said he was influenced by Japanese anime style. That's the only thing that comes to mind right away. Dream Focus 22:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable topic, and the majority of the information in the article is capable of being sourced even if it's not at present. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:41, 17 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

António Moraes Machado[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN; he is mayor of a city of little importance, and it is an unreferenced BLP since 2007 that doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG either. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find nontrivial coverage of the subject in secondary sources. The town of which he is mayor, is a municipality of 10k or so inhabitants, which is far too small for automatic notability. Ray^Talk 05:45, 13 December 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. Courcelles 23:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Girling[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP; IMDb shows only a handful of roles in TV movies, nothing that would show clear notability. Couldn't find any secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was not unreferenced; it included an External link to the IMDB page on Laura Girling. I converted that to an inline reference, too. The person is notable enough for an article; better to keep rather than force re-creation later. No benefit to deleting, better to allow development. --doncram (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB does not count as a source worthy of keeping an article; if that was true we'd have a million articles on various actors and second unit directors. If there's anything other than (keywords) imdb, then I'd reconsider, but I found nothing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMDB is a valid source for some kinds of information. And Girling got 2nd billing in a movie, The Successor (movie) and has had other more signicant parts than a second unit whatever. So, i think she's significant, and this article should be kept, while u r free to disagree, and obviously do. --doncram (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Many (perhaps most) editors consider IMDb reliable for credit information, but not for biographical information, and by itself IMDb is not an indicator of notability, since every person who receives a credit for performing services in a released film has (or should have) an IMDb page. I can't find any bio articles or other press coverage about her, other than bare mentions of her name in connection with projects. Unless such coverage turns up, there isn't really a basis to keep the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Coverage consist of casting credits which is hardly significant, and as it is mere fact recitation which does not establish notability. In particular, the appeal to IMDB only verifies her roles for which only one, The Successor seems to be more than a small part. This single role does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on a lack sources from Google search, and a lack of other sources already in the article, this article fails WP:NACTOR and therefore does not meet the notability guidelines for people. It also fails the GNG. Pol430 talk to me 18:05, 18 December 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. Tone 23:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton, Syracuse, New York[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article, with no indication of notability beyond the local context. Powers ^T 18:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Southside, Syracuse, which is what the city calls it, at least in 2010. The South Salina Street Historic District is located inside this region. The neighborhood was the subject of two magazine articles, in Ms. and the now defunct Plenty. (I'm a little amazed myself.) Judging from this history of the area there's quite a lot to say. (Confusingly, city-sponsored Tomorrow's Neighborhoods Today still calls it Brighton, probably because "TNT Southside" encompasses a four-neighborhood area.) --Pnm (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ms. article doesn't refer to a specific neighborhood, just the "south side" of Syracuse generically. The Plenty article refers to just a single event involving the neighborhood; it doesn't provide the necessary background on the history or importance of the neighborhood. And we already have an article on the South Salina Street HD, which does not automatically confer notability on its surrounding neighborhood. I don't find these sources adequate by any stretch. Powers ^T 14:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Ms. article: it does refer to this neighborhood. --Pnm (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to help me out; I don't see it. Powers ^T 18:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I can only tell from knowing the context: they're referring to a poor, predominantly African American neighborhood. Strathmore and Elmwood are both predominantly white, and Strathmore is affluent. ("Southside" isn't used to refer to Strathmore, except by TNT.) I suppose you're correct, though, that the article applies to both Southside/Brighton and Southwest. (You can almost see how the highway boxes in those neighborhoods, as the Ms. article described.)

That's a bunch of OR, clearly, and probably too much for this source to establish WP:GNG on its own.

Fact is, this plant is in the neighborhood, and it's the relationship isn't just incidental. It's the this neighborhood's "longtime residents who were asked to move." Do you really think creating Midland Avenue Regional Treatment Facility is a better option?

If you haven't already, take a look at paragraphs 2-4 of the history link. That text isn't cited, but it was copied from the successful application for the historic district (arguably reliable), and describes the neighborhood as a whole. --Pnm (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we had some third-party sources that clearly delineated this neighborhood and its importance. I nominated it because such sources appear to be lacking. Powers ^T 18:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per Pnm; plenty of significant coverage to be found. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename may be appropriate. This is part of complete, encyclopedic coverage of all the Syracuse neighborhoods; creating a redlink for one of the items in the set is unhelpful, especially since sources do exist.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are insufficient; only those neighborhoods with significant third-party coverage can be written about. Powers ^T 18:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is one of 26 established Syracuse neighborhoods. Yes, it is part of the southside, however, so are Elmwood, North Valley and South Valley. Are you planning on deleting them too? That would be kind of crazy because Brighton sits due north of both North Valley and South Valley on the Syracuse neighborhood map. If the page for this neighborhood is deleted it will completely screw up the Syracuse map and links since they refer to all 26 of the neighborhoods including 4 on the so called Southside. Is someone going to recreate the map and fix all the nav bars and links? I have a lot of concerns over this decision and think it is A LOT bigger decision than some out here think. I am actively working on the Syracuse neighborhoods so plan on adding info in near future.--Nconwaymicelli (talk) 16:00, 17 December 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 Melange (fictional drug). Courcelles 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spice agony[edit]

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

This article describes a minor detail from a fictional work in a mostly "in-universe" style (as though it were real), contrary to WP:WAF, and without citing any third-party sources, contrary to WP:V and WP:N. There is no obvious place to merge this content to, even if it were worth merging. Sandstein 18:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Melange (fictional drug). Seems an obvious target to me. Powers ^T 18:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. But in that case only the part that is at least sourced to primary sources, "Chronology", should be merged. Sandstein 18:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and lose excessive plot detail in the process. There's no reason that something primarily sourced can't be merged into an article has a variety of acceptable sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge for the sake of building a consensus. Would otherwise support deletion since there are no third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 18 December 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. Tone 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Curan[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, could not find any secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find coverage in any reliable sources to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. —J04n(talk page) 18:37, 17 December 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. Tone 23:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Brakmic[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, could not find any secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. —J04n(talk page) 16:03, 17 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Kristin Dahl-Pedersen[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable author. She has written a few books as a coauthor, but there is no evidence of her, or her books, receiving significant coverage as outlined at WP:N. The article notes that there was a press conference anouncing the release of the book. I don't see how calling such a press conference amounts to notability as defined in Wikipedia guidelines. There are also serious WP:BLP problems, (check the article history), as the article is being used as a WP:COATRACK to air allegations about the death of a relative. Jayron32 17:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As Jayron32 says, not sufficiently notable, and an obvious coatrack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very few sources. A case of WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the article, and never in that intention... There are no allegations in the article now, and as seen in the article's history, I've been the main contributer. [Pointer to this source ]. Just so you know, NRK just broadcasted a segment solely centered around Dahl-Pedersen.
Second: I've removed all information regarding [the BLP problem alluded to] to prove notability and non-bias. --TIAYN (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [Redacted per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Stick to discussion of the subject and the sources for this biography article. Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)][reply]
Delete - not wiki noteworthy, clear coatracking BLP issues, speedy would be better. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above, I tried tagging it for speedy but the tag was removed. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the possibility of re-creation. [Redacted per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Stick to discussion of the subject and the sources for this biography article, MikeNicho231. Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)] MikeNicho231 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Now, isn't this odd? Here we try to get an article deleted for bringing up rumors and speculations that far exceeeds what facts police so far have released. Trying to "save the article", the assumptions and rumours are taken out of the article, and then deletion discussion runs on - and nobody really understands why the article should be deleted... Until MikeNicho here paste the same bucket of rumours here so we know. [Redacted per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Stick to discussion of the subject and the sources for this biography article. Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)] Till then namedropping and wild guessing should be avoided. TorSch (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As this article is now, this is just a discussion on whether or not she meets the notability-criterion as an author. Well& good, if kept we need to delete previous revisions of the article where the emphasis was on unfounded gossiping. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not quite enough notability as an author as far as I can see. Geschichte (talk) 16:44, 15 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock basin[edit]

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

Non-notable USGS hydrologic unit, in this particular HUC the Black Rock Desert is lumped together with some adjacent drainage basins, there's no reason to do that outside of the USGS classification scheme. See here and here for deletion discussions of similar articles. Kmusser (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - The 1914 edition the USDA Bulletin does seem to devote an entire chapter to the Black Rock basin.[5] and I have found some more coverage. [6] It does seem to satisfy WP:N, maybe not overwhelmingly so. Changed to Weak Delete per arguments below. --Oakshade (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second one of those isn't referring to the hydrologic unit, since that publication predates the HUC system, note that the HUC is not the same thing as the Black Rock drainage basin (which probably is notable, but is already covered in the Black Rock Desert article). Kmusser (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep/keep~~— If the article stayed how it is now, the idea of it not failing the notability guideline is laughable, with only 3 Internet sources all from government agencies (and the "not in citation given" templates), but there are quite a few mentions in newspapers, although not very detailed. Add that to its coverage in those books and it begins to establish some notability. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those look like they're about the one in Nevada, 2 were about one in Pennsyvania and the rest were all about one in Arizona. Kmusser (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as most of the items classified as HUCs are not notable but are merely database names. This series of HUCs is also problematic since the articles are being created using names that are those of real geo features that may in fact be notable. In the case here, if kept, this should probably be correctly named as Black Rock Desert hydrologic unit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kmusser. This is not a drainage basin in the usual sense of the word, but a set of disconnected basins roped together by the USGS to fit into their nested hierarchical system at the appropriate size/level. Also, one can find reliable sources mentioning USGS hydrologic units like this, but likewise one can find many reliable sources describing ZIP codes. Wikipedia seems to have decided not to have pages on every ZIP code. The situation here is analogous. Pfly (talk) 11:04, 13 December 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. L Faraone 19:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goblinmania![edit]

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

Delete This is a made-up storyline. It did not happen. This article was created by a user that is already permanently blocked. It is basically an article that is vandalism. Spidey104 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drivel. EEng (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Pranix[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. The article was PRODed in January 2009, then recreated in March 2009 and not speedy deleted on the ground that there was no debate. The photo was uploaded by the author of the article, User:San-ren who, as far as I checked, never had any other contribution to Wikipedia. No book of the author can be found via Google, only this forum entry, that I find highly dubious. Anneyh (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been speedied since article makes no claim of notability. EEng (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this should be delete-able per CSD A7. But since its here, it should be deleted for spectacularly failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, and having zero google hits that are not Wikipedia, facebook, or some drivel about numerology. Pol430 talk to me 17:40, 18 December 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. Hut 8.5 16:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Lammers (footballer)[edit]

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

"Possible Copyright Infringement Notice" has remained in place since 23 September 2010. Unless someone is willing to remove the notice and take responsibility for any copyright violations, the article should be deleted. Dolovis (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in this case the fact that the article is an unreviewed potential copyvio isn't a reason for deletion. The article was only blanked because it was created by User:Darius Dhlomo, who was discovered to have created a lot of articles wtih copyright violations (see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo). It's not one of the normal copyvio notices associated with WP:CV. I have checked the content of the article and I have concluded that Darius Dhlomo wrote it by summarising statistics and it isn't a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 17:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He played lots in the top Dutch league. No brainer. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, lazy nomination. Giant Snowman 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: I searched but was unable to determine if there was a copyright violation due to the numerous wiki-mirror sites. The issue was copyright infringement, not notability. Copyvio tag has now been removed. This tag should have been removed by the editor who contested the PROD, but he left it in place forcing me to open this AfD to discuss the claimed copyright violation. Dolovis (talk) 15:21, 12 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Goold Hall[edit]

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

Not notable, just a student accomodation Maltesedog (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless stupefyingly vacuous recitations such as the following qualify for notability:

For this residents also get a cleaner who cleans the shared area once a week. One potential downside is that cleaners do not clean residents shower rooms or bedrooms....Flats do not have their own washing machine or dryer although there are a few laundrettes which are on the John Anderson Campus and are open between 9.00am and 10.30pm.

EEng (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to John Anderson Campus. Though I don't think there's much about the current article that is actually worth keeping anyway. --Vclaw (talk) 18:30, 12 December 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. Alexf^(talk) 19:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Naralasetty[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation or improvement. PROD reason was Non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. I applied PROD2 to the article. Other problems are that some of the links provide no information about the subject whatsoever, an that the only external link is to the guy's Facebook page. Overall, this just does not seem like a notable enough subject for an article. — Timneu22 · talk 14:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one link to The Hindu was probably ok to get it past A7, but it's just a local interest piece in the local edition of the paper. Nothing else at all to show notability. FWIW, the de.wiki and te.wiki links that came with the page don't exist either. —SpacemanSpiff 18:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only RS coverage is a local edition interest piece.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked for sources, did find some self published ones and other promotional pieces, but nothing that would indicate notability. Same reason as those stated above. Netalarm^talk 04:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for an article. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 15 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demons (Short Film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE, filming has yet to even start jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Only coverage is on blogs and forums. While this might change, it currently fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:29, 12 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Murphy[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Unless you think "bullpen catcher" is a notable position. It's not an official part of the coaching staff, so I don't think it is. It's also an orphan. Three articles link to it, and I'm sure they mean other "Jeff Murphy"s. Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. I consider the bullpen catcher to be a notable position within the coaching staff. Spanneraol (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: per WP:Athlete. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a coach per article and nom, so doesn't qualify under WP:Athlete, and no other claim of notability or reliable source is provided. Ma^t_chups 04:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is listed on the official Cardinals website as being a member of the coaching staff [7]. Are major league coaches not notable anymore? We have had this discussion before [8] Kinston eagle (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not listed as a coach, he's listed as a member of the staff. Surely you don't think the assistant trainer and director of amateur scouting belong in these templates now? I question the result of that three-plus year old discussion. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bullpen catchers used to be listed with the main coaching staff, it was only this past season that they moved them down to staff... but they have uniform #s and I would think they are worth keeping as coaches. Spanneraol (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Cardinals' official site lists him as a member of the coaching staff, with the other coaches. [9] so meets notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 14 December 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flashcard Exchange[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Carlh (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to meet WP:WEB. There is no "historic significance" here. Many similar sites exist: none with Wikipedia pages. A mention that online flashcards and sites exist is already included in the main Flashcards page. That is enough. Carlh (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Historic significance" is not the barometer for inclusion. The notability guideline is.
Please explain why you contacted User:Onebravemonkey and User:LinguistAtLarge, neither of whom have been involved with this article. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is the guideline for inclusion of a website. "Notable and of historical significance" is a quote from the WP:WEB header. I believe the spirit of WP:WEB is not met in this case. You believe the opposite. Hopefully consensus will be reached here and we'll both live with the result. Carlh (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... some sort of explanation would be useful. one brave monkey 09:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, hold on. It was this, wasn't it? Both myself and Linguist !voted delete... have the other editors (those who !voted keep) been contacted? There is a fine line between notifying interested parties and canvassing, but I'm pretty sure which side of it you are at the moment... one brave monkey 09:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Maybe you recall, almost all of the Keep voters were sockpuppets made solely to attempt to stop Crammage from being deleted. You can see warnings made by C.Fred on several talk pages (examples: User talk:76.14.82.5 User talk:Homeboyfrisco) and by yourself here User talk:Thomasjnewsome. Since the Crammage article was deleted I don't think any of them are ever coming back. I became involved in the Crammage AfD because User_talk:58.3.182.104 left a note on my talk page. But if I think back it was more appropriate as I had indeed reverted a spammy edit to the Supermemo page made by one of the Crammage sockpuppets. I'm no AfD expert. I did not mean to break any rules. Not a mistake I will repeat. I barely managed to make the AfD :). I usually participate when others take the lead. Here is "my side": I have a few interests on Wiki that I monitor every few months one is Flashcards, E-learning, and Spaced Repetition- a subject which unfortunately attracts a lot of adverts. I've participated from the side mostly (or via speedys) on Bettermemo, IFlipr, MemorizeIt, Mental Case, and StudyProf. Fought the good fight and lost on Winflash and Anki. I have nothing in particular against Flashcard Exchange and in this case I don't think Cunard is at all acting in bad faith or indeed has anything to do with the website. We just have an everyday disagreement over notability. My goal is to keep the E-learning/flashcard related articles relatively clean. I think they are ok now and part of the reason is that individual sites and programs are generally kept off. Of course I'm willing to live with the consensus. --Carlh (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. See this review from Education World and nontrivial coverage from TUAW, which is published by AOL. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to argue these are trivial sources. The first is an non-notable website with what is pretty much a directory listing and the second is a review about another product altogether (Mental case) not this website. Carlh (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education World is a reliable source and their reviews are written and edited by their staff (see their about page for more information). The editorial analysis in this source—"The site is simply designed and intuitive to use"—makes it more than a directory listing. (While the second source reviews another product, it provides significant coverage about Flashcard Exchange. (The general notability guideline defines "significant coverage" as "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".) This website is marginally notable but has enough coverage in reliable sources for me to support retention. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's okay that I'm chiming in. I'm not practiced at the linking to Wikipedia sources as footnotes for debate here, and my position is very simply a personal one: I went looking for information myself, and didn't find it here. I like to learn the history about websites that I come across and become interested in, and I have always considered Wikipedia as a trustworthy site where I can find relevant information about contemporary topics without searching for an hour on Google. I recognize that my assumption that this will help other users is based solely on my own usage model. I did spend quite a bit of time reading the guidelines for contribution and made a sincere effort to adhere to them, but a is the case with moderating most user-generated content, the guidelines mainly serve as an outline for subjective interpretation. I value the guidance I've received since publishing, and I'm learning a lot as I go. :-) Thanks so much for your input and discussion! Katieshy (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly okay for you to chime in. You can learn more about how to link to sources at Wikipedia:Linking#External links section. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cunard! :-) It's not so much the linking part but the awareness of the applicable Wikipedia-guideline articles in order to reference. ;-) (UTC)Katieshy 08:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, precisely per Cunard, who I think has refuted the nomination.—S Marshall T/C 15:33, 11 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Knight (publisher)[edit]

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

No references in reliable sources to assert notability, gnews archive search brings back press release and trivia mention elsewhere. first AFD arguments are not convincing CutOffTies (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Notability per Wikipedia guidelines not established, and I see no compelling reason that there should be an exception here. Would reconsider if substantive reliable sources are added or if notability could be established for his publications. Rlendog (talk) 18:18, 14 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guntmar Wolff[edit]

Speedy Delete I am the author of this article and after reviewing it and the given references when I first wrote it, it seems that the references do not exist anymore, so there is no validation for any of the statements written in this article. Please speedy deletion. Thank you.

Image cultivation for Guntmar Wolff. Topic not relevant for wikipedia High Contrast (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotion. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to have this page removed. I was looking for information on him and it is great that it is on Wikipedia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.231.58 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC) — 79.2.231.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, sufficient. His achievements are exceptional and he seems to be a particularly notable professional speaker and a successful author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.94.30 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) — 79.2.231.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, most of the article is more an advertisement for him, mainly the sections "Career and ideas" and "Seminars". The fact that he has written two books, which none of them did appear on the english market, makes him not relevant to wikipedia. Note that the article about him has been deleted on the german wikipedia because of lack of relevance. The User:Motivationweb (whoever he or she is) tries to push Guntmar Wolff in the english and german wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote. This fact confirms the suspicion of promoting the entrepreneur Guntmar Wolff in Wikimedia projects. --132.199.211.24 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient. I am the author of the article. I am chief editor of a major financial magazine. This discussion is completely obsolete. Guntmar Wolff is a well known author, trainer and an expert with a high reputation in his field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motivationweb (talk • contribs) 10:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC) — Motivationweb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The motivations of the article creator, and whether the subject has been published in English, are irrelevant to the issue of deletion, as is my strong personal dislike of the whole field in which this subject works. The cited sources in Die Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung have significant enough coverage of the subject to pass English Wikipedia's notability criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conducting seminars is not intrinsically notable, and that he somehow managed to get an otherwise reputable magazine to do his advertising for him doesn't make it any the more notable. DGG (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seminars are perhaps not inherently notable, but he also published at least one book with a notable publisher. You didn't comment on that. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And neither is conducting seminars intrinsically unnotable. Notability has to be decided for each individual case. Die Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung are two serious newspapers, not "an otherwise reputable magazine", and are the German equivalent of, say, The Washington Post and The New York Times, so I don't think that they can be discounted as reliable sources sufficient for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets the general notability guideline. If we're going to assume those are advertising, we can't rely on any publication anymore, because even though most newspaper articles aren't written with that aim in mind, bringing a person in the public eye will have an advertorial effect. That's not a valid reason to throw out references from highly reputable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sources establishing notability meets WP:Reliable.--J.Mundo (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient general information is provided here without an advertising focus. This article offers a basic biography of the author and informs the reader of his methodology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.82.148 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC) — 98.27.82.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and cleanup the tone. The tone is slightly like an advertisement, but not enough to warrant deletion per policy. Otherwise, most of the sources seem to be reliable enough to establish notability of the person. MuZemike 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rheinair[edit]

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

I cannot find any references that this company is an airline at all. Judging from its website, it's rather a travel agency or even only a booking platform. Anyway, as there are no reliable third-party sources to be found on the internet that offer a deeper coverage, Rheinair clearly fails notability per WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. There is nothing in the article (a miniscule stub) to indicate notability, and as Gene93 noted, it doesn't even appear to be an airline. From the website it looks more like a ticketing agency. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 18 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THOMAS (neuroscience)[edit]

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

Article is a combination of a non-notable blog theory by Paul J. Zak on "The Human Oxytocin Mediated Attachment System" as the basis of a con, and a large variety of points which are about oxytocin but not about "THOMAS"Rumping (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Comment - The article has a large number of reliable "sources", but it seems the vast majority do not refer to the theory in question. At the moment, I don't have easy access. It would be very helpful if someone who does could weed out the off-topic sources (i.e. those that do not refer to "THOMAS"). Please note: this article was created by a WP:SPA (Jerojasro) with major contributions by another SPA (Justin_Tsay). Paul J. Zak was also created by yet another SPA (with the interesting name "Zakp"). Major contributors there include two more SPAs (Iamamos andCNS2010). At the very least, both articles will need a good bit of attention. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Justin Tsay is one of my Neuroscience students, who created the article after a semester of research. I can vouch that he is in no way related to Paul Zak and has no particular conflicting interest in THOMAS. Just because a cited article does not explicitly mention THOMAS is not a reason to exclude it from the References. Many WP articles need supporting material from a variety of sources. - Professorpotter (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Professorpotter (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorpotter (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Sorry, I am just learning how to sign comments.. :-)[reply]

- Comment - The origin of the article is not the reason for the deletion call here. Rather, the theory does not seem to be notable. The variety of sources that do not discuss the theory are of no use to us in this discussion as they do not demonstrate that the theory is notable. Those sources might be useful elsewhere (outside of Wikipedia) to explain or defend the theory. That is not, however, appropriate for a Wikipedia article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. The term does not show up on a PubMed search. The last reference says it all: "Personal Interview with Justin Tsay".Novangelis (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Not an established or notable term. I could not find this acronym or its constituent parts at PubMed, so apparently the theory has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Of the references provided, the only one that even mentions THOMAS is a Huffington Post blog by (who else?) Paul J. Zak. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here's the problem with this article. It is a construction not used by people in the field. It is not something found in the peer-reviewed literature and many of the claims made in the article are not supportable. If those are removed, you are left with connections between oxytocin and social behavior that are well-known and are present in the oxytocin article itself. No need to create a separate redundant account. AlbertHall (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Lack of peer-reviewd papers is a concern, but there are articles using this term in respected non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. [10], [11]). Searches for "oxytocin mediated attachment" also show quite a few results (e.g. [12]), which are clearly discussing the same concept using only slightly different terminology. If the theory is controversial, it should be noted in the article, but this is not in itself a reason to delete. JulesH (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - THOMAS does not seem to be notable independent of Zak, the author of both of the articles you cite mentioning the theory this article is about. Zak is also attached to the sources in the article that specifically mention the theory. Some of the general concepts the theory seeks to tie together are mentioned in the articles that three of the words in the theory's six word title bring up. The theory itself, however, is not discussed in any reliable sources, peer reviewed or otherwise, that are not by or about Zak. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, it does not seem to appear in Zak's scientific work, either. Not even he uses the term! DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 18 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kameel Al-Wabary[edit]

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

It is not clear this individual meets the notability guideline WP:NFOOTBALL. I have found some poor sources that show he is part of a professional squad but it looks like he might be a reserve goalkeeper. Reliable sources are needed to verify whether he has played a professional game. It appears he was part of the Saudi squad for olympic qualifications but not clear he played. Article has been an unreferenced WP:BLP for over 2 years. Polargeo (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this person meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He appears to be the second or third choice keeper for Al-Nassr. As Snowman said, there's no indication he meets the relevant notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:46, 17 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (film)[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Would speedy if there were a category for films. This is a non-notable, unreleased film. There is no assertion of notability here, and no coverage in reliable sources. The link to Variety is simply a film production chart, which verifies the existence of the production, but does nothing to satisfy notability requirements. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Film has apparently completed principle filming and is off to post-production, but lacks the coverage to allow an exception to WP:NFF. If/when we have release and more coverage, the article can be undeleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 12 December 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. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Century[edit]

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

This particular event has no reliable third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Moreover huge portions of this article are ripped word for word from this self-published promotional source from the creator. Even if that were fixed, there's nothing to deal with the fact that there's no independent sourcing to establish notability, or provide any WP:NOT#PLOT information about the timeline directly. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep The 1st source is already 3rd party, your reason is incorrectly stated from the very start. Also, even the technology itself got enough notable 3rd party sources about the technology that influenced the real world robotics, and there is actually a 3rd party source book published in Japan that analysis Universal Century economy and politics. You can say it is not 3rd party all you want, but the publisher got nothing to do with the original company. It is a publisher that publishes a lot of different educational, knowledge based books. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 12:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently notable and organizes an awful lot of real world info alongside the fiction, Sadads (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I really want to challenge the nom reasoning of huge portion ripped word for word. The current article only has in its last small section very little info on the major events of the series (which got their own anime) and some real life events with a little fictional events not listed in the promotional source listed above. I highly doubt the nom ever read the article at all. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 13:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, this is a regurgitation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era, even though the two articles don't share any similarities with each other. Universal Century covers the setting of the UC Gundam series while the Cosmic Era nomination was entirely a timeline. —Farix (t | c) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a great deal of potential with this article. The UC Gundam time line is a huge franchise spanning three television series, seven original video animations and films, and 10 novel series. It need a lot of cleanup so that it can do a better job at detailing the influences on the UC timeline, such as the use of O'Neill cylinders. But the simple fact remains is that it needs to be more than plot details and a list of media. —Farix (t | c) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have some trouble in doing so. The location part was copied and pasted from the now deleted UC location page, that can be trimmed or maybe removed as a whole(I know it is kinda verifiable in primary sources and some even in secondary sources, but would be extremely hard to do so). Also, The list of media would be dominantly occupying the page no matter how we do it. For the real life part, I can add in short statements about its comparison with modern warfare, history, politics, economy, technology(separate secondary sources) and maybe some sources stating it is the most dominating sub-franchise within the Gundam franchise, but that will need to wait until some time after 20th Dec. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CSE hits. I will note in passing that at least one reviewer describes the UC continuity as 'classic'. --Gwern (contribs) 22:04 16 December 2010 (GMT)
Additional sources academic paper with 宇宙世紀, original word for Universal Century. Google scholar search results in more than one citation and source with the term Universal Century. Also a nice joke in the Caltech news. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:20, 17 December 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 Shannara. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannara timeline[edit]

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

Artice is a WP:CONTENTFORK of another article. The other article has the potential to be encyclopedic with articles that directly cover the series, and WP:NOT#PLOT information such as development and reception. This article has no third-party sources that directly talk about the chronology, and it will be very hard to talk about development or reception of this timeline. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator. This is in-universe plot summary unsupported by a single reliable independent source. I suspect much of it is OR as well. Reyk _YO! 08:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely in-universe information that is not notable outside the book series. JIP | Talk 10:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shannara#History_of_the_Shannara_World Sadads (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shannara proper. The timeline is already adequately covered, though in multiple sections, so I don't see a need to do a specific section redirect, contra Sadads. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 12 December 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. L Faraone 03:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Slatter[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the author qualifies under WP:BIO, specifically "# The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Five Australian Science Fiction Award nominations. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The question becomes whether or not the awards she has been nominated for are significant. The question needs to be answered by an expert in the field. ttonyb (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please let me know who you believe an expert in the field to be and I will get an answer from them. Suffice to say that the Ditmar and the Aurealis Awards are the two most important and respected Australian SF Achievement Awards. These awards are archived on Locus - a recognised source. How much more proof do you need? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Locus http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar.html "The Ditmar Awards are the Australian equivalent of the Hugos, given by members of the Australian National Science Fiction Convention for professional and fan works by Australians." These have been awarded since 1969.

http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Aurealis.html The Aurealis Awards are given to works of SF, fantasy, and horror by Australians. They differ from the Ditmar Awards by including young adult categories, omitting fan categories, and by being judged--in fact, there are separate judges for each division. These have been awarded since 1996.

Comment – The point I was trying to make was I am unfamiliar with the Australian awards listed. If you are saying they are adequate then, I can only assume they are. Assuming as such, the article will most likely survive the AfD.

Comment The Aurealis and the Ditmar are the two highest achievement awards that may be given for a piece of work in the Australian SF community. They both have international recognition, and the nominees and winners are reported widely in SF publications all over the world. There are even wikipedia pages for these awards, so I would assume that this means the awards have satisfied wikipedia's standards for notability.Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditmar and Aurealis awards might be important and respected, but according to the article Slatter didn't win them. She was nominated for one, "shortlisted" for the other. That plus some dust-jacket blurb is the best that seems to be on offer. EEng (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO states "or has been nominated for one several times". Five nominations for two sets of national awards is more than several, satisfying the criteria (it appears your objection relates more to the evidence required to satisfy the criteria). I would also ask if you have any experience in either the Australian Science Fiction community or the publishing/library industry, to determine whether you are suitable to judge the notability of reviews (including starred reviews) in Publishers Weekly. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also believe that the author does qualify under WP:CREATIVE, specifically "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Numerous independent reviews of her work, including two reviews in Publishers Weekly, one of those being a starred review. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not believe the body of work meets the criteria. I don't see it as "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work". ttonyb (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How many more experts in the field do I need to produce to justify this? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am not sure an expert would be needed here. A quantitative analysis is more subjective than a qualitative analysis. ttonyb (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentcan you please be more specific as to what you are looking for here, I'm not sure I understand. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am not looking for anything. I have voiced an opinion. ttonyb (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respect your right to hold an opinion and voice your opinion. In this case, I am seeking to ascertain what additional material I can produce to sway your opinion. Angela Slatter is a well respected and notable writer in the Australian SF community. As such I seek your help in demonstrating this so that she can be recognised in Wikipedia. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not see a significant body of work. What work is well known? How has her work been the subject "of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?" ttonyb (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Reviews of her first collection, Sourdough and other stories

Publishers Weekly starred review - you may not be able to access this as PW archive old reviews and I believe that you have to sign in to access these. However, Tartarus Press have this review up on their website and if it were a false review PW would have said something about this.
Fringe magazine: http://thefringemagazine.blogspot.com/2010/10/book-review-sourdough-and-other-stories.html
Bookgeeks http://www.bookgeeks.co.uk/2010/09/30/sourdough-and-other-stories-by-angela-slatter/
Beyondfiction http://beyondfiction.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/sourdough-and-other-stories-by-angela-slatter/

Reviews of her second collection, The Girl With no Hands and other tales

Publishers Weekly review - see my note above, copy of review can be found here: http://ticonderogapublications.com/news/2010/06/the-girl-with-no-hands-angela-slatter/
SF Site http://www.sfsite.com/12a/gw333.htm
Dreams and Speculation http://dreamsandspeculation.com/2010/11/11/review-the-girl-with-no-hands/

These are only a selection of the reviews out there in independent periodicals. i can provide more if you request. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see later comments) - No reliable secondary sources are provided in the article - they are all self published or blogs. One is even a deadlink to a facebook page. Punkrocker, thanks for providing the sources above, but I do not believe these qualify as reliable sources. They simply appear to be blogs without editorial oversight. At least one of them is signed "Punkrocker1991". Producing expert opinions in itself is not going to help, unless said opinion has been reported in a reliable source. Publishers Weekly might get close, but I don't know if they are notable, and more to the point, I can't verify their review exists. Other acceptable "evidence" would be a review in a major magazine or newspaper, or some other demonstration that the work is of major importance. It fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG at the moment, and a quick google search doesn't produce anything better than that mentioned above. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Ditmar and Aurealis Awards are notable award nominations for an Australian science fiction author and it appears as though Slatter's work has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. This meets WP:CREATIVE. - Outcast44 (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, she didn't win these awards. And CREATIVE (which is the same as AUTHOR) requires a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple articles or reviews. A short story or stories being mentioned in an article coverering a bunch of different authors doesn't meet that standard. EEng (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As mentioned above, the criteria isn't only about winning, it is also about multiple nomination. She has fulfilled this criteria. She has had two books published, both were reviewed in Publishers Weekly. Combined with the other reviews, this fulfills the "collective body of work". Right now, i can go to all of the major online bookstores, and purchase two titles written by Slatter. Both publications are from award-winning independent publishers, and are not self published. One title, Sourdough and other stories features an introduction written by World Fantasy Award-winning writer Robert Shearman (who has also written for Dr Who). Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does Slatter not meet WP:CREATIVE when she has received five national award nominations and multiple reviews in established publications such as The Australian and Publishers Weekly for two books and several short stories? Several of the reviews listed by Punkrocker1991 are from online sources, but these I see as support for the 'subject of multiple articles or reviews' criteria of WP:CREATIVE. When all is added together, I believe the author's notability is sufficient. Yes, this author is not Mark Twain, John Grisham or Stephen King, but WP:CREATIVE doesn't require that level of notability. Outcast44 (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are the full text of the two Publishers Weekly reviews -- as Publishers Weekly has a wikipedia entry can I assume that PW meets the criteria for a notable and reliable source

10/25/2010 Fiction Web Exclusive Sourdough and Other Stories Angela Slatter, Tartarus (www.tartaruspress.com), $50 (238p) ISBN 9781905784257 "Australian author Slatter (Black-Winged Angels) displays a rare gift for evocative and poetic prose in this collection of 16 dark fairy tales featuring characters that will be familiar to readers of the Brothers Grimm, but themes (such as long-simmering vengeance and unnatural death) that push them out of the kids' stuff camp. The knockout short but powerful opener, "The Shadow Tree," about a royal servant's response to the cruelty of the king's teenage children, climaxes with a chilling resolution. And "Little Radish" neatly tweaks the well-known tale of Rapunzel. Yet Slatter doesn't always rely on the creations of others for her ideas, as the title story, with its baker narrator, amply demonstrates. She has a knack for crafting opening lines that almost hypnotically draw the reader in ("The sight of the inn picks at the stitches of my memory. The splintered shingle, emblazoned with a faded golden lily, swings in the breeze"). Her considerable talent should translate well to the novel-length fantasy she's currently working on. (Sept. Starred Review)"

09/13/2010 Fiction Web Exclusive The Girl with No Hands (and Other Tales) Angela Slatter, Ticonderoga (www.indiebooksonline.com), $22.50 (210p) ISBN 9780980628883 "In this collection of 16 previously published and new stories, Slatter presents twisted, fractured, illuminating fairy tales and dark fantasies that beguile in their elegant simplicity. Many of the stories are reiterations of classic fairy tales from all over the world. But by retelling the tales in a more intimate manner, Slatter illuminates the symbiotic relationship between pleasure and pain. The sexually candid "Bluebeard" is an empowering tale of a whore and her daughter who best a monster. The wholly original "The Living Book" personifies the intimate act of reading, while "Skin" reworks the Gaelic legend of the selkie into a tale of revenge and redemption from the seal woman's perspective. An afterword elucidates the source material and intent behind each tale. Dark and sinister, these shorts place strong, empathetic female protagonists into harrowing, horrifying, or humble circumstances and see them triumph. (Aug.)" Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that to access PWs archives free registration is required. I would therefore invite you to verify these for yourself. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The SF Site also has a wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SF_Site so can I assume from this they count as a notable and reliable secondary source? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Having a Wikipedia article is not a guarantee that the subject is a reliable secondary source. 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment Can I ask then what is a reliable secondary source? I am beginning to feel frustrated at trying to meet ever-changing arbitrary standards. You may also wish to know that SF Site won the Locus Award for best SF Website. Does this make the source more reliable? If someone can give me a benchmark I will try to reach this, and if I cannot reach this benchmark I will not oppose the deletion of this entry. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is nothing arbitrary about the definition of sources. Please see WP:RS. Can I ask that you please help by following the format of marking your your comments with the Comment title. It makes it easier to read the threads of thoughts. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have read that page extensively. Can you please tell me whether Publishers Weekly is a reliable secondary source? Similarly can you please tell me if the SF Site is a reliable source? See below, can you please tell me if The Australian newspaper is a reliable source? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If they meet the criteria in WP:RS they are. If you notice I did not say the articles were not valid sources, I said just because the entity that published the source had an article in Wikipedia, it did not guarantee that it was a valid source for the article. There would be a high probability that anything published in the entity would be, but not a guarantee. ttonyb (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about this review in The Australian newspaper http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/imagination-that-deftly-defies-northern-gravity/story-e6frg8no-1111116985682

"Dreaming Again demonstrates that there is a distinctive Australian voice in speculative fiction, heard in the irreverence and humour of the stories and in the use of Australian landscapes. Indeed, reading this anthology makes it obvious just how much of the best overseas work is derivative of US and British culture and locations. It is a pleasure to see something as out-worldly as science fiction and fantasy writing grounded in our culture and landscapes.

An excellent example is Angela Slatter's The Jacaranda Wife, about a woman born of a jacaranda tree. It weaves together themes of colonisation and indigenous lore on a 4000ha sheep station. It could only have been written here and is one of the best stories in the collection."

Does this add to the argument in favour of this entry? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another review of Dreaming Again, describing her story as a stand out http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2008/07/15/5491_cairns-book-reviews.html Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another review, this one from the review website Australian Spec Fic in Focus http://www.asif.dreamhosters.com/doku.php?id=dreaming_again "One of the few stories in the collection that has a strong Australian flavor, Angela Slatter’s “The Jacaranda Wife” holds elements of traditional myths transposed into an Australian context. Written with overtones of historical gender and racial power, and a goodly splash of eeriness, Slatter’s story is a tight, short, gripping read." ASiF has won several Australian Ditmar Awards for reviews, and the reviewer in this article, Tehani Wessely, was a judge at this year's Western Australian Premier's Book of the Year Awards http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx?ItemId=133947 Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Four stories listed for Honourable Mention in Ellen Datlow's Best Horror of the Year Volume 1 http://ellen-datlow.livejournal.com/257422.html Do I need to establish Ellen Datlow's credentials? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A review in The Australian - now we're talking. Slatter's mention is brief, but probably more than trivial as required in WP:GNG. I don't think any of the other sources make the grade. It's a pretty thin basis for notability, but it might just get it over the line. Thoughts?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A review in the Sydney Morning Herald 19/07/2008 page 33. "The collection's trump card is the quality of its new writers, many of whom produce stronger stories than some of the veterans mentioned above. Particular standouts are Smoking, Waiting For The Dawn by Jason Nahrung, about a vampire hunter tracking a fallen friend through the outback. Angela Slatter's haunting The Jacaranda Wife, set in colonial Australia, seems to build towards a climax truly sinister, yet instead leaves you with beautiful imagery that is as otherworldly as it is strangely touching." http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=smh&kw=dreaming+again&pb=smh&dt=selectRange&dr=5years&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=SMH080719IG5ER7N2SAP Punkrocker1991 (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, (see below) WP:AUTHOR: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Also-ran for some awards? Phrase-length mention in review of an anthology? No, sorry. EEng (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Two phrase length reviews singling out her work in a 35-story anthology seems to satisfy this criteria. "Some awards"? These are internationally recognised national awards. A bit like calling The World Series "some baseball game". Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. My understanding is that a trivial mention would be along the lines of, "Dreaming Again features stories by a, b, c, Angela Slatter, d, x, y and z". To have a story singled out for description and praise in a review of a 35-story anthology, in a major newspaper, where not all stories are mentioned, is non-trivial. To have this same story mentioned and singled out in two such reviews (by different reviewers) surely carries some weight to satisfying the criteria. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, an argument could be made that such critique is "non-trivial", but it's still not a strong basis for notability, particularly in light of the fact that there are no reliable sources that deal with her work exclusively. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTwo reviews in Publishers Weekly deal with her work exclusively. PW is an independent and relevant industry publication (or secondary source, in wikipedia terms). Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAn additional review that singles out a piece of her work, from Western Australia's Scoop Magazine http://scoop.realviewtechnologies.com/default.aspx?iid=42664&startpage=page0000068 -- I realise that this is a very small mention, but I am aiming to demonstrate that there are multiple independent articles. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Significant or well-known work or collective body of work which has (b) been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. We need some work of hers (an individual story) which is significant or well-known, and which has been the subject of [etc]; or we need a review of her collective body of work. But these are just the usual positive mentions of early, individual pieces by promising writer: "haunting...climax truly sinister...beautiful imagery...otherworldly...strangely touching." No comment on "collective body of work." That her story was mentioned, where at least some of the 35 others weren't, only tells us that it was not the least remarkable among them. And finally, no one's minimizing the significance of the awards: it's just that she did not win them. EEng (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I registered at PW so I could read the reviews. They're a couple of short staff-written pieces along the lines EEng mentions above. Certainly no widespread recognition at this stage. Apparently she has a full-length novel coming up. If that turns out to be a bestseller, then there's nothing to stop the article being recreated, but I don't think she quite gets there at this stage.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC) see revised comments below.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you bother? Lost among the Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment maze above is the full text of both. Total: 300 words. Give it up. EEng (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up I give up. It is obvious that wikipedia has no interest in documenting any Austraian writers. Had I known that wikipedia was a place where only writers like John Grisham, Barbara Cartland and Jeffrey Archer were notable, I wouldn't have bothered. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in a bad mood lately and apologize for my harshness. On the otherhand, a statement such as "Wikipedia has no interest in documenting any Australian writers"... c'mon, do you real feel that anti-Australian bias is at work here? Or is it just annoyance that you keep pushing this marginal case? Ms. Slatter seems to be a very promising writer. As already noted, why not wait a bit until her smash best-seller comes out to rave reviews -- then notability will be manifest. EEng (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel an anti-Australian bias here, as both sets of our national SF awards have been repeatedly denigrated. Maybe it's not anti-Australian, maybe the bias is just non-US. Slatter is a well known and respected writer in the Australian SF community, and I have tried to convey this. If only bestsellers qualify, you might as well delete this entry. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let's all step back and take a deep breath. I feel better. Now, let's all remember that Wikipedia is a cooperative effort of volunteers to provide the definitive online encyclopedia. All editors must abide by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, what I am seeing is a blurring of those basic tenets of Wikipedia. Number one, Wikipedia is not a place for bias against or in favor of any subject/topic. It is place that encourages intellectual discussion, but never bias. If there is suspected bias, the editor that feels slighted should discuss it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or other appropriate venue. I have looked and I do not see a statement that says, "Wikipedia has no interest in documenting any Australian writers", I do see a lot of discussion that indicates a lack of support for the writer in question and a lot of back and forth comments. For goodness sake, there will always be disagreement in AfDs. Let's all try to keep the discussion focused on the AfD and not the appropriateness of logging into a site that might provide support for the subject of the article. ttonyb (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many thanks for pointing me in the direction of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have now logged this as the failure to recognise national Australian SF Awards can create a element of bias against Australian writers. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think that's necessary. I'm Australian for starters. See my revised comments below.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had something of a change of heart. To paraphrase Punkrocker, if only bestsellers qualify, we might as well give up on Wikipedia entirely. Let's bring it back to the core of Wikipedia - WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The simple fact of the matter is that Slatter passes the GNG. Barely, but she does. As long as the article is verifiable (tick), original research is avoided (tick), and the article is not spammy or crystal-bally (tick), the benefit of the doubt simply must rest with inclusionism. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - WP:AUTHOR and its ilk are merely guidelines, and flawed ones at that, since if they were followed we would indeed have bestsellers and nothing else. Bandwidth is plentiful. Keep. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Although this is probably not the place for this, thanks to all that took a step back to reassess their positions on the article and those that just took a deep breath. My best to all and I look forward to editing with everyone here on future articles. ttonyb (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This author is obviously notable. A multiple-time finalist for one of the world's major SF awards? Several books published or coming out from notable presses? A large number of stories in magazines which are of note? I don't see how anyone can say this author isn't notable. To state otherwise is to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and precedent.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had she won an Aurealis Award or a Ditmar there wouldn't be too much doubt, although the nominations - especially for the Aurealis Award - do speak to notability. (I know both awards - the Ditmars are fan-based awards, as per the larger Hugos, but they are the major SF fan award in Australia, with the fiction categories being well regarded within the community; while the Aurealis Awards are jury based and are also well regarded). However, the two interviews in Clarkesworld Magazine, (one as one of several upcoming authors,[13] one in her own right[14]), and reviews of her work in Publishers Weekly, SF Site, and by Jeff Vandermeer are, I think, sufficient. Anyway, there's enough to meet the GNG, I think, with the two interviews and other material, so when combined with the nominations and reviews I'm pretty comfortable with the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quoting from my own comment over at the absurd ANI thread mentioned above: It's beginning to look like the subject might be notable after all. Too bad Punkrocker didn't spend less time complaining about imaginged disrespect, and more time reading policies and guidelines (on notability likely, and on opening an ANI thread for sure!) and marshalled the evidence systematically and clearly in the first place. EEng (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked through this article and find virtually no information about the author's work. I now have a dream that her works be judged not by the color of their reviews but by the character of their content. From looking at some reviews found by Google, her stories appear to be in the horror and fantasy genres, but the only occurrences of either of these words are in the titles of award nominations, not the article text itself. In the whole article only two sentences mention her literary style or a story summary and one of those is a direct quote from a reference which is entirely acceptable as part of an article but not as 50% of the substantial content. I accept that a stub may require significant additions and still be kept, but my concern is that if there were currently more relevant and interesting potential content supported by reliable sources, the knowledgeable and enthusiastic main author would already have used it. Most of the current references are an attempt to support the existence of the article, rather than supporting originally written content discussing the author's output in any detail. Nothing against the reappearance of this article once there is better referenced content available. --Mirokado (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's possibly an excess of minor works listed, and the lead is woefully context-free. But deletion isn't the answer for trivial issues like that. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the two PW reviews. Publishers Weekly is a very selective source, and has generally been accepted here as a RS for proving notability DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be an undisclosed conflict of interest here. punkrocker1991 seems to be Angela Slatter's major publisher: http://punkrocker1991.livejournal.com/252745.html and http://punkrocker1991.livejournal.com/261685.html saintathanasius 18:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's possibly the case. However, it's not really a core issue here: COI doesn't stop you from working on articles, and the main question for AfD is whether or not the subject meets the notability requirements. Potential POV is something best addressed on the article's talk page. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly is too weak a word. "Core issue" or not, Punkrocker's activities represent a grotesque waste of everyone's time in pursuit of (at best) his own vanity and (at worst) lucre. Here's Punkrocker1991's...

...self-description as an "SF editor": [15];
...upload of a file (logo for Ticonderoga Publications) described as "Source: I [name] created this work entirely by myself.... Author:Punkrocker1991";

Note: I just realized that my original post was missing the link to the upload; here it is: [16]

...creation of what appears to be an article on himself, in which the subject is described as "editor of Ticonderoga Publications" and (surprise!) winner of "2 Ditmar Awards and 1 Aurealis Award" [17]; and
...edit history showing edits of articles on Ticonderoga and the authors it publishes [18].

Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman in the padded cell of his breast. -- Logan Pearsall Smith.

Care to explain, Punkrocker? EEng (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you need to be careful in how ou approach this - there is a important distinction between discussing a COI and outing. That said, it isn't the issue here - COI is a problem because it can lead to a strong POV in an article, but for AFD the question isn't POV, but notability. You might want to take this up in the editor's talk page or on WP:COIN. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, but per WP:OUTING (my italics),

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia...If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.

A lot of editors spent a lot of time trying to educate what appeared to be simply an inexperienced editor who, as new editors often do, merely failed to realize the extent to which Wikipedia policies and terminology don't comport with what a newcomer would expect. Now we find that all the crying about denigration of Australian awards and so on was just his own sore ego, and his activity here look suspiciously like an attempt to boost sales of his own product. He's made his own bed, and he'll have to lie in it. I've posted COI notices on the various articles he's edited about authors his firm publishes. For now I'll wait for someone else to raise the issue at COIN. Anyway, we're still waiting to see what Punkrocker has to say for himself. EEng (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the place for the discussion, but my concern was that you're connecting an on-wiki pseudonym with an off-wiki pseudonym to then draw a connection, not stated directly in either place, with the editor's name. The first step shows possible COI, so it is sufficient. Going further than that, when the editor hasn't self-identified, is a problem. The conflict between COI and outing is an ongoing concern, but in this case we can handle one without the other. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was another editor who googled the word punkrocker1991 out in the greater web. Look again at the links I gave above, in particular the file upload, in which Punkrocker1991 did self-identify, by name, that name being a founder of Ticonderoga Publications which publishes Slatter. The COI question is apropos here -- Slatter's publisher, with a financial interest in securing an article on her, should not have participated, or at the very least should have done so very gingerly and with full disclosure. So, Punkrocker1991, are you or are you not the person you said you were in that upload? (P.S. to Bilby -- thanks for reviewing the COI question in the various articles I tagged -- I was in no mood to make an impartial review of the individual edits.) EEng (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response As I said below, I do not believe that any COI issues are relevant to the AfD discussion here and I am willing and happy to discuss these at my talk page. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not relevant (directly) to the question of Slatter's notability, but it certainly is relevant to your participation in this discussion. From WP:COI:

Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest....Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion....[I]f you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors...

If what you said elsewhere on Wikipedia [19] -- that you are Angela Slatter's editor and publisher -- isn't actually true,why don't you just say so now? EEng (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI agree with what Bilby has said in that any assumed COI issues are not relevant to this discussion and I am more than happy to discuss these at my talk page. I would also remind everyone of wikipedias principle of assuming good faith and also the guidelines that can be found here WP:HOUND. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see what WP:HOUND has to do with this particular discussion: there is an "overriding reason" for the affected articles having been tagged, if there are other wider issues the search for a remedy lies elsewhere. A conflict of interest can exist independent of any intention to profit from it, so any concerns do not automatically imply lack of good faith. They do however mean that possibly uncomfortable questions may need to be asked. Please can you explain why the article as written so far provides an ISBN number for only one of her published books? (There is a reason why I decided not to add the other one while reviewing the article content, but I'd like to hear your reason for not including it.) --Mirokado (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AnswerAt the time I created the article, i had only the ISBN to The Girl With No Hands available in a convenient location. Upon your drawing my attention to the ommission of the ISBN for Sourdough I have now added this. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for the prompt (and good-natured) answer. (My reason for not adding it was that it seems only available in an edition limited to 300 copies and I was hoping there would also be another edition that I had missed.) --Mirokado (talk) 05:05, 18 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gana sangh kshatriya[edit]

Seems to be a complete hoax. [20] 0 Google books hits and [21] Scholar hits. Most web references are wikipedia mirrors [22]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THe article seems incoherent and does not seem to be clear about what it is talking about. Very few references , not all are trustworthy and seemingly none about the title itself. Possibly an OR, seemsl liek an alternate version of Mahajanapadas. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gave this one the benefit of the doubt when it was created but if its coherence and verifiability is still so poor as to make it impossible to tell if it is a real subject after all this time then we have no choice but to delete it. It's not like we can ask the author. He hasn't been seen since creating the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability poor? Has anyone apart from me read the sources cited? At least one (Singh2008) supports an entire quarter of the article, not least because that quarter of the article has been lifted wholesale, with only very light paraphrasing, from that source. Verifiability is not poor at all. The real problem with this article is the blatant plagiarism, the poor introduction, and the bad title, which should more properly be the name that I've fixed in the handy little tool ⇗ above (and at which we currently have a fairly bad and uninformative article). Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because you're referring to Gana sangha which is in a sorry shape and which is where a majority of the content of this article belongs. The addition of the term "Kshatriya" to this makes it a synthesized POV piece (just go through the many Indian caste and polity related articles and you'll notice that). I'd think that this article ought to be nuked as G12 and the sources added to the other article with relevant content. In addition to the Upinder Singh book, [23] and [24] appear to be sources for significant chunks of text that have now been slightly modified. —SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is not that Verifiability was poor. The problem was that "Gana sangh kshatriya" seems to be a newly coined term, a hoax and the paragraphs were irrelevant.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having been asked to review this for copyright concerns, I've found that significant content was copied directly from the 2008 source. The article is now blanked for copyright problems; if the AfD determines that an article is appropriate here, it will need to be rewritten. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax--Sodabottle (talk) 18:44, 12 December 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. L Faraone 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities on U.S. Route 66[edit]

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

As a stand-alone list, this isn't notable. The majority of entries should be in U.S. Route 66 or its state-level subarticles. The title is an unlikely search term. Imzadi 1979 → 03:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Do not need a canonical list of every town on US 66. Dough 48 72 03:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Categorify~~ Delete - Might be a useful category, but not a list. --Rs chen 7754 03:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ and redirect to U.S. Route 66 (or appropirate state-specific subpages). Admrboltz (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redundant to category. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify and Merge per Rschen and Admrboltz; we can have a large category for this and also have these cities mentioned in the route description of US 66 as well as US 66 in [State] articles. –CG^Talk 03:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We already have Category:Communities on U.S. Route 66. Dough 48 72 03:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Category:Communities on U.S. Route 66. –Fredddie ™ 03:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than the ones mentioned in the famous song ("...St. Louie, Joplin Missouri, Oklahoma City is mighty pretty, etc.") the communities themselves aren't famous for being on Route 66. This doesn't require a separate page, and the only reason that it takes up so much screen at the moment is the dim-witted method of assigning a separate line for each blue link. The page of Illinois towns could be incorporated into a section of the U.S. 66 article, if need be, in one paragraph. Mandsford 15:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - most of the delete rationales here are very poor. Merging this content into the main Route 66 article is a possibility, but it might be excessive detail in the route description, in which case this is a valid spin-off - I'll leave that for the raodfans to describe. But the following grounds to delete are complete bunkum: (1) "not a likely search term" - same is true for all sub-articles that are spun off on length grounds. (2) "redundant to category" - no, please read WP:CLT. It's not redundant if it can do something a category can't - and in this case it can, because it can put places in the order they lie on the road. Similarly, this list could be used to give a little detail about each town - even something basic like it's population. Categories can't do that. "Redundancy" is an utterly invalid argument, there's nothing wrong with having both a category and a list, as they serve different organizational purposes. (3) "Lack of notability" is arguably invalid - this is basically a spin-off subarticle. As with the fact that spin off articles don't usually have likely search terms, we also give them leniency in terms of standalone notability: the important thing is whether the page contains useful, organised information that would naturally be part of the main article, but would add excessive length so is better as a subarticle. This does seem exactly the sort of material that it would be natural to include in the main article, but may not wish to do so for length reasons. TheGrappler (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me reply. 1) No, this isn't a likely search term, which is why the title shouldn't be retained as a redirect if the list is merged. 2) You're right, the list can do things a category can't, but it's still a bit redundant because 3) most of the cities listed aren't notable for being on former US 66. WP:USRD deprecated lists of cities in roads articles for the US because a properly written route description will already list the cities through which a road passes. Add to that the inherently subjectivity of determining which are "major" enough to be listed at the exclusion of others, and the side boxes were killed. This list itself is a spunoff list that would be that "small" infobox on the side of the main article. All of these cities should be included in the by-state subarticless route descriptions, which should already be describing more detail than what this list contains. Imzadi 1979 → 18:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for a decent reply. I can appreciate that in your opinion all this material should be in the main article, in which case it ought to be merged. I can see a lot of delete !votes - is your opinion that this page should be kept until merger is complete, or do you feel the merger has effectively already been done? As for the title post-merge, what you said about it being an unlikely search term is reasonable. However, leaving redirects for merged pages has the benefit that it doesn't produce dead links on other people's sites or on their bookmarks; I can't see what harm outweights this benefit.
  - You do seem to mix up "notability" with "non-triviality". In a thesaurus the two are synonymous, but unfortunately they appear to have developed different meanings in Wikispeak! "Notability" usually refers to whether something deserves an article in its own right. "Triviality" is to do with a fact is worth including in an article, or as a means of categorizing. For instance, if lying on US 66 is a trivial fact about a place, then there should be no category for settlements on that route (that's a CFD issue, not AFD, of course). Unfortunately there seems to be no clear consensus on how notability applies to lists, although it is true that not all items in an list need to be notable in their own right (i.e. a list isn't like a navbox), so long as they are non-trivial or the list is meant to be exhaustive. It is, however, clear that a list of settlements that a road passes through should be complete, particularly since it is only a finite number of settlements (it's the "potentially infinite lists" which are the headache). The fact a particular road passes through a settlement might be a trivial fact about that settlement, but a non-trivial fact about that road. If you are correct that the main road article will include all of the information currently in this list, then a merge seems in order.
  - The only reservation I have about that, is whether the list actually has an advantage as a supplement to the article: a straight list, possibly annotated in some way (e.g. with population size of the settlements, their co-ords, and distances between them along the road) might make it easier for a reader to extract information, than having to pull it out of continuous prose. This is why we have, for instance, list-like "Timeline of X" and prose "History of X" articles - all the information in the timeline may lie in the prose article, but the timeline itself isn't redundant because it presents certain key aspects in a more comprehensible way. There is therefore nothing about a "Route outline for Road X" that inherently breaches Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as it's not necessarily redundant to the main "Road X" article (depending on how the two are written). Of course, it may be consensus that such route outlines are not a good idea! But somebody obviously thought they were, or this article wouldn't exist, and they do have an arguable case. I'm just pointing out that this argument exists, and that you could try to make articles like this distinctive and non-redundant (analagous to the "timeline" articles), but I'll leave that to the "roadier" editors to think about. TheGrappler (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think the guidelines of the Wikiproject are necessarily accepted here--Sometimes wikiprojects specify more articles than the rest of us want, sometimes they are too selective. In any case the essay at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability does not discuss this particular type of article. Personally, I find this much clearer than the usual route description--and, in any case, that does not seem to have yet been written in the necessary detail. Sometimes wikiprojects specify more articles than the rest of us want, sometimes they are too selective. I think it's appropriate geographic content--whether it should be incorporated into the main article is another matter, but I would suggest not, because it is a very long list.& would overbalance the rest of the article. The key thing this does that a category cannot is present them in geographical order, which is essential context information. (I assume this list does do that--I have not checked). DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A category would work fine to document towns along US 66. A list of these towns is way too long and is simply listcruft. Should we create lists of towns for other routes, such as US 50? For precedent, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Towns Along I-95 by County and State, which was deleted. Dough 48 72 02:19, 18 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for Bright Ideas[edit]

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

Delete. Self-published album of demo songs. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:54, 11 December 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) 13:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaConnection[edit]

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

This is a promotional article about a nonnotable subject that has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. It is puffed up quite a bit but none of the citations evidence much notability. Them From Space 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Delete Nothing on Google news. Breawycker (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked around for some more info last month, expecting to be able to expand this article so as to make it read less like an avert but finally came to the conclusion that it is non-notable.--Aspro (talk) 11:48, 11 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Riot Before[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No reliable sources. My request for speedy deletion was deleted though there are no claims of notablity in this article. Corvus cornix_talk 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the 'deleted' speedy deletion request: Given that WP:MUSIC considers two albums on a major indie label as notable, the released albums/EPs indicated in my eyes some importance to pass A7 and warrant further discussion. Otherwise, it would probably have been deleted as clear A7 in the almost two days that it was tagged.

Anyways, their albums seem to have been reviewed on e.g. AbsolutePunk [25], Sputnikmusic [26] and elsewhere[27], but I am not that familiar with punk and what counts as reliable source. The current article is certainly not based on any sources and would need to be rewritten if kept. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet point 5 (or any other) of WP:BAND because... They have released three albums on labels that do not appear to be "a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." Paper + Plastic have only been around a few years. The reviews written about them at AbsolutePunk and Sputnikmusic do not represent consistently verifiable sources as these sites include amateur content. Pol430 talk to me 17:14, 18 December 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Raddon[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E: this person has an entry because of one controversial event (their resignation). Passing mentions in news stories about a minor website they co-founded don't negate this. Nor does having a notable brother. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not quite a BLP1E, as per sources is far better known as director (and former director) of the Los Angeles Film Festival, for which he has far more coverage since 2001 than for anything else.[28] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 11 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Allen Greenberg[edit]

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

Apparently non notable lawyer, gets quoted, but I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. Unrefed BLP since 01-2009, declined speedy. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate notability. Google News search turns up half a dozen other Steven Greenbergs who all appear to be more notable than he is. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 18 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ball[edit]

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

Non-sourced BLP. Has been PRODed once and declined once. No notable sources to pass WP:BIO. All sources point to company, not individual. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. EEng (talk) 23:35, 13 December 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 Bucks Fizz (band)#Line-up changes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Jaxx[edit]

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

Seems non-notable. Was a member of Bucks Fizz, but a later and unofficial version years after their chart success. Doesn't seem to have done anything much of note since either.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bucks Fizz (band)#Line-up changes. Can see any real claim to notability outside of her membership to this group. (And the wording of the current article is misleading as it implies she was part of the Eurovision-winning line-up.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 11 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Ring (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Diskotech (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This bands' claims of notability per point 7 of WP:BAND are completely unverified, accordingly the article fails WP:MUSIC. The two references given make only passing mention of the band and therefore do not represent "Significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Pol430 talk to me 13:18, 13 December 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya[edit]

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

Is there any chance of your giving us a valid reason for deletion, founded in deletion policy? Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Uncle G, but also Merge to Yoga? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per lack of a stated rationale for deleting it. Open to changing my mind if a valid deletion rationale is presented. 28bytes (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no rationale given. We have Kriya Yoga, founded by extremely notable yogi Swami Kriyananda, and Category:Kriyas, so there is ample room to allow this article. Evidently a notable term.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.136.242 (talk) 04:32, 11 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L Arnold Hustad[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, ineligible for {{BLPPROD}}

Just another professor; no claim to notability apart from editing a version of one book. On the other hand, he is a fan of 'Star Trek'. Discuss. pablo 10:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 10:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 10:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 16:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not seem to meet WP:PROF, and as the nominator points out, the article is completely unreferenced. Looking through the history confirms it has never been sourced. 28bytes (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Copyright violation of [29] D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:30, 12 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mizuno[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced BLP, ineligible for {{BLPPROD}}.

I don't think this photographer qualifies under WP:ARTIST, presuming that applies to glamour photography, and I now note that this was previously deleted but recreated at Mizuno (photographer), so may qualify for speedy deletion. pablo 11:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)edited pablo 11:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 11:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Creation of the article was one of the rare contributions by the user named "Kmzuno". -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of porn-related deletion discussions. -- Hoary (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Google News hits acknowledge that she (he?) is a playboy photographer but that's about it. Not sure if much of an article could be written about her beyond that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:32, 11 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Green (Celebrity Wine and Spirits Consultant)[edit]

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

Has been PRODed twice already. Fails notability at WP:BIO. A few links are provided but there is no evidence the subject of the article has received the coverage in independent reliable sources required by WP:GNG. This Michael Green is not returned by Ghits. Kudpung (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Changing the Google News Archive search from "Michael Green (Celebrity Wine and Spirits Consultant)" to +"Michael Green" +"wine expert" brings up some sources that could establish notability, such as a Toronto Star article and a brief mention in The New York Times. I'm not sure that they do establish notability, but if the article is kept, these would certainly be better references to include than the Facebook and YouTube refs in there now. 28bytes (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best I can find a few vox pop comments by the subject, but nothing about the subject. Nuttah (talk) 08:50, 11 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rideauview Bible Chapel[edit]

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

Does not meet inclusion criteria per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations. Promotional and unsourced. Google search reveals only trivial listings for this organization. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 13:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 13:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. I cannot find anything at all that could establish notability for this church. 28bytes (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per 28bytes & Gene93k, could not find any coverage that makes the church notable. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 December 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Munyaradzi Gwisai[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP found via WP:URBLP. While the person is notable and the information may well be correct, I can't (with a reasonable amount of effort) find reliable sources for it. There are several Google News hits to Zimbabwean media, but since the press in Zimbabwe is generally state-controlled (see Zimbabwe#Media), I do not think that any of them qualify as reliable sources for the biography of a Zimbabwean opposition politician. Unless somebody with better access to reliable sources about African politics can source the article, it should be deleted per WP:V. Sandstein 13:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be enough mentions in the international press to verify the information in the article. See, e.g., [30], [31]. Ray^Talk 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many reliable sources found by the Google News and Books sources spoon-fed in the nomination. I would expect a lawyer and wannabe arbitrator to at least spend a few seconds looking at such readily available evidence before claiming to have made a "reasonable amount of effort". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:41, 11 December 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 Buffalo Fire Department. merge away, history is left intact Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Division Street explosion[edit]

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

Although the event described in the article was a tragedy, I don't believe it meets WP:N, or has significant continuing coverage. In addition, the content of the article is almost word-for-word a cut-and-paste of a paragraph from Buffalo Fire Department, without any additional content. The coverage in the BFD article is sufficent for Wikipedia. The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple firefighter fatality fires tend to meet GNG, as this one does. The fact that the sources are currently presented as ELs does not overcome the fact that it has ongoing coverage in multiple reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffalo Fire Department where sources/citations should be added. I am not convinced that the coverage is enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Location, the article should be merged with Buffalo Fire Department, the event does not warrant a individual article. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTML art[edit]

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

I tried finding any sort of sources to indicate that there is a medium or art movement called HTML art but there is nothing out there. This article is basically a how-to guide. freshacconci talktalk 21:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 21:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is wery yong art culture, that has no typicaly name. Some unit artworks are accessible in video guides, not in HTML source code. This article shows the principial possibility to this artwork creation in any hypertext markup, that supports the table creation. Tha article expands the theme history as it is - at the begin of development. Kirill Borisenko (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I tried to find sources, too, and the best I found was a one-paragraph definition in the Alt.Ascii-Art FAQ. Unless secondary sources are found it's not a fit for Wikipedia, since the article could only include definition, howto, and original research. --Pnm (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete - one of the source is here HTML art on AstroDigital --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is pretty much a how-to guide, and also the so-called "HTML art" it describes is basically just transcribing bitmap images into coloured HTML tables. That's an extremely limited view of "HTML art". JIP | Talk 10:29, 11 December 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. Tikiwont (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atria (Half vampire)[edit]

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

No references, would appear to be original research. 5 albert square (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect. Although some things that look like refs have been added, they are by no means reliable sources. If I'm getting this correctly, this is something from the Twilight series that is being described as though it is fact. There might be an appropriate target for a merge or redirect, I don't know enough about Twilight to know where to look. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was expecting the article to explain which fictional universe(s) these creatures were from, but nope, just presented as straight-up, real-world fact that half-vampires are from Italy and that they have different eye colors. 28bytes (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reference to fiction.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be original research or WP:MADEUP. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:57, 11 December 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 no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla Series[edit]

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

With few exceptions, most of the releases in this series do no pass the notability guidelines. While a few individual release barely reaches notability, the series itself does not pass WP:PRODUCT, and the company also fails WP:CORP with no significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. The notability of an individual release is not inherited by the rest of the series. —Farix (t | c) 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep. I think the nominator is misapplying WP:NOTINHERITED in this case. While a product line with just one or two notable members is not necessarily notable, I would say that a product line with several notable members is a notable product line. In addition, The Anime Encyclopedia has a relatively large entry for the Vanilla Series as a whole (in addition to entries for many of the individual anime in the series). If someone has access to a copy of The Erotic Anime Movie Guide by the same authors, it would probably be useful to check that to see if it has significant coverage of the Vanilla Series. Calathan (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Erotic Anime Movie Guide does not cover the Vanilla Series because the former predates the latter (1998 versus 1999). Keep. The brand is a significant one within its field.—DocWatson42 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are the multiple reliable third-party sources about the series itself that shows that the subject pass WP:NOTE? —Farix (t | c) 14:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst there are only two references in English, they do give "Significant coverage" of the subject, therefore Meets WP:GNG. I think WP:PRODUCT and WP:CORP are not appropriate arguments for this article as to merge the entire content of Vanilla Series with The Right Stuf International#Critical Mass would render that section of the article little more than an unwieldy list. This article and The Right Stuf International#Critical Mass do require some bold editing to tidy them up and add more references, but I don't feel deletion is required. Pol430 talk to me 12:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the two reliable third-party source that give significant coverage to the Vanilla Series? So far, only one has been presented, The Anime Encyclopedia, and it would count more as a directory. —Farix (t | c) 15:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, The Right Stuf International (TRSI) is not the only licensee of properties from the Vanilla Series—Media Blasters/Kitty Media has also licensed a significant number of series, not just three. MB/KM merely does not use the "Vanilla Series" brand to advertise them; compare their respective ANN Encyclopedia entries: Vanilla Series and Kitty Media. Thus it is not appropriate to merge the articles. As for another source, Mania.com's Anime/Manga section (formerly Anime on DVD) has reviews of most of what has been released in English—see Vanilla Series Collection and Kitty Media.

Whoops—I was wrong about the age of the Vanilla Series brand. It seems that the first release was in 1997, not 1999. Regardless, The Erotic Anime Movie Guide does not cover it to any extent.—DocWatson42 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Anime Encyclopedia, some titles were retroactively considered part of the series by the company. I think the series was actually created in 1999, but the first title that they now consider part of it was released in 1997. Calathan (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing but a huge list of titles here and aside from Campus most if not all are non notable and unreferenced, if this article is kept the focus should be less on the titles and more on references for the company. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just World Books[edit]

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

A publisher established this October, with four titles. There's a whiff of promotion here, and no independent notability. Prod was removed. Scott Mac 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although this article has several mentions at other websites, they are only passing mentions. Therefore I can't see that this organisation meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, nor can I see evidence of "Significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Pol430 talk to me 12:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically, not yet. Of the 4 books published, there are a total of 3 WorldCat holding libraries, taken altogether. Since they were just published in October 2010, this doesn't indicate they might not be notable, but at the moment there's no real basis for notability .

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbulaheni Charles Mphephu[edit]

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

Persistently unreferenced BLP, no reliable sources apparent, and a possible hoax due to lack of any verification. Chester Markel (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article also seems to be an autobiography. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum in which to write about yourself. Chester Markel (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fail of WP:V. Ray^Talk 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V, does not meet WP:BASIC Pol430 talk to me 11:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Pol430. Tooga - BØRK! 23:46, 16 December 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) 05:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xpress Train[edit]

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

Beyond two reviews by the same reviewer—which according to WP:NOTE, should be regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability—there has been almost no coverage by reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:NFILM. —Farix (t | c) 00:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its been about a week and you have no objections, I say delete per nom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 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.