Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 21

< 20 May	22 May >

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mumpower[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced BLP that fails to show the notability of its subject. No evidence that he passes WP:MANOTE. I found no independent sources that show notability. This was put up for deletion 5 years ago and was kept as a "no consensus". After 5 more years it's still unsourced. Papaursa (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another option would be to merge this into an appropriate article; Aikido styles might be a candidate. Janggeom (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article to indicate notability and I find no independent sources that show subject passes WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by JzG (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous advertising). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Grayson[edit]

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

I originally tagged the article for speedy but believe she may be too notable for that. However, all of the sources in the article are almost self published, first hit of google didn't find any sources and was written by a possible WP:COI case. SKATER ^Hmm? 23:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources. References in the article are not independent. The books she has written are from a publisher called "On Demand Publishing" which I gather is a print on demand service. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article really doesn't even make a claim of notability. Half of it simply recites details of her student days, while the other half is close to being WP:ADVERT for her real estate practice and minority business. WorldCat doesn't seem to be aware of any of her published books. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Reece[edit]

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

Found as BLP prod; I found good documentation for his college career, but there are only extremely weak web sources for the remainder. There seems to be COI involved as well, and this seems a little odd in context, but its not my subject DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, the whole thing is rather odd. If he's an international, he's automatically notable, but I can't find any results. It's plausible that he made his debut in 2006 - there was a mass retirement of T&T players. Still looking. St Anselm (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete The player's résumé confirms that he played for the Under 21 T&T team. ~~But it appears that he is currently in the senior side of BK Avarta, so that is enough for notability~~ (see below). St Anselm (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this enough for notability? BK Avarta are not fully pro, and appearances for youth national teams are generally accepted as not confering notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I as going on the basis of BK Avarta being fully pro, as the Trinidad connection clearly does not bring any notability. According to List of professional sports leagues, only the Superliga and Division 1 are fully pro (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues only lists the Superliga) so in the absence of hard evidence that this club is different, I'm changing my vote. St Anselm (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE on many counts. Youth caps do not confer notability, and he is not listed on T&T's senior 2006 roster; add to this that none of the teams he has apparently played for are in a fully professional league and we have one remarkably non-notable player. Giant Snowman 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has yet to play for a fully professional team, or the Trinidad and Tobago national team, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Due to a lack of significant coverage, he also clearly fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would go as far to say that a fair amount of information on this page is inaccurate, if not even falsified. There are absolutely no sources to verify any of his recent career, and the fact that his name does not appear in the database of any of his recent clubs is surely a clear indication that this person is being misrepresented. This article should be deleted in order to uphold the integrity of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmh2910 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article will be made verifiable, no need to nominate for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Reece (talk • contribs) 10:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that this claim is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We must therefore not treat it as verifiable until it actually is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. under dbu rules, a player can be on a full time contract witch makes him a full time contract player. This means Reece is professional. http://www.dbu.dk/law/lawShow.aspx?lawid=36 —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Reece (talk • contribs) 10:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Article will be made verifiable, no need to nominate for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Reece (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

- Please only !vote once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be embellished somewhat. No evidence for many of the claims, FIFA does not support the claim that he played in a WC qualifier (although they do not always list age group appearances) so no senior appearance evidence. No evidence he played in a professional league. Fails ATHLETE, fails GNG. --ClubOranje^T 09:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Dial (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page doesn't seem worthwhile: it's unlikely that anyone searching for "speed dial" is looking for a specific feature of the Opera web browser, or they would be searching for "Opera" or somewhere along those lines, and look through the sections. This specific feature of the web browser isn't notable enough to warrant an entry on a disambig, and I suspect it's named for the original "speed dial" anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'll stick the proper hatnote in speed dial right now. Buddy431 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creator answer[edit]

¬¬ I think users would come searching for Speed Dial not because of Opera (web browser), I thin they may come here by searching for http://speeddial.uworks.net/ or https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4810/ or https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/dgpdioedihjhncjafcpgbbjdpbbkikmi it's a very important feature introduced by Opera, please don't delete this page, it's really important. YES, I think users can come to Wikipedia to search and read about what it is... --Rafaelluik (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since there are only two types of speed dial listed, disambiguation (if actually necessary) should be handled with a hatnote at the top of the the primary article, per wp:Disambiguation. » scoops “5x5„ 20:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A disambiguation page should generally exist if a.) There are two or more uses for a title other than the main use, or b.) there are two uses for a title in which neither one is more dominant than the other, in which case the title by itself is the disambiguation page. Otherwise, there is no need for one. Dew Kane (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is clearly a useless disambiguation page. It could easily be speedied with {{db-disambig}}, since it disambiguates just two topics and ends in "disambiguation". Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-disambig}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Britton[edit]

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

Non notable music student. He's had some pieces performed, but so has every other music grad student. There are four references, but all but one are first-party sources. The only thing resembling a third party source is a reference to "Canada Now" on CBC... but this is simply the local supper-hour news. That doesn't confer notability, and it's also an unverifiable reference as far as I can tell: there's no way to tell whether this is just a mention, a whole feature, or something else. Tagged for third party references since March, declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's only one reliable and independent source present here, thus making him somewhat of an example of WP:BLP1E. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VMIX[edit]

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

Promotion for a company of which I cannot find traces of notability. The article has been plagued by their marketing efforts since its inception five years ago. Given that I can only find press releases and routine hiring announcements, I think this old dog should now be put out of its misery. Haakon (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working on fixing this to include only truly notable information and proper external links. Please wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.251.240.27 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree completely with the nominator's rationale -- no reliable secondary sources can be found. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As per WP:SHIPS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bornholm Express[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this ferry. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The Danish Broadcasting Corporation seems to have given some significant coverage to this topic. [1] It does appear to be the primary form of pedestrian transportation between the mainland and the rather large and important island of Bornholm. --Oakshade (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is the Bornholm Express the name of the ship, or that of the ferry service itself. If it is the ship, then it will be considered notable by WP:SHIPS members and thus should be kept. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the description at File:Bornholm Express.JPG; and the name on the side. Seems the ship's name. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure. Have notified the creator of the article on sv.Wiki of the nomination in the hope that he can clarify this. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article could use work, not deletion. Commented just above, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like it is a ship, so therefore wikinotable per WP:SHIPS consensus. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Appears to now meet WP:BAND after significant work and new developments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Powerglove (band)[edit]

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

Recreated non-notable page yet again, which has been removed and redirected a total of 4 times. I see nothing that's changed to satisfy any of the requirements at WP:BAND, save it was just announced on a given website they signed with an indie label. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band is notable in the respects that they are one of the more prominent bands in the video game genre, they have consistently toured with very well known bands and the record company they have signed to is E1 music who also has a number of extremely well known artists: see List of E1 Music artists. This band is notable. 94.192.87.215 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BAND. Covered by Game Informer [2][3] and G4 [4], both of which are on WikiProject Video games list of reliable sources. Toured the US and Canada 2 or 3 times. As the first VG music band signed to a real label, you could even make the claim that they're prominent representatives of the genre. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitively a notable band. Cult following, many US tours, and now labeled : they are a perfectly legit band.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fratt (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Note that this has now spilled over in to violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on conduct with this recent edit on my talk page, and the commentary and personal attacks regarding this deletion discussion on the given blog page. That includes WP:GOODFAITH, and WP:PERSONAL, as well as Inappropriate canvasing and plain old WP:CIVIL. Note that the author of the current entry and the blog page is a band member according to self admission on that blog page, and that WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERTISING will have to be followed if the article is kept. Likewise I have a big problem with this sort of conduct of trying to engage others to come here simply to vote and/or comment (as shown by the new editor anonymous IP's), which is also against Wikipedia policy. This deletion was simply filed because it was for an article already deleted four times before (which that alone throws up flags), with little given in the current recreation by the way of reliable or notable references to anything that's significantly changed from the previous four times. The accusations of personal agenda and the conduct I'm being accused of, and the personal attacks I'm seeing are not warranted. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclaimer, I am not a member of Powerglove, which is what I thought the previous comment might be inferring, nor am I the user that re-created the page, but I am the user who has updated the article with citations, sources, and the most up-to-date info on the band. I know to be notable on Wikipedia, a band has to have top charting singles or have released at least two albums on a major label or large indie label, but I think being signed to E1 Music does give 'Glove some grounds to be considered for notability. They've released an EP, an album, toured with national acts such as DragonForce and Hammer Fall, and will be releasing their next two albums on E1 Music, the first of which will be this fall. I know that you said the reason you suggested the page for deletion was because it has been created and deleted four times now, but please take my points into consideration. Based on the blog post, I'm sure Chris of Powerglove would appreciate it. FallenWings47 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually Chris from Powerglove. I have deleted any reference to you and any hateful comments on the blog and elsewhere on our sites and will continue to do so. I did not expect the reaction to be as vitriolic as it was and I regret any personal attacks committed by our fans. That said, it's a personal blog containing only my feelings on the matter and not any instructions to post here or do anything. The process as I understand it is not about voting to keep or delete but the merits of the argument for notability which I think are proven by the above comments. Feel free to delete this paragraph if it shouldn't be here but I figured it was the right place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.238.255 (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I consider the Game informer coverage sufficient to establish notability under wp:BAND (or indeed, under wp:GNG). Buddy431 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks like the sources Wyatt Riot produced establish sufficient notability. Also found some additional coverage [5] and [6]. A note to those who were canvassed here from outside Wikipedia, it is not the band's article per se; it is the Wikipedia community's article, and it may be edited by others and at will within the basic guidelines and common sense. –MuZemike 05:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep add Boston Herald, 11 June 2008, "They've got game; Hub's Powerglove gives Nintendo tunes a metal makeover" by Jed Gottlieb to the coverage. duffbeerforme (talk)

That they now just make it past wp:music (my opinion) is in no way questioning Marty Goldberg. Attacks on him for this nomination are pathetic and respect to Chris for cleaning up his blog. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given several sources with reliable, significant coverage were found in this discussion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Powerglove can meet WP:BAND. Some of the current refs in the article aren't enough to carry the weight by themselves, however given what's here is added I see no issue other than some copy editing/wikifying/general improvements.--Teancum (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against a quick renomination if this article isn't improved. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norrøna[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I created this article, it was because I saw products from the company being sold at many sites around the web and people from many countries are discussing the products on different Internet fora. It is an old comapny and it has a longer article on the company's home language, Norwegian. Facts are verified by linked footnotes. As the article looks at the moment, it could of course be made better. John Anderson (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, we've got the company's own Web site, a few home pages, and Internet forums. The first one is a primary source, and the others are outright unacceptable sources. It still fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have tagged the article for rescue. None of the links present now are applicable to attest notability. Indeed, several are to forums and should be outright removed together with the information for which they are used to reference. __meco (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search through Google translator shows news results for the store. [7]. Hmm... copying and pasting ends up showing the original untranslated text. Whatever. Search through the results for the word "jacket", and you see much talk about the jackets they produce. Dream Focus 01:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, there are lots of hits, but they are about individual products the company produces, not about the company. IF I understand notability here, that doesn't fully count. Hmmm... Looking at WP:ORG it looks like what we have here is not in depth, so we need multiple. Yes, we've got A LOT of mentions. So, OK, keep. NB: there are multiple organizations named "Norrøna", this one seems to be "Norrøna Sports", but there is a "Norrøna Kindergarten" and an aerospace company with the same name. David V Houston (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a lot of sentiment in favor of keeping this article, but as yet there are no secondary reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Since this is a fairly new article, and the argument is that those sources exist, I am relisting it partly to allow some extra time to find and incorporate them. As the article currently stands, I believe deletion would be the correct course. Shimeru (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - relying on the google translator makes for very difficult reference searching. I found this article which is a feature on the company itself. A google news search would indicate there is more to be found, and a Norwegian editor may be able quickly sort through it all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall, the "keep" !votes are stronger. The "delete" !votes revolve mainly around a mere statement of WP:NOT; however, the "keep" !votes note that the subject is verifiable and notable and the article just needs work to make it NPOV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tibla[edit]

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

The wikipedia isn't a dictionary of words, and not slang, particularly not foreign slang; article titles are supposed to be in English.

Given we're not an Estonian-English dictionary, please vote DELETE - Wolfkeeper 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —- Wolfkeeper 20:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See, I always do what I'm told. —Tamfang (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article surpasses that of a dictionary definition, and there's room to expand (along the lines of nigger: history, etc.). Some of the sources are enough to satisfy notability, IMO. I see no reason why we shouldn't have foreign language slurs (providing they're verifiable and notable): the reason we don't right now is just because of our systematic bias. Buddy431 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article seems to invite POV problems; certainly it is problematic in its current state. The suggestion "tibla is mostly applied to a Homo Sovieticus kind of person" seems like an insult to Soviet (and perhaps by extension Russian) people rather than a neutral description of the word. That said, it may be possible to rescue this article by writing it in a neutral fashion, perhaps based on the currently cited references. On the other hand, if it cannot be turned into anything other than a dictionary definition plus some POV commentary, it would not belong here. Cnilep (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of truly encyclopedic impact beyond typical ethnic slurs. Powers ^T 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The usage seems notable. Apart from the numerous sources in the article, see, for example, Words for understanding ethnic Estonians. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Dunno about this one. "Tibla (plural: tiblad) is an ethnic slur in Estonian language, which refers to a Russian or a Soviet"--so to which does it refer? Soviets would of course include Estonians. I am not sure that I understand Cnilep's POV issue. If, as the article seems to indicate, the term is used to refer to Russians, maybe, but the article also seems to indicate (contradictorily, and in the same breath) that the term refers to Soviets, and underscores this with the reference to Homo Sovieticus (like Che Guevara's "New Man" and not indicative of ethnicity or origin). I am leaning toward wanting to keep this article, seeing as how it appears to be analogous to Gringo or Gaijin, but I'm unsure that I'm even understanding the concept that is the subject of the article. I may strike or otherwise change my !vote if someone would be kind enough to provide clarification. Heather (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Needs to be less POV, certainly, but outright deletion seems like a bad idea when it clearly has some significance as a concept and seems to meet WP:GNG through the level of sourcing. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Machida Karate[edit]

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

The article is poorly written and contains original research. Also, since "Machida Karate" is such a small branch of Karate (if it can even be considered its own branch) and as noted in the discussion, hasn't technically been founded, it shouldn't have a page. The "Fighting Style" section of the article "Lyoto Machida" is enough to explain Machida's style of Karate he uses in mixed martial arts. Eggoroffles (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article or on Google suggests it's practiced outside the Machida family and their school. Much of the content of this article is already covered in Lyoto_Machida#Fighting_style. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show that this is a new style of karate--certainly not a wide-spread one that would pass WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with most of the comments in the nomination. Janggeom (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. Astudent0 (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Md Badsha Miah[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced BLP of a non-notable martial artist who fails WP:GNG. The only claim to notability is being on the team that finished 3rd out of 5 in the 2006 Asian games event of Kabbadi. No indication if he even played. Papaursa (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur. Janggeom (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this person in reliable sources. Astudent0 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Fastily. NAC—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Lone Twin[edit]

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

I cannot verify the opening sentence: internationally renowned theatre production company. There are numerous results in a google search, but these are just lists of plays that might be there, or directories, or something similar. I find no reliable, third-party, significant coverage of any type... no interviews or reviews or descriptions of significance. Perhaps I am missing it, but I don't see it. Possible WP:COI. — Timneu22 · talk 17:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have previously nominated an article about the same "company" for speedy deletion as a promotion. I am unsure whether it is this article or not (I will check and get back to you). It is possible that this is a part of the "Performing Wikipedia" project. Details are on the talk page for Gob Squad. Anowlin (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Yes, I have nominated this page under CSD-G11. I forgot to post the warning on the creator's talk, but they contested CSD anyway. Anowlin (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I created the AFD at pretty much the same time as your speedy. I didn't see a need to remove either. I don't think there's harm either way. — Timneu22 · talk 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Ubiles[edit]

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

College american football player, which WP:Athlete or WP:GNG he is notable under I can't see.. Not notable. Weakly cited mostly to primary locations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should said player play in the National Basketball Association, then I believe he is notable. For now, he is not notable enough for this site.74.64.75.56 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant media coverage beyond his ordinary coverage as part of his college basketball team and some speculation about possibly playing as a professional in the future. If in the future he gets significant national coverage then we can create an separate entry for him. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --auburnpilot talk 04:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Reisman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Reisman, Arnold

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

I'm not convinced this individual, accomplished though he is, passes the bar of WP:PROF. The bio article is unreferenced (an obvious WP:BLP problem) and the external links are to pieces by the subject, not reliable secondary sources about the subject. He doesn't appear to be highly cited and none of his appointments seem to be of the exceptional nature required by the notability criteria. The main claim to notability seems to be the listing in Who's Who in America, though I'm not sure how much significance this holds (and there's no verification for the claim). Finally, the article has had significant COI editing in the past; not a reason to delete in itself, but it may indicate an element of WP:PROMOTION. EyeSerene^talk 16:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A relevant AN/I thread is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BMK - that was what took me to the article in fact :) Your link is helpful though (should have thought of that myself). EyeSerene^talk 21:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Per the latest evidence on the linked ANI thread, I've indefblocked Arnold Reisman as a self-promotional spam/advertising only account. This article should still stand or fall on it's own merits though. EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, he completely fails WP:PROF. His books do not make much of a splash, though some are cited, they are not "highly cited", to meet the requirement. Web of Knowledge does not list Reisman as being highly cited. Though it is not a valid argument (See WP:OTHERSTUFF), in my searches I kept finding other business economists and management engineers who were more highly cited than Reisman but who did not have a Wikipedia article, people such as Donovan Young and Elwood S. Buffa. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Scholar results (Note that Google Scholar has problems related to establishing notability, as detailed at WP:PROF):
  - The book Systems Approach and the City (1972), which was co-written by Mihajlo D. Mesarović and Reisman, has been cited in more than a dozen scholarly works (not counting Reisman citing himself), as seen in a Google Scholar search. A dozen cites on Google Scholar may mean only half a dozen peer-reviewed journals, which does not meet the requirement of being highly cited.
  - The book Management science knowledge : its creation, generalization, and consolidation (1992) has been cited by more than 30 others.
  - The journal article "The devolution of OR/MS: implications from a statistical content analysis of papers in flagship journals" (1994) has been cited by more than 60 others.
  - The journal article "Research strategies used by OR/MS workers as shown by an analysis of papers in flagship journals" (1995) has been cited by more than 30 others.
Comment - Regarding Reisman's listing in various "Who's Who in ..." volumes, I note that our article indicates some doubt about how rigorous their selection process is [8]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to assume that one of their stringent criteria is that the check has to clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the basis ofthe citation to the work, which probably shows him an authority. Weak because almost none of the books are by high-level publishers. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the basis of the results of this Google Scholar search, which i believe i've designed to be pretty specific to the right "a reisman". Seems to show an h-index of around 20, with five articles/books cited over 50 times (GS lacks an option to sort by citation count so you have to look through a few pages of results). Given that GS will have missed a lot of citations too old to be online (as evidenced by the fact that the top 5 counts are for things published since 1992 when he was 58, and by the number of results that aren't themselves online), i believe his true h-index is probably a fair bit higher, which would seem pretty good for operational research / management science. I also noticed his book "Managerial and Engineering Economics" got an honourable mention from the judges of the Frederick W. Lanchester Prize of INFORMS in 1970, a year the prize itself wasn't awarded (couldn't help noticing the seminal Box–Jenkins book on time series also only got an honourable mention, which seems a little surprising with the benefit of hindsight). Qwfp (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 China-Russia-North Korea earthquake[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is the speculation of nuclear tests. Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. WP:NOTNEWS Aditya Ex Machina 16:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another McArticle in a project that aimed at trying to write a page on every earthquake that made the day's news. This isn't about the big earthquake in China that killed thousands of people. Does anyone know what the 2010 China earthquake is called in Wikipedia's categories and templates? No, it's not "2010 China earthquake". It's hidden under the title 2010 Yushu earthquake. It's taking awhile, but we're slowly separating notable from non-notable. Mandsford 20:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. WAY too many articles for insignificant 2010 earthquakes, which I suspect is a by-product of the media reporting on every little earthquake since Haiti. AlexHOUSE (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's creator. It was a 6.9 magnitude earthquake, making it one of the larger earthquakes this year. The page may need to be renamed to avoid confusion with Yushu, but it is definitely notable and should be kept. It is also listed as significant for 2010 by the USGS here: ([9]). Also notable about the quake is that there was speculation that it could be a nuclear test. Av9 (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No enduring notability, fails WP:NOTNEWS. 6.9 is not a magic number, that is no claim to notability. USGS's criteria for inclusion is lower than Wikipedia's. Aditya Ex Machina 10:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The depth of 570 km renders this otherwise 'major' earthquake ineffective. It's also way too deep to be a nuclear test, these usually occur close to the surface. RapidR (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the exact depth and epicenter of a quake isn't immediately available. But you are exactly right, 357 miles is too deep for a nuclear test, considering that the deepest hole ever dug is about 7 miles (or 11 km). Still, if the Great Leader told everyone in North Korea to bring a shovel... Mandsford 01:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news coverage except the immediate event reporting. No followup reports, basically nothing significant happened as a result of this quake - as is usually the case with quakes that deep. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Request Generator[edit]

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

Non-notable incomplete software without even a claim to notability. Prod declined without comment. I tried replacing the prod, since this is so obviously an inappropriate entry, but that too was removed. Hairhorn (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. THE PROJECT HAS FOLLOWING ATTRIBUES... 1.Provide facility to bombard a particular site with denial of service attack.... 2.used to obtain password from sites using brutforce and dictionary based attack.... 3.Automatic filling of form. Apart from being advertising and something with no mainstream use, I suspect it will be a good long time before anything like this gets widespread coverage in reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a school-level project still in its infantry - non encyclopedic content.Pxtreme75 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just Another Hacking Tool™. PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Honshu earthquake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know there's been a previous nomination. Standards have changed since then. There are different precedents. Also, IMO the reasons cited in the previous nomination's keep !votes aren't valid. Aditya Ex Machina 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- For my reasoning see the previous AFD. The nominator may not feel it holds up, but I disagree. A 6.6 earthquake is past the threshold of being a simple news story and puts it into the realm of encyclopedic event. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Umbralcorax's reasoning is that an earthquake of 6.6 magnitude passes some arbitrary number that he's decided makes an earthquake automatically notable. There is no such consensus. Discussions on Wikiproject Earthquake indicate (but have not yet finally decided) that earthquakes lesser than 7.0 magnitude are not inherently notable. Aditya Ex Machina 22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Egads! I'd say delete but it appears that this article could be rewritten. Did you know that there have been several much larger earthquakes that have struck Honshu (for context, the island on which most of Japan's big cities, including Tokyo, are located) since the last discussion? [10]. You wouldn't know it from the article here. Looking at the Template: Earthquakes in 2010 and Category:2010_earthquakes illustrates to me why the current system is so "f***ed up". In trying to write about as many quakes as possible, and giving them scientific sounding names that people are unlikely to know, they practically hide the major events. One can see the deadliest earthquakes in April [11]. If you were looking for the one in China that killed thousands of people, you would have difficulty locating in categories (unless you know that it's referred to by the seismogeeks as the "2010 Yushu earthquake"). It's on the template, equal there with all the other "today's tremor" articles, and the only evidence of its significance on the template is a little symbol "†". The essential idea of an encyclopedia is that people who want to find out more about something can refer to it and find what they were looking for, and you don't accomplish that by making a page and then walking away from it. Mandsford 20:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's creator. This was a major 6.5-magnitude earthquake, and it caused an injury. Wikipedia has articles about much smaller earthquakes, such as the 2010 Pico Rivera earthquake, which, with a magnitude of 4.4, was 100 times weaker. The Honshu earthquake was also listed here ([12]) as a 2010 significant earthquake by the USGS. Av9 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. USGS's criteria of inclusion is lower than Wikipedia's. Aditya Ex Machina 22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the 2010 Pico Rivera quake article get nominated as well, and it probably will as we review each of the many quakepages that have been cranked out in the first five months of this year. There are other ways to refer to earthquakes than making a new page every time one happens and then hoping that it won't get deleted. To Av9, I say that you can be a leader in creating pages for the various zones of the world that either are "earthquake prone" or where quakes are less often registered, and add each quake to those pages as it occurs. Some significant events would be spun out as articles of their own, to be sure, but the information would be more likely to be preserved if it was listed by general location (an article on earthquakes on the island of Honshu itself would be an example) rather than by year. When it comes down to "all or nothing", nothing seems to be the choice more often, but even if it was 50/50, half of the work is for naught. I think that you could add to Wikipedia's knowledge about where earthquakes happen all over the world... but this method clearly is not working. Mandsford 02:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With just one injury caused, this was a pretty forgettable earthquake by Japanese standards, and the name "2010 Honshu Earthquake" appears to have been made up by the article creator. The official documentation cited refers to it as "福島県沖を震源とする地震" ("an earthquake centred on Fukushima Bay"), so it appears it was not a significant enough event to actually receive an official name. --DAJF (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT--70.82.131.148 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 New Ireland earthquake[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another "quaking news" article. This one happened in New Ireland, and I guess it's assumed that everyone would know that it's an island that's part of Papua New Guinea. It's kind of like calling the JFK assassination article "1963 Texas crime". Mandsford 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Acually most people will know that the island is in Papua New Giunea after reading the article. As for the article, I created it and I'm sorry for making it so short, but that was about everything I could find out about the earthquake. Zbase4 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is a valid reason for keeping the article? That because people will find out a completely unrelated fact, it should be kept? And doesn't the lack of material to write an article with tell you something about the notability of the earthquake? Aditya Ex Machina 22:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep had significant news coverage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You believe this earthquake has enduring notability? Aditya Ex Machina 10:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether Graeme meant to say "new coverage" or "news coverage"-- if it has had new coverage, that would be relevant to notability. On the other hand what I see is the news coverage that it got was the typical "what happened yesterday" fare that happens for any event that comes across the wires, whether it's a minor earthquake or a sports score. Mandsford 12:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deep focus earthquakes are mostly not notable because their impact at ground level is limited. The article currently does not even cite any sources, so obviously there is nothing much to say about this quake anyway. RapidR (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--70.82.131.148 (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010 Kepulauan Obi earthquake[edit]

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

No enduring notability. Article more suited for Wikinews. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone can show me its lasting significance, great, but very few of Wikipeida's 2010 earthquakes were mentioned after the day they happened. Mandsford 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No problem! --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Justmeagain83 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Puerto Rico earthquake[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. FWIW "The Puerto Rico Seismic Network ruled out a Tsunami alert following the Puerto Rico earthquake." "...its major effect was perceived by citizens for only 10–15 seconds." (This doesn't really prove/disprove anything, just saying) Aditya Ex Machina 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually it was felt all thou the island, waking people out of their beds. It is the first major quake in PR in the new century and the largest and most felt in many many years. It has caused the government to re-evaluate its readiness for a major quake and many municipal government have begun running drills and installing tsunami warning stations, such as Aguadilla and Carolina.El Johnson (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that make this event WP:NOT#NEWS? Abductive (reasoning) 13:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT.--70.82.131.148 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --DAI (Δ) 12:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010 Sumatra earthquake[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS Aditya Ex Machina 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News, yes, notable, no. Part of the 2010 earthquakes project that I think is aiming to literally have 2,010 earthquakes. Mandsford 20:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's creator. This article is about a major, 6.8 magnitude earthquake. It is listed as a 2010 significant earthquake by the USGS (the list can be found here: [13]). This article was nominated for deletion once before but kept. Also, we have many articles about much smaller earthquakes, such as the 4.4-magnitude 2010 Pico Rivera earthquake. It also had coverage on CNN and other news agencies. Av9 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also USGS's criteria of inclusion is significantly lower than Wikipedia's. Aditya Ex Machina 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No sense keeping a non-notable earthquake that just "caused panic." AlexHOUSE (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an explanation, I think that what happened before was that the article was "prodded", and the proposed deletion was contested by removing the tag. So far as I can tell, the article has not been nominated until now. Mandsford 02:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sumatra has had its fair share of significant earthquakes over the past decade, this is not one of them. RapidR (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Earthquakes like this are commonplace in Indonesia and this particular one lacks notability unlike some other ones e.g. the one that happened in May which was over magnitude 7 and caused some minor damage. Justmeagain83 (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This falls just short of consensus to keep (luckily, it doesn't matter). Despite the oddity of the list's topic, many agree that it is notable and verifiable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field[edit]

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

A strange and subjective list that includes an actual Nobel Prize in its line-up of would-be Nobels. Notability is absent. Joal Beal (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the prizes are notable enough to have their own articles, and on each of these articles you'll find the claim that they're commonly called "the Nobel Prize of [the relevant field]". I included inline citations when they were provided in the original articles. On many of the remaining cases, I believe that the lack of inline citations is simply because it's considered common knowledge (e.g. the Fields Medal). Regarding the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, it is arguable that it can be defined as an "actual Nobel prize", and in any case it fits the description of the list: "fields [that] are not included in the Nobel Prizes, because they were not part of Alfred Nobel's will". And that's quite similar to what its article says: "It is not one of the Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel during 1895, but is commonly identified with them." --Waldir ^talk 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we decide to keep it, we should at least change the name, as it is inappropriate for Wikipedia.--RM (Be my friend) 16:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great that you brought that up, because I initially named it after List of people known as father or mother of something, without noticing that that was a redirect to a better named article: List of persons considered father or mother of a field. Since the article has so little history, I'll be bold and move it to List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field, since I believe that change to be non-controversial (plus, it can always be undone or moved to an even better name later). --Waldir ^talk 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I've seen "the Nobel prize of such-and-such" used any number of times and there are many related ghits for non-Nobel prizes, so I think the subject is significant enough to be covered as a list. The respective prizes are, after all, considered some of the highest distinctions in their respective fields. This distinction just gives the award relevance for a lay person. But we should make sure the label is applied by a person of significance.—RJH (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable, completely subjective, downright silly. Hairhorn (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, unverifiable? There are already several citations from reliable sources, and more can certainly be added. As for the other motives you present, they're merely your opinion, which you're entitled to, so I won't argue with that -- but I'll say that they aren't suppose to matter in this debate. --Waldir ^talk 06:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Opinions don"t matter in a debate? huh? There may be sources for this entry, but none of them makes this list notable as a list.

~~Delete~~. This is WP:SYN and OR if anything is. If I refer to the Presidential Medal of Freedom as the Nobel Prize of U.S. Citizenship, can it be on this list? That's a silly question, but most of these entries don't even have bad sources, let alone a rigorous inclusion criteria. Cool Hand Luke 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, do you have a reliable source for it? // Liftarn (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, if you could present reliable sources for that claim, it would be perfectly reasonable to add it to the list. Also, What do you mean "don't even have bad sources"? Have you even tried looking for any? As for the inclusion criterion, it seems clear to me that it would be something in the lines of "prizes that are often referred to as the nobel of a field", and AFAIK all of the current entries fit that requisite. --Waldir ^talk 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the prizes on the list don't even have bad sources to show they're the "Nobel Prize in X"—as I said. I don't see why you're requiring a source from me without decimating the list. "Often" is an OR term if anything is. What kind of source is required for that? A source that actually says they're often referred to as a "Nobel Prize in X?" If that's your criteria, it appears you have only perhaps two prizes sourced. Cool Hand Luke 15:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - All right, I went and got a few sources. I know, articles should have them, but I think you guys should let them evolve rather than push for deletion. Even though I didn't have to look hard to find them, it took a while to select, compile and format them into the article. Wikipedians should work out of pleasure, not out of pressure to prevent an article from deletion. All this was an unnecessarily harsh way to deal with the situation, IMO (unless, of course, you genuinely believed these prizes weren't called the Nobels of their fields). --Waldir ^talk 18:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I honestly did not and do not believe that there is any rigorous criteria for deciding whether a prize should be on this list (BTW, AGF), and formally I think it should be delete. However, I'm loath to delete something where so much work has been invested, so I switch to Keep. Cool Hand Luke 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I appreciate that you reconsidered. Sorry if my message came across as assuming bad faith; I was trying to figure out what exactly you meant by the prizes not having sources to prove they're called Nobel of X. I believe I got what you mean now, but I do think we can reach a consensus for reasonable inclusion criteria for this list. I guess this is not the best place to go into details, but if you're interested, we can start a discussion on the topic on the article's talk page, if this AfD gets closed as Keep. --Waldir ^talk 23:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is now referenced and is a valuable list. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced now. —fetch ·comms 03:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the term "Nobel of ..." is a suplerlative tacked will-nilly on to prizes as a descriptive element. That doesn't just ify a list. If we want Wikipedia to be the Cadillac of encyclopedias, we need to remove such lists. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a useful list in my opinion.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and merge the prose into a dedicated section in Nobel Prize. Sufficient examples of prizes referred to as the Nobel of their field can and should simply be included in the prose; the list format is not useful for this particular topic, though the topic itself is encyclopedically relevant and would add value to the main article's scope and depth. Just my 2 cents. --83.135.123.77 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Beech[edit]

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

I probably incorrectly applied a BLPPROD on this article, but am bringing it to AfD because I believe it fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. The first ref is a bio at the site where Sandy Beech works. The second ref is a press release for Non-Stop Music in which Sandy Beech has a single quote. I have been unable to find any other sources of any significance. Millbrooky (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note several more references have been added to the article since I nominated it for deletion. Despite, the additions, I still don't believe the notability threshold has been reached. --Millbrooky (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are either selfpub, promotional, or passing mentions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G5 - a creation by a banned user --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mickie McGowan[edit]

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

Clearly this is a hard-working voice actor with many credits to her name. However none of them rise above the level of "Additional Voices" -- i.e. she is the animation version of an extra. No signs of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot, with the page redirected to diabetes management. I see no compelling reason to erase the history. With a welcome to the new editor, who apparently knows about treatments for diabetes. We're happy to have your contributions! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes control[edit]

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

This is a pure WP:NEO article. The term was "coined by Malik", and the article was written by Ja.Malik. This is WP:OR. Unable to find reliable sources. Didn't seem like a blatant CSD, as many NEO articles aren't. But this isn't worthy of inclusion. — Timneu22 · talk 13:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how a term like this can be "coined" by two people. Controlling diabetes is pretty much what diabetics do. Also it seems to have been posted by one of the "coiners." — e. ripley\^talk 13:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to diabetes management. This seems to be a plausible search term for people looking for information about how to control or manage diabetes. We already had that article. And frankly, I doubt anyone could have recently "coined" this fairly obvious phrase. This seems fairly close to being an Obvious Right Thing here, so unless strong objections are made soon.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could go for that. — Timneu22 · talk 14:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Uhart[edit]

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

This may fall under {{db-band}}, but I wasn't too sure. I'm nominating this because of complete lack of third-party resources and no indication of notability either here on on google searches. Google has hits, but I don't see third-party (interview, review) hits that are relevant. If I've missed these hits, perhaps this AFD is wrong. Hence no speedy. — Timneu22 · talk 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geesh. Sometimes twinkle fails me. — Timneu22 · talk 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Greenberg[edit]

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

No references added to the article for three years. The text contains a request to check the citations for "Drag and Drop", the one citation provided there that mentions the author is the author's web page. Searches and Google (web, news, books) appear limited to the author and to Wikipedia and it's mirrors.

Was momentarially marked for speedy in 2007 but the article does make a valid claim for notability, I don't see in the history (maybe I"m missing it) that it's been prod'd or AfD'd before, I figure AfD is the more conservative route. Joe Decker (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and perhaps fails WP:V. One result, not viewable, at Google Book Search for "Jeffrey Greenberg" "drag and drop". Are there sources verifying he invented it, and did he get significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources? Edison (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage for this individual. The claim for "drag and drop" is that he had the first program under Windows 2.0 to use drag and drop. That's not particularly notable as the drag and drop UI interaction paradigm was already established in other operating systems. And in any case, trying to verify that claim has shown only one potential source that is unviewable. I'd expect more corroboration to establish the claim, and a lot of hoopla about it in order for me to accept it as a notable achievement. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No serious evidence found of drag & drop claim outside of CV; notability requires evidence.
Delete Agree with comments above, can not find any independent sources to verify the page's content. J04n(talk page) 15:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --auburnpilot talk 04:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Henle[edit]

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

Henle has only competed in 3 pro fights, all against opponents with terrible records. He fought on The Ultimate Fighter, barely won his fight to get into the show then lost his next fight eliminating him from the tournament. He also trains at a small gym, that is not known by many. Basically, he is in no way notable. RapidSpin33 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Was on notable show which isn't even over yet. Him "barely" winning is utterly irrelevant. His gym isn't small, it's run by the world's top MMA referee. Could easily make it back on the show which isn't over yet, could easily appear at the finale. Passes WP:ATHLETE. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even one pro fight qualifies him under WP:ATHLETE as it currently reads. Having a crappy record isn't a reason to delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has only three career fights, all in non-notable, local promotions; therefore, IMO, does not compete on the "fully professional level" of the sport as per WP:ATHLETE. Appeared on a reality TV show and gets eliminated in the first round, also not notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the three fights were PROFESSIONAL fights means that he fits the criteria. Also, he's fought at the highest level of MMA (UFC in the Ultimate Fighter) where he was eliminated in the SECOND round, having already fought to get into the house. He totally meets criteria. Should also be noted that the above vote was as a result of canvassing by User:RapidSpin33 Paralympiakos (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE says a person must "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" (emphasis mine). Three fights in local promotions, IMO, does not qualify as fully professional. If it were, then the yahoo who fights every weekend at the VFW for $50 is also a notable professional MMA fighter. Matches on TUF are exhibition matches and thus, IMO, are not fully professional level matches. Also, I do peek in on Wikipedia on weekends, including the MA deletion sorting list, so I would have seen and commented here anyhow. As for canvassing, RapidSpin was looking for additional people to comment on the nomination, not seeking a particular "vote". --TreyGeek (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the AFD for Joe Henle: Surely you of anyone should realise who farcical the "exhibition" tag for TUF actually is. The only reason for it is so they don't have to realise the results. It's still a professional bout, even if it isn't recorded on permanent fight records. Also, with the athlete section, the athlete definition is, as stated, about teh notability of the organisation competed in. UFC/TUF is the top level. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC) (As for canvassing, I think it's fairly clear he ONLY asked YOU because he knew what your response would be; that's canvassing).

No, I asked TreyGeek because he is the only person I know on Wikipedia. RapidSpin33 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't ask me! You know me, but I had to find out about this because you didn't inform me, as you were supposed to in the guidelines for AFDs. You should also know a few of the names that regularly pop up, such as BrendanFrye or Justinsane15. The reason you asked him was because you knew what his response would be, and additionally what mine would be. You knew that if you informed me, I'd vote to keep. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know you but I didn't ask because I assumed some bot would tell you. I'm still learning about the rules around here man, calm down. Actually, I've never seen those names. RapidSpin33 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite how it may seem, I am calm, I just wish you'd read WP:ATHLETE as Paraisy, McKinney, Henle and Lynch all pass it, giving them notability. Instead, I'm having to battle to keep these articles. Paraisy shouldn't have even been deleted. 3 vs. 1 isn't consensus in my book. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe he qualifies under WP:ATH, yet. TUF is not the UFC, they're competing for a UFC contract. This means it's really a tryout. I don't consider an athlete to be "fully professional" unless he can make his living as a competitor--that's why minor league baseball players are not generally considered notable. I'd agree that anyone who gets paid is a professional, but that would include kids who win $50 at a local karate competition. That's why it says "fully professional". Papaursa (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're wrong. They're all under contract, all 14 of them. However, the ones who don't get past the first round are released. They aren't fighting for a contract, as they're already under contract and the quarter finalists are always invited back and get AT LEAST one fight. They're fighting for a SIX FIGURE contract. Therefore, I'd say your argument was void. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments under the Clayton McKinney discussion. I still don't think they meet the definition of "fully professional". I wish we could keep all these arguments in just 1 place. I think MMA could use some notability guidelines to cut down and centralize these discussions. Papaursa (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've left a message on Papaursa's talk page. Can we agree to try to discuss on WP:MMA about how to define notability in MMA? I know a lot of discussion there die quickly, but I know that Rapid is a regular editor here and TreyGeek, while not as frequent as before, is also somewhat regular. Any chance people? (Also, until then, can we postpone this deletion and that of McKinney until we can form consensus, because atm, it's pretty much tied on both. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern fusion[edit]

Postmodern_fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Delete- No evidence shown that genre exists or is notable, aside from an external article most likely written by the editor himself. C1k3 (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real references to attest to actual existence of genre. External links are (a) to website of "Spirit Jazz Project" (a member of which shares a name with the article author) and (b) an article by Stuart Nicholson which doesn't mention the term. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only apparent usage (other than in this article) is on the website of the same editor who created the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources, the external links, do not mention the genre by name, or support the claims made in the article. No evidence of notability.--SabreBD (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Millar (politician)[edit]

Robin_Millar_(politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Mr. Millar does not appear to meet any of Wikipedia's notability criteria: either as a councillor in a small English town, an unsuccessful candidate in the Welsh constituency of Arfon, or indeed any other sufficient coverage in any matter of note. Frankly, I have not managed to find any verifiable objective evidence that he has received any significant attention whatsoever which might merit a claim of notability.

This article's structure, tone and content is clearly self-promoting and must have been added by Mr. Millar or one of his associates in order to support his campaign for election to Parliament, which was not successful. I use the word "must" advisedly, the level of detail in the article is far too great for it to be otherwise.

Any discussion appreciated.

--Michaeljoseph10 (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of notability, Mr. Millar clearly does not meet the criteria set out in [[14]]

--Michaeljoseph10 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a minor local politician who fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete had a look for sources but there's nothing unrelated to his election candidature or his local council activities, neither of which is notable. Valenciano (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denman Instrumentation[edit]

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

No evidence of particular notability, beyond a fluff piece done for a local paper's business section. — e. ripley\^talk 11:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An entirely run of the mill business, with no historical significance or major consumer brands. This is also obvious advertising: Denman Instrumentation has a high level of experience in instrumentation and electrical work. They provide a full range of services to cover many instrumentation and electrical needs.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Fastily. NAC—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

SomniumNexus[edit]

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

Subject is not verifiable through reliable secondary sources (WP:V) Marasmusine (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Note that this is about a free game engine written in Java for the Mac OS X operating system. It aims to be a simple way for non programmers and artists to create that game worlds that they have dreamed up but are unable to bring into existence. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam per WP:CSD#G11, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Cazz[edit]

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

Not so clear cut to fall under {{db-band}}, however I could not find a single interview or review of this person. Nomination on grounds of no notability and complete lack of third-party coverage. Given the autobiographical nature of the username who created the article, I probably should have gone with CSD. — Timneu22 · talk 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was considering CSD, but it didn't seem to meet the db notability criterion since it at least claimed notability. However as you say, I can't see any reliable sources on a google search, just social networking sites, and it seems to be an autobiography. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply fails WP:MUSICBIO. Credits on non-notable songs doesn't cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Giftiger. GregJackP (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the user has added references from myspace and/or other wikipedia articles several times and had them removed by editors and bots, I've suggested that he may wish to save us the time and him the reputation by nominating the article for speedy deletion under G7, and redirected him to the appropriate policy pages which demonstrate why these references aren't acceptable. It seems a longshot as it is most likely a single-purpose account, but it's worth a try. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Asserts, but does not demonstrate, notability, no notable sources (that I see). NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sims (director)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO notability guidelines. Google search brings up no results except his website, which serves as the only reference, also used in the External links section. (Another Christopher Sims, already with a Wiki article, takes up the majority of search results.) This person has worked with notable artists but doesn't seem to be a standout himself, does not have any noticeable following, and doesn't seem to have any discerning qualities or innovations to his credit, besides being a music video director. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can confirm he directs music videos [15], [16] but I cannot find significant coverage about him, only passing mentions. I can find no evidence of significant awards for his work that would otherwise indicate that he is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drum Channel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy contested website. If this is deleted, Drum Workshop should get listed for AFD as well. delete UtherSRG (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is kept it needs its original history restored to preserve attribution, otherwise its a violation of our licensing policies. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No harm restoring the history now, so I've done so. If this gets deleted, then the whole history will be deleted again. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the licensing issues are out of the way and I've had time to review the article, Delete Fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Most of the sources used in the article are press releases and so cannot be used to establish notability. Of the remaining sources, Musician's Hut doesn't discuss Drum Channel at all (being about Drum Workshop, and as far as I can tell also being the equivalent of a press release considering how many sales sites it is mirrored on) and The Paradiddler and Rush Is A Band do not provide what I would consider significant coverage, as they are primarily focused on what Drum Channel happens to be streaming and not the website/service itself.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denigrate[edit]

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

Unreferenced band. NN without refs. give it the AFD-week to make notability, otherwise delete UtherSRG (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Utah earthquake[edit]

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

Notability not established. Not enough sources to write a verifiable article. WP:NOTNEWS The strongest earthquake since 1992 is not a claim to notability. Aditya Ex Machina 08:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable event. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another example of "quaking news". However, the news articles about this refer to the "Crawford fault" [17] and I'd encourage someone to do a little bit of research and making an article about that, which could include mention of other events that happened in years that didn't begin with a "2". The earthquake project has been shaken up in the last few weeks, and is looking for an alternative to the practice of writing about today's tremors. Mandsford 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a directory and WP:NOTNEWS. Magnitude four point something quakes generally do not cause much damage or injuries and have no enduring effects beyond getting recorded on sensitive seismographs and causing people near them to say "What was that?" the same as when there is thunder or a heavy truck drives over a nearby pothole. Edison (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AlexHOUSE (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's creator. This is earthquake was a magnitude 4.9, which is very rare and unusual in Utah. Also, the USGS has put this earthquake on their list of significant earthquakes for 2010 (which can be found here: [18]). Also, there is an article on the smaller 2010 Pico Rivera earthquake, which was only a 4.4 and occurred in Southern California, a region that experiences frequent earthquakes, whereas this earthquake was larger (with a magnitude of 4.9) and occurred in an area where earthquakes are rare (it is the strongest Utah earthquake since 1992). Therefore, this article should be kept. Av9 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USGS's criteria of inclusion is lower than Wikipedia's. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you should judge notability individually. In this case, I don't think "the strongest earthquake since 1992" is of enduring notability, you are of course entitled to your own opinion on that. Aditya Ex Machina 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- And in geological time, 18 years is rather insignificant, I might note. The USGS is a geological institution and they have an entry for nearly every earthquake. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and nom. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure)Whpq (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poeketi Airstrip[edit]

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

Poeketi is located near Drietabbetje and uses Drietabbetje Airstrip, Poeketi Airstrip's own ICAO code, used in the article, does not exist beyond this Wikipedia. Thus, Poeketi Airstrip does not exist at all. A little look at Google Earth affirms this. Belgian man (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based upon Belgian man's search that shows no confirmation of the existence of this as an ICAO designated airstrip. Withdrawing delete based on below, although I'd call this a keep only because Mjroots showed that it's served by an airline. This is the classic example of a kitten article, with one person giving each of his or her kittens a name and then dropping them off for other people to take care of, in this case 40 kittens [19]. Put 'em on a larger page if you don't want to do anything with 'em. I have zero respect for that type of practice. Mandsford 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article states that the airfield is served by Blue Wing Airlines, this is confirmed by the Airline's own website, thus is exists and can be demonstrated to exist. OK, it's not LAX or LHR, but notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is quite ridiculous to suggest that I would nominate an airport article just because it would be not as notable as an international airport, I said I thought this airport did not exist. I know Blue Wing Airlines lists Poeketi and sent them a message. For those who understand Dutch, see also the discussion at my talk page nl:overleg gebruiker:Cars en travel#Poeketi. It seems probable that the airstrip serving Drietabbetje is located in the smaller village of Poeketi, but that it is named after Drietabbetje because Drietabbetje is better known and probably much bigger as well. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Belgian man, my comment wasn't aimed at your nomination for AfD. The rationale you gave shows that it was made in good faith. I'd only heard of it because of the recent crash suffered by Blue Wing Airlines. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination cancelled: after a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia, it seems probable that Poeketi Airstrip does exist, as the Blue Wing Airlines website shows as well. However, it remains quite strange that Poeketi Airstrip and its ICAO are that poorly documented on the internet. Belgian man (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCoIP[edit]

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

Product that can be adequately discussed, if it is indeed relevant, at the desktop virtualization article. Currently just being used as a vehicle for refspam, and I don't see it being developed into an encyclopedic article given the current coverage (or lack thereof, rather) in reliable sources. jæs (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet the general notability guideline, based on a few minutes of Googling: [20] [21] [22]. On a personal level, as an IT sysadmin, I found the existing article quite informative. Thparkth (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same articles? The first two links both are trade pieces about VMware choosing to license this product from Teradici, while the third mentions it in passing. The general notability guideline says: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere 'flash in the pan,' nor a result of promotional activity..." The coverage was not specifically, substantially, about this product, the coverage (and the "event") was a "flash in the pan," and these three mentions were undoubtedly directly the result of a press release the two companies put out when they signed their licensing agreement. I agree that the company is interesting, and the article here may be "informative," but we are not a trade publication, and none of those three stories/columns appear to establish encyclopedic notability, unless I'm missing something... jæs (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't agree at all with your characterization of these articles. I don't think anyone could reasonably conclude that they were "the result of promotional material". They are significant - "addresses the subject in detail", independent - "excludes work produced by those affiliated with the subject", and from reliable sources - "editorial integrity". Admittedly the third I gave is a bit weak, but it was literally from two minutes spent on Google news. There are hundreds more hits to plow through if anyone has the time. I restate that the topic is obviously notable per the general notability guideline. None of the exceptions you give are pertinent. Thparkth (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too detailed for a merge to desktop virtualization, and this is just one vendor's solution. Independent coverage exists as pointed out above by Thparkth. "In essence, Teradici is VMware's attack dog in the protocol wars". [23] You're not proposing we delete RDP or ICA next, are you? I agree that some of these VDI articles are poor quality, but that's how 90% of Wikipedia computing articles are. Pcap ping 12:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm not proposing the deletion of RDP or ICA, because both are in widespread use, with significant reliable coverage establishing their notability. jæs (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some independent coverage to the article in the mean time. Pcap ping 02:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Stadniczenko[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion because "No evidence that this young violinist meets WP:BIO. No Google News hits, few Google hits, no major recordings, awards, ...". Contested with addition of sources. However, the many sources are about people and orchestras she has worked with, not about her, and don't even mention her (sources 2 to 8 at thime of nomination). The other sources are not independent (facebook, myspace, youtube, ...). Fram (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-side rule[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this programming notion. Most if not all google books hits cover some sports notion under this name. The corresponding Curly bracket programming language has been redirected after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curly bracket programming language. We already have List_of_programming_languages_by_category#Off-side_rule_languages. Pcap ping 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and Wikipedia is not computer definition manual.----moreno oso (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally verifiable, the article cites the journal article that coined the term. And the article's content is much more than a mere dictionary definition. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets a fair number of mentions in the literature [24]. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep85.221.50.108 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Seems to be enough scholarly use of the term as a subject itself, not just being used. Shadowjams (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Scope (programming). SnottyWong talk 01:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move the title is misleading as most readers will be wanting the primary sports usage. The article's contents should be moved and the current title redirected to Offside (sport). Colonel Warden (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sumner[edit]

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

Page proposed for deletion because "Fails WP:BIO. His books are self-published (lulu.com) and have not received significant attetion in reliable, independent sources." Contested because "his non-fiction articles which are more numerous are not". However, he ahs published a number of articles in a non notable online magazine, the "Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition". He has not received any attention, not for his books and not for his articles, from reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. A couple of self-pubs books and some pieces in a niche website aren't going to get him past it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Southeast Taiwan earthquake[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. PROD removed with the vague reason that earthquakes of 6.5 magnitude are automatically notable, even though discussions on Wikiproject Earthquake clearly state they aren't. Aditya Ex Machina 05:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete That PROD should not have been removed. Per WP:NOTNEWS and nom. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am currently, with others on WikiProject Earthquakes trying to come up with guidelines for notability for earthquake articles - it's not ready yet, but it is intended to stop articles like this cluttering up the pages of Wikipedia. If this event proves to be of scientific interest and publications result we can add it back at that point. Mikenorton (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts on creating a guideline on earthquake notability is much appreciated. This mass creation of earthquake articles is very irritating and the worst part is PRODs are being removed with arbitrary assertions. Once you reach a consensus make sure you add it to the sidebar thing on WP:N. Cheers, Aditya Ex Machina 12:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank goodness for that. We certainly need an earthquake notability guideline. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hear! Hear! Ya, an official guideline has suddenly become necessary. Thanks. David V Houston (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Glad to hear about the pending notability standards. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The area east of Taiwan is pretty active in terms of 6+ quakes and the majority of them are not notable. RapidR (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Let us enjoy Wikipedia and I enjoy reading all articles on Wikipedia. And I basically can't see what damage is being done by creating an un-notable article (sure, you would never write an article about your own mum, not me either), but I personally believe that public events and occurrences (such as earthquakes) are notable enough to have an article (or an article of it's own). And (again, personally) I believe that it is not worth it just simply removing well-written articles. /Heymid (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might enjoy reading those one-line articles, but they violate core Wikipedia guidelines like WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS (not so important a guideline, but relevant in this case), and on occasion WP:V. Please avoid WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Aditya Ex Machina 23:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Aditya, just because something happened does not make it notable. There are 100s of 'quakes a day, just by the way. This is no intellectual need for an encyclopedia to contain hundreds of such one-liners. The USGS provides that service. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Heymid, though it's an unpopular position at AFD. Wikipedia isn't paper: if an article is backed up by reliable sources, and could possibly be of use to anyone, someday, it's no bother to keep it. I'm willing to set a pretty low bar for notability for something like this: it's verifiable, it's well written, it's not hurting anything or anybody. Buddy431 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its an unpopular position for a good reason. Wikipedia isn't paper is no excuse. Why don't we throw all notability standards out and write about absolutely anything, because its not hurting anybody? We've got policies for a reason. If you think WP:N should be done away with, raise the issue on the policy talk page. WP:AfD is not the place. Aditya Ex Machina 07:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notnews and begin controlling User:SiMioN.EuGeN's new article creations. (2010 Acre earthquake ...)--DAI (Δ) 12:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tubby Hall[edit]

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

unreferenced, only sign of WP:N is that he played with Louis Armstrong. moɳo 04:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the article was unreferenced requires the corresponding tag - not AfD. And the first reference was not hard to find. The statement that Notability is asserted only by having played with Armstrong is not correct: he also played with other major figures, including Buddie Petit, Carroll Dickerson, King Oliver, Jimmie Noone, Tiny Parham, Johnny Dodds. Certainly not notable along the lines of Shakira or The Beatles, but.... --Technopat (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only 2 News hits (both from '46), but News doesn't seem to have as much coverage back then. Me, I'd be tempted to say that ANYONE who played with Louis Armstrong "for some years" and appeared in his movies was notable, just for that. David V Houston (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added several references to the article, from the many references on Hall found at Google Book Search. Noted jazz critic Hugues Panassié said he was one of the three greatest jazz drummers of his era. Added links to two films with Armstrong which feature closeups of him drumming. Edison (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable as one of the most influential and highly regarded of his generation in his field. Infrogmation (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TM Too Much[edit]

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

Discusses an abbreviation used in chat and instant messaging. Maybe merge in to an existing list of internet abbreviations (if such exists)? Anowlin (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, this could be a Wiktionary entry. I doubt it's in common enough usage to qualify for SMS language#Common abbreviations (Wikipedia's text-message abbreviation list). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dictionary definition, no sources. JIP | Talk 06:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Even discarding the WP:SPA votes, there is clear agreement that the article should be kept. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schneider (writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

From reading this article, I cannot see any reason whatsoever for why this person is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. For instance, I don't see any awards (e.g., a nomination for some kind of writing award) or sales informtion (for instance, a best-selling novel or book of poetry) that would indicate to me that this person is noteworthy. Furthmore, I don't see any evidence that he has ever published anything. Although it was at one point argued that this individual has a lot of "hits" on Google, I am not sure that this means anything. In fact, his first and last names are both pretty common. I would suspect that Google is simply dragging up a whole slew of sites that really have nothing to do with this individual. Without a best-selling book or an award of some kind, it is hard to believe that this individual is worthy of a Wikipedia article, something that very few people should have. --Boab (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above reason for deletion was previously placed on the wrong AfD page. This is actually the 3rd nomination for this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep This person may be borderline notable, but it really is not good practice to nominate an article for deletion a third time without some very good reason, see WP:STICK. This is the first time I have ever seen an article nominated for deletion a third time, in my time I have only ever once nominated an article for deletion a second time, and I explained that there were serious reasons why I did so. PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly do you define "borderline notable" PatGallacher? Again, for every page with more references media sources than this one there are literally a thousand with substantially less. I'd say Schneider's references are in the top 10-15% of all bio pages. Iceborercity (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I used to edit the Steven Pinker page some years back and saw much of the same sort of retributive nonsense between squabbling editors with vendettas here noted. I gave up on Wikipedia after Pinker's interview with Schneider was removed from the Steven Pinker page even though the interview (firsthand information directly from the source) corrected misinformation that was posted about Pinker, a terrific man and human being I've met several times over the years, and whom I know was quite annoyed over the interview's not being linked. A friend of mine sourced several quotes and all were removed. The page was even blanked as "Non-Notable". Steven Pinker non-notable because he was interviewed by this man? That's how I discovered Schneider's website. I find it ironic that an entity (Wikipedia) whose founders constantly whine over it's not being taken seriously by and in the media, because it's only an "online" site shows the same bias against Schneider and many other fine websites. This is the 21st Century, people, and the Internet is only the most powerful medium mankind has come up with, so, no, if someone becomes notable on it he or she cannot really be "notable" according to Wikipedia. It seems that this Southern Nights has made a fine entry that is constantly being sabotaged by peopel who just hate the man it's about. Hmmm...Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, Upton Sinclair were all reviled in their day, too. Another editor made the point that Schneider has print publications but the better point made is that it's FAR more impressive that folks like Steven Pinker, Pete Hamill, Roger Ebert, Desmond Morris, Jack Horner, and a number of other well known and respected people in writing and science WANT to be published and/or associated with the man. If he is so "non-notable" then why do the media and well known and respected people gravitate toward him and his site. This one is easy. And while you're at it, people, maybe lift this ridiculous ban against linking interviews so that the real and CORRECT information on people who are NOTABLE, according to your navel-gazing celebrity worship, can have ACCURATE information about them online? Isn't accuracy in information what a "REAL" encycopedia strives for? Mindofsteven (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)— Mindofsteven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep Why is this even in question? As others have mentioned there are numerous well-sourced references in media (NPR, New York Times, City Pages, textbooks, Cambridge University, Roger Ebert and the Chicago Sun-Times, etc.), the website is obviously huge and influential, and a quick look at this and older deletion attempts shows a clear bias against this writer for no discernible reason except that like Boab these folks a) cannot read or understand references sourced and b) simply dislike the man. There are literally thousands of pages on minor actors, celebrity wannabes, dubious personal information, writers who have no sources but pages maintained by friends, and these have never been put up for a single AfD. It's pretty obvious that Boab and his cohorts (sockpuppets) simply want to waste time and bandwidth. I originally typed keep, but let me make that a strong one just to make a point. Iceborercity (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I am aware, there is no limit on the number of times an article can be nominated for deletion. In this case, it has been two years since the article was last evaluated, and a lot of changes have been made in Wikipedia policy since then. A further problem with the first two nominations was that these discussions were clearly full sockpuppets and anonymous editors. As far as I am concerned, this is one of the most ridiculous Wikipedia entries I have ever seen. While this article makes the claim that this individual is a highly influential poet worthy of 5 pages of writing, he hasn't published a single thing. Are you kidding me! Boab (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How many writers publish books no one reads or has heard of? How many writers or critics get called "ideal' by the dean of film criticism? If you were a scientist and had a choice of being admired and backed by Albert Einstein or having a paper published in an obscure journal which would you choose? Seems highly detailed in its references even beyond Roger Ebert.Ebertfan (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)— Ebertfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

STRONG KEEP I agree with Ebertfan. I found out of Schneider's website via the article on him by Mr. Ebert and find his website quite fascinating. I have referenced it many times over the past few months, and have even enjoyed perusing the Wikipedia article. I am not up on all the proper terminology and procedures here but having used Wikipedia on numbers of occasions for factoids on films I can say that Schneider's article seems to be far more well organized and detailed than most on many films. It would be a shame to lose such a resource so I vote yes to keep it. Cheers. Bbrents (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC) — Bbrents (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Addendum: I just looked over the references and PBS lists him as a source in a television show brochure and he was on NPR being interviewed. If I can I would like to change my vote to a stronger keeping of the article. Thank you. Bbrents (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article meets all the notability guidelines. Dan Schneider has been the cover profile story of a well-known publication (City Pages, a sister paper of the Village Voice) and has been mentioned in the New York Times, on public radio, and in a number of other media outlets. His writings have been published in a number of magazines while his literary criticism has been printed in places including a Cambridge University Press anthology. His film criticism has been praised by Roger Ebert, who called Schneider a "considerable critic." The article clearly establishes notability. As PatGallacher said, it is extremely rare to bring an article up for a 3rd AfD, especially when the consensus of the previous AfDs established the article's notability. If anything, this subject's notability has increased since the last AfD. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' Easy vote. Popular website, noted in books, textbooks, and major news outlets, and the most popular critic in America devotes a lengthy article to him and praises him. Did the nominator even look at the referenced independent sources in the article? There are thousands of vanity pages on the site. This is not one of them. Turkmenpolar (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am no fan of the man but he clearly has enough references and most of them are thoroughly vetted from the admin named above.Olliekamm (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Boab, why does it matter? The WIKI guidelines state that there needs to be outside verification for a page to exist. Dan Schneider has that via lots of online publications, Roger Ebert, Cambridge University Press, City Pages (which provided most of the biographical material for this page), and others. So, are you against this page because it doesn't meet Wiki standards, or for personal reasons? If the former, you need to make your case; if the latter, then sorry, I guess.

If there are Pulitzer Prize winners with pages 20% of this size, that's unfortunate; perhaps you need to track down some of the authors of those pages and ask them to offer more info, or do it yourself. Pointing to the deficiencies of other entries doesn't prove your point, only the fact that Wiki sometimes lacks critical, in-depth info, something entries the size of Dan Schneider's rectify.

You now conflate print publications with influence. Sorry, but Schneider not only has print publications, but lots of independent verification and a website with over 4 billion page hits, a site that includes long, in-depth interviews with MANY well-known writers, who thus add to publication credits by writing on his site. If writers with 1/10 of Schneider's exposure and influence (Pultizer winners or not) deserve a page, why doesn't he? Stop wasting people's time, Boab. ObeyTheSloth (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)— ObeyTheSloth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP The deleter mentions sockpuppets and the like, but the reason that there are many people like me with only a few edits or less is because the ant-Schneider forces ban you if you even stand up for an article or link. I had an old account under this name that was banned merely because a few times I tried to add back deleted links from vandals. I had no chance to even fight against it. Schneider is very well linked and researched in this article. I cannot even link to an article on Schneider's site because they have banned that merely because it is popular and many fans have linked to it. But here is the text URL of an interesting piece where a Wiki vandal is mocking Schneider and admits to vandalism: www.cosmoetica.com/B843-DES672.htm#Addendum But none of that matters because the article meets all standards. 2belamorreia (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)— 2belamorreia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am not a SPA. Here is my edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/belamorreia I even stated that I was targeted for banning simply because I fought some vandalism on some pages. Why are people targeted if they support good, valid links by this writer? Please, do not slander me as a SPA. Why was I banned without cause? My vote counts, and I have a 2 year record of edits. I only used this name because my previous one was banned without warning.2belamorreia (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks well enough referenced and seems to have enough claim to notability. What other people have pages for (or perhaps shouldn't have...) is irrelevant. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Have seen this page before and well sourced. Punderfuller (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The last few times it was nominated, it was kept, and that was apparently before the Ebert endorsement. 67.234.192.167 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, notable enough. Dayewalker (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes notability standards. Pellejuanner (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Dan Schneider runs a very influential website, he is approached by readers on a daily basis seeking his guidance and critique in poetry, or -in my personal case- seeking his expertise in movie criticism. His interviews series continues to be different from all the trash found in the media these days. His cinema critique has been very recently praised by R.Ebert himself. I'm surprised for even nominating his page for deletion, especially after I read the rationale behind the request, if useless prizes and sociopathic media attention are the criteria then delete every single cultural figure Wikipedia mentions and keep Paris-Hilton-like figures. This unfounded deletion request is another reason to be disappointed at this whole internet-based media system. Deadbeesonacake (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota Association of the Deaf[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no significant indepth coverage [25]. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. Tarheel95 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GRAND SLAM BEAUTIES[edit]

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

No proof that this term is used anywhere except in this article. No sourcing as to the use of this term. Violates WP:SYNTH. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, WP:SYNTH is an issue here. Probably WP:FORK too, since this is simply taking info from other articles and just putting them in a table, then giving it a non-existant title. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is confusing and doesn't provide any significant info, as wel as violating WP:SYNTH. thoriyan 10:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH and WP:NN issues. Also very unclear what the page is actually about. SnappingTurtle (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH and WP:NN as stated above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is largely a list, and it also doesn't provide any context for the article. Also no internal links, and I can't find any articles that link to it. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bourque Newswatch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bourque Newswatch

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

The page is contentious, its most important source says Bourque Newswatch has very small readership and no political or journalistic impact. In fact, much of the article is a convincing argument against the notability of the Bourque Newswatch news page.

Delete. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Thirlwell[edit]

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

I found zero sources for this botanist. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - no evidence this person is whom the article claims them to be - UtherSRG (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. My apologies for relisting this. Though some of the keep !votes could have been stronger, the consensus was clear. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Foley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ENT. no multiple notable roles. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Those are fairly large bookings for a child actress but there's probably no real coverage out of industry rags. I'm pretty close to being neutral on this but due to the previous nom I'll tend towards my current status. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a 6-year-old to star next to Jackie Chan is pretty darn good, and since her roles have only improved over her life I don't see this as a stopping point by any stretch. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we don't relax WP:ENT for 6 year olds. acting with someone notable does not make one notable. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having a significant role in a hugely popular major national show in addition to co-starring in a major studio distributed and internationally theatrically released film does demonstrate notability. --Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is no evidence she had a substantial role in this film. LibStar (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is.--Oakshade (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Being a BLP, a few more comments would be helpful before this is closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a reason why this should be deleted, yet. Actresses and famous people, in my opinion should be kept, especially for someone young. Tommy2010 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to address how she meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. being someone young is not a criterion. LibStar (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious keep Borderline notable, but inclined to think not good practice to re-nominate without good reason. PatGallacher (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some notable appearances, needs an awful lot of work. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Normally, a second relist with this many "keep" !votes would be uncalled for but considering that the subject is a living person, not a Pokemon, we need to get this one right. Now it seems to me that whether or not she passes WP:ENT is if the role she played in "The Spy Next Door" is "significant" so let's focus on that. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a few notable roles, both from 2008 Days of our Lives and The Spy Next Door CrimsonBlue (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SDF Public Access Unix Network[edit]

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

Article deprodded by an IP without comment or improvement. My original concern was "Fails WP:ORG lacking independent coverage in reliable sources." Pcap ping 08:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SDF is a public Unix server that has been online for some 23 years. That alone is notable. If you are concerned about independent verification, I suggest the following Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=SDF+lonestar+unix&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Perhaps some of these links should make it into the article, but this makes the case for improving the article, not deleting it. I vote to keep the article. User Pcap, I also petition you to remove your deletion tag. Thank you. 152.5.254.24 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I strongly object to the deletion of this article. As I'll argue below, this active, 23-year-old organization with over 30,000 registered users is notable per WP:ORG. As such, rather than advocating for its removal, a more constructive activity would be to help improve the article.

I think part of the disagreement here, and the difficulty in establishing notability via sources easily accessed via the web, is due to the fact that Wikipedia is clearly a web-oriented community while SDF is a community built around a text-based UNIX system. The vast majority of content generated by SDF users is accessed via the shell, or other means, rather than via a web browser. Unfortunately, it appears that the set of SDF users and the set of registered Wikipedia users are almost completely disjoint.

In any case, I believe that SDF meets the WP:ORG notability standards, as per the following paragraph:

When evaluating the notability of organizations, please
consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring
larger organizations.

Now, being a small organization, relatively speaking, it is highly unlikely that SDF will ever be the subject of an article in The New York Times. As the policy suggests, that doesn't mean it hasn't had significant, demonstrable effects on education, culture, etc.

Some contributions to culture, society, education, etc.:

SDF was originally a bulletin board system (BBS), part of a social phenomenon that started in the late 70's. There are very few remaining active BBS's today and thus SDF is an important, living part of computing history. SDF's founder, Stephen Jones, was interviewed in BBS: The Documentary: http://bbsdocumentary.dreamhost.com/photos/117jones/index.html (culture).
SDF provides hands-on education about UNIX by providing free shell accounts with online and interactive help (education).
SDF users have collaborated to create a series of UNIX tutorials which are made available on the web: http://sdf.org/?tutorials (education).
There are over 3300 individual websites hosted on SDF, many of which are surely "notable" themselves: http://sdf.org/index.cgi?sites/freeshell.org (culture, society).
The SDF community contains a large number of blind users, who find the simple, plain text interface of a Unix system to be an effective way to work, learn, and communicate (see Screen reader) (society).
SDF is one of the few remaining Gopher sites: gopher://sdf.lonestar.org (culture).
SDF participates in the Vintage Computer Festival: http://www.vintage.org/2004/main/exhibit.php, http://www.vintage.org/2007/main/exhibit.php (culture).
SDF has produced a number of music compilations: http://sdf.lonestar.org/index.cgi?tour (culture).

Some independent sources:

BBS: The Documentary
bsdtalk interview: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/03/bsdtalk021-interview-with-stephen.html
Presentation about SDF to the Danbury Area Computer Society: http://www.dacs.org/pdf/sdf_presentation_to_dacs.pdf
List of public access UNIX systems from the TELCOM Digest archives (March 29, 1993): http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/public.access/unix.public.access.sites
An article on slashdot.org about a DDOS attack on SDF in 2003: http://yro.slashdot.org/bsd/03/02/01/1339259.shtml?tid=122
List of free shell account providers on the net: http://shells.red-pill.eu/

Also, as an aside, the title should probably be changed to "SDF Public Access Unix System," where the last word is System instead of Network. That string will recover many more sources. Jason Blevins 21:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.9.182 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Please mind the elders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.113.55 (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Shannon[edit]

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

Not notable. Minor roles, no independent coverage. SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO's "has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times",[26] and pushing nicely at WP:ENT.[27] Article simply needs expansion and proper sourcing. Will be on it myself later this evening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upped to "strong" above. Article has been expanded and sourced. Individual passes WP:ENT, WP:BIO and WP:GNG... and there's lots more available. With respects to him, the nom and I must simply use different google-foo. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search at the top shows plenty of results. Add in the name of what heis most notable for, and it thins it out, but still produces results that prove he is notable. Dream Focus 07:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least one major role, and winner of a Gemini. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. SnottyWong talk 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taringa![edit]

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

Tagged for twenty-two months, Taringa! and Poringa! both lack reliable secondary sources. Popular in Argentina for providing a mixture of illegal and explicit content, there is one mention in La Nación ("...the controversial site...")^[28] but little or nothing in the English speaking world. As such, the article amounts to trivial coverage of modalities with a plethora of blogs for External links. -- Wikispan (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "but little or nothing in the English speaking world" is irrelevant here - sources don't have to be in English. The fact you only found one source in Spanish is relevant. David V Houston (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, let's look at this more closely. I find a link that says " Taringa!, uno de los sitios más visitados de la Argentina, lanzó su proyecto de comunidades, una herramienta que, según estiman sus directores, servirá para ... " One of the most visited sites in Argentina sounds notable. My Spanish sucks/is next to non-existent, but [29] looks to be about the site, [30] is about the founders? who are being discussed because of the site; [31] is, I suspect an RS newpaper article about the site; [32] about the phenomenon the site inspires. And this is just on the first page of news hits (I searched with the added term -Brisbane). If they have coined a word 'taringuero' for aficionados of the site, that also sounds like notability. David V Houston (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Nación is the only decent source I could find, though my search was not exhaustive. It would help if someone with knowledge could find others. Wikispan (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics of Dresden[edit]

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

I happened across this article while cleaning up German location infoboxes, and realized that it is (1) orphaned and (2) out of date. The sourcing is spotty, and, unless there is a strong reason for it, I don't know why the important material cannot be covered in the parent article, Dresden. I updated the infobox, but there is more to be done, and it doesn't seem like it's worth it if it will just drift out of date again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Sure it can be covered in the parent article. That's what mergefrom and mergeto are for, not AfD. WP:ATD - BalthCat (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- What, in particular, needs to be merged? I didn't see anything important that wasn't already covered in the parent article, which is why I brought this to AFD. No need for a redirect, just simply delete it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed from your wording that it was not completely redundant. If that's the case, the merge is unnecessary and the article can be deleted. (In Dresden's defence, however, Demographics of New Brunswick is an article, and we're not much bigger than Dresden, and that isn't even all our statistics, just our demographics :P) - BalthCat (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to the article about Dresden. This is what WP#NOTSTAT is all about-- the admonition against cutting and pasting lots of statistics without any attempt to understand or to explain them. Mandsford 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. It looks like it largely duplicates what's in the city article, no need for duplication. If there is any info here that is not there, it could be added. David V Houston (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Mandsford. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Furniture Industry Council[edit]

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

Unnotable. Yardie Lobo (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N and WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has been the subject of significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. For example: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] (All found within seconds on a Google search.) Robofish (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to the Virus (Sirius XM). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Delivery Starring Sam and Dave[edit]

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

Fails WP:N majorly. Also fails WP:V as no sources are given. User created the AfD'd Prime Time Same Roberts article, which is just as non-notable and non-verifible. NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 19:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to existing article on the channel. Show lacks notability to warrant a dedicated article.--RadioFan (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low-tier weekend shows on radio networks, especially satellite radio networks, are usually never notable unless they have a wide distribution, and this isn't anyone near that point. Nate • (chatter) 01:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to The Virus (Sirius XM) - no evidence of notability in its own right. Robofish (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Door to Door Storage[edit]

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

Contested PROD; WP:ORG, I can't find reliable sources - no Google News hits. Chzz ► 21:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company sure puts out a lot of press releases. However, a search in the Google News archives do show that they have coverage that is independent of the company. There is minor coverage from USA Today. The Puget Sound Business Journal covered the founder's exit as CEO. Written about in the Seattle Business Journal. Also covered in Denver. A full magazine article from the Orange Coast. There are also many articles behind pay walls at major dailies, and not just limited to the dailes local to Seattle. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources have been found that establish notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Abrahams[edit]

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

Subject has had a few minor roles, which does not meet the notability requirement for entertainers. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually more than just a "few minor roles", having lead roles in multiple film, video, and television projects[38] which actually seem to be pushing nicely at WP:ENT's "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Further research may indicate that through her recurrences in the various film, video, and television projects of the fan-loved The Fairly OddParents, whether or not she may have also developed "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". Time for research. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What lead roles are you referring to? You don't mean Francis, do you? ErikHaugen (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Francis is only part of her repeated television films since 2003 and being in a TV series from 2001 through 2008... as I note that not all are Fairly OddParents. This would seem to make her "Francis" when added to her other roles, as adding up to significant roles in multiple notable projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I thought you said "lead roles." So my reading of imdb/etc is correct that she has had no lead roles, right? I think it's pretty clear that per wp:ent, her resume alone does not imply enough notability for wp. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re-read WP:ENT. It stipulates "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It does not say this must "only" be "lead" roles. And per WP:ENT, if verified in reliable sources, her career can indeed allow a reasonable presumption of notability for WP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would expect a BLP to have better sourcing, especially since this discussion has gone on so long. Borderline WP:ENT, but I think it fails. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. With apologies to Mangoe, who's arguing in good faith, this AfD was started by a sockpuppet. That's not okay and sockpuppetry shouldn't get its way. The "no consensus" outcome is procedural rather than because of the headcount; it specifically allows a fresh nomination by a good faith editor. NAC—S Marshall T/C 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Footprints Recruiting[edit]

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

Reason Set.it.free (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Blatant promotion for a company or organization, in violation of Wikipedia terms of use stating that advertising or promotion is prohibited.[reply]

Retain this article. It's a straightforward description of a major Canadian teacher placement agency. Examples of "blatant" or "promotional" would be helpful, especially so since Set.it.free is not a member of Wikipedia, and thus anonymous, and this entry has been subject to repeated vandalism.

Teneriff (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see significant assertion of notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't anyone even click on the "news" button before judging this article? There are a ton of reliable sources out there. I added two to the article but there are many more. --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Who is the nominator? User:Set.it.free is a WP:Single purpose account which was created on May 12, apparently for the sole purpose of nominating this article for deletion. I thought you had to be an "established user" to nominate an article for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the references. Without a single exception they are articles about a trend in which the company in question appears as an example; they are not articles about that particular company. I'm sure a lot of people think my standards are too high, but this doesn't strike me as establishing the notability of this company. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This entire article is specifically about the company. This devotes about a third of its text to the company. This verifies that Footprints is "the largest independent recruiter for ESL teachers in the world." --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jemini the Gifted One[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. Article is an unreferenced BLP and no significant reliable sources can be found. First the notability tag, and then the PROD, were removed without comment.)}} Andy14and16 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using the Google Books search in the template above pulls up an awful lot of coverage on Jemini, his singles and EP, and the Danger Mouse collaborative album. There's also plenty of press coverage and reviews for Ghetto Pop Life, which would seem to satisfy criteria number one of WP:MUSIC. This is an example of "I haven't heard of them, so they're non-notable" syndrome. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FuriousFreddy. There is pleanty of coverage in a quick search. This user does certainly seem to have a bad case of "I haven't heard of them" syndrome based on the tagging and nominating they are doing. -DJSasso (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I've added several citations, just a small sampling of the coverage that's out there. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Paul Erik. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sustainable Tourism CRC. Redirecting on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EarthCheck[edit]

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

Tagged the month before last with multiple issues - none addressed. Creator indefinitely blocked for likely COI etc; text still POV, completely unreferenced. Google news search gets some hits, but almost entirely to internal industry online news stuff. This does not appear genuinely notable in its own right, and even if it might be, there are no signs of anyone showing interest in establishing that notability. At the very most the program might be noted at the page for EC3 Global - but that page too has multiple problems, including possible COI issues with its contributors. This and related pages look like an exercise in pushing a particular group of industry initiatives backed by a company. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sustainable Tourism CRC. I have redirected the related EC3 Global page to Sustainable Tourism CRC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was split. Despite the few number of !votes, it is quite clear from the discussion what needs to be done. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 G-20 Summits[edit]

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

I am nominating this page for deletion because G-20 summit articles have not been grouped in the past. This article groups the two Toronto and Seoul summit. The two must have separate articles (the Toronto summit already has its own article). Eelam StyleZ (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the language and tone can be cleaned a bit, but that's not a deletion issue. For my part, the fact that we haven't had an article of this type before isn't itself a reason to delete, either. I think it would be useful to have a page for the 2010 summits, and to then fork out to each individual summit, if enough happened to justify an article. It could be that this ends up being a useful landing page for further information, similar to a disambiguation page between the 2010 meetings. If the individual meetings are notable, then an article that summarizes them as a group would have merit, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. This would probably require a merger of 2009 G-20 London summit and 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit. Also, if we were to have a common article for summits, that would have to be on the appropriate section on the G-20 major economies article. A common article just for the summits in 2010, I doubt would make any sense--both are most probably going to have different outcomes like the previous summits. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So split them and make this a disambiguation page. No need for deletion. Even if this page was kept, suggesting this means we need to merge the 2009 summits is silly: WP:OTHER. Fences&Windows 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split and dabify so each summit is in a separate article. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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