Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 15

< 14 November	16 November >

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flashaholic[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism Q ^{T C} 23:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, the word is used, but not widespread. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more appropriate for wikitionary. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Bigger digger (talk) 15:30, 22 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic[edit]

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

This article is too big a can of worms, whatever the exact title. There are serious problems with attempting any sort of medical diagnosis on a historical figure. I recognise that with some people on this list there are serious grounds for believing that they had an autistic spectrum condition e.g. Henry Cavendish, but with others it could be a fringe theory, there are all shades in between, and where do we draw the line? PatGallacher (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. It's a mess now because an editor uninformed on Wiki policies and guidelines has been in there messing with it, but it's quite well sourced, or will be, after reverted back to the version before it was damaged. Looks to me like the nominator here didn't bother to glance at the talk page. Everything at the previous AFD is still true-- would have been good of the nominator to review the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now repaired and restored the article, which is most clearly notable. Keep and change name to Retrospective diagnoses of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oopsie, well now it's reverted to non-consensus version again; not my problem :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but "uninformed"? I've really had it with your petty insults and accusations against me. You may disagree with me, but personal attacks are uncalled for. Stop it or I will report you to an admin.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact on second thought, I think I will file a report. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#SandyGeorgia--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to the version listed by SandyGeorgia. A notable topic, though the article still needs improvement. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for arguing for a specific version of the article, merely if the topic of the article is notable enough to deserve coverage.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article you have created obscures the topic and its notability; I can understand why the nominator, coming across that version, nominated it for deletion (although it appears s/he didn't read the talk page or look at the article history). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do whatever clean up is necessary. The topic of individuals who have in recent times been disagnosed with autism appears notable enough, and good sourcing is available for enough entries to make it worthwhile. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Elen put it, Keep, and whatever cleanup and moving is necessary. A notable and indeed very interesting subject, though one that is certain to be controversial. —innotata 23:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I'll openly admit I'm here only because I saw it in Sandy's edit history, but this is a clear case. There are multiple reliable sources here, and it strikes me as a reasonably narrow list. "Opening a can of worms" is not a criteria for deletion. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 12:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AfD seems to be just a tool for winning an edit war. There are entire books dedicated to retrospectively diagnosing famous figures with various mental or neurological disorders, e.g. this series. It should not be a surprise that autism is among those illnesses. Retrospective diagnosis of ... may indeed be a better title. Switching the article to prose as suggested by a tag also seems a good idea for something controversial like this. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the previous versions championed by SandyGeorgia are cleaner and more NPOV. NillaGoon (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research, by definition. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but original research by the authors of the sources, surely. The list just collects together instances where a sourced modern view is that the individual was autistic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 20 November 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 A7 speedy delete by User:Orangemike (NAC). Raymie (t • c) 03:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonido mirage[edit]

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

The speedy db-band was blanked. Article is in Spanish, but rambles on about a band that was formed in 1990. This should be deleted (and salted too) and fast. Raymie (t • c) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect. There is no consensus for deletion but a general agreement that National Islamic Front of Afghanistan is the preferred article name. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahazamili[edit]

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

Fails basic standards for sourcing and notability like WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the creator of the article just added one source of the National Islamic Front of Afghanistan to the article and than proposed a merge it with National Islamic Front of Afghanistan. As it now has become an article about National Islamic Front of Afghanistan it can be merged with National Islamic Front of Afghanistan. IQinn (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to National Islamic Front of Afghanistan per IQinn. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge/redirect to National Islamic Front of Afghanistan. Several serious and/or academic publications confirm the fact that this is the correct name for this party. See for example Olivier Roy Islam and resistance in Afghanistan(Cambridge university press, 1990) page 269; Barnett Rubin, The fragmentation of Afghanistan(Yale university Press, 1995), page 203; or Ali Ahmad jalali & Lester Grau Afghan guerilla warfare (MBI, 2001) page 411. Per these publications, not to mention WP:English, National Islamic Front of Afghanistan is the correct form in the english language. As for "Mahazamili" it is a rarely (if ever) used conglomeration of transliterated words, whose meaning seems to have escaped the person, or persons who created it. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Support merge to National Islamic Front of Afghanistan per Raoulduke4. - IQinn (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I regard the correct name of the article as a separate issue. The article should be kept first, and the best name chosen then. The article at Mahazamili is the older article. And while National Islamic Front of Afghanistan had no references, Mahazamili, did, at the time of nomination, and has more now. Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the name is a separate issue. If Mahazamili is the correct name then the article should be kept, if it isn't then it should be deleted, therefore the name issue is relevant to this Afd. The argument over the relative age of the two articles is decidedly weird: seniority is hardly an important issue. As to the number of sources which you have been hastily collecting in order to obstruct this Afd, they do not weigh on the naming problem. This is especially true as none of your three sources refer to "Mahazamili", but use different forms(including National Islamic Front). I see nothing in your comments that might overrule WP:English, and the majority of sources which I have found after a quick search(to which I could add a couple more) use "National Islamic Front of Afghanistan". As for google, the count is: for "National Islamic Front of Afghanistan" 19100 hits, and for Mahazamili 141 hits. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As I understand it, nominators are supposed to base their nominations on the notability of the topic and are expected to confirm that the topic of an article isn't notable, prior to making the nomination. This nomination is one of dozens of similar nomination of material I started, that this nominator and a confederate have made, that are currently all open at once. Our nominator, and their confederate, seem to have skipped the step of checking the notability of the topics, prior to making any' of these nominations. Although both contributors are very experienced, I am not challenging their basic good faith, as good faith contributors can get tunnel vision, and slip into lapses from policy, without realizing it. Nevertheless the large number of nominations in this flood of nominations are far too many to expect anyone to effectively respond to, and it gives the appearance of WP:WikiBullying. Geo Swan (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations are baseless. Their seems to be a strong pattern - in almost all Afd/Mfd or other deletion discussion concerning one of your numerous articles over many years the nominator got attacked. (Could be dozens) Please stop your WP:OWNERSHIP behavior - we are all here to improve content and pleeaase never again attack somebody who nominate one of the articles that you wrote. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to National Islamic Front of Afghanistan per IQinn. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Merge and Redirect to National Islamic Front of Afghanistan per IQinn's suggestion.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:08, 17 November 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) 04:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourlokotini[edit]

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

Unreferenced concept that appears to be an invention of the authors. I am unable to find coverage that would meet notability guidelines. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly unotable and promotional, possibly qualifyfor speedy delete. Additionally, the one 'reference' on the page doesn't mention the drink, but merely is about alcohol stimulant drinks being banned in Washington. Ravendrop (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article describes original research and the beverage is made up. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete as both made up and based on original research, as noted by Cullen. Clear case for snow. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 02:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not describe original research though the beverage is made up. This article was created to archive an evening of experimentation, and honestly I have no idea how people even found it so quickly to get so mad about it. Please by all means delete it.greg.colerobotics 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom is exactly right. This drink is WP:MADEUP with no coverage from reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Greg - if you saw how many pages come up here about new cocktails of alcohol plus some often unlikely ingredient, and how many 'new' drinking games are widely notable despite having been invented the night before, you wouldn't wonder why we get fed up. How did we find it? People patrol the recent edits, and also the edits by new accounts. We are a filter to stop spam, hoaxes, attacks, 'Shaun is awwwweeeesssommme' pages and other such from getting noticed by the ordinary non-editing users of Wikipedia. Some pages get deleted within minutes of creation. Your article did contain a bit of useful info - the banning of certain drinks - but as a reference for your subject, that doesn't work. It probably needs to be recorded somewhere (possibly already is - you'd be amazed at how fast things get in here), but your article IS original research in that you and your group carried it out, and it is not referenced anywhere independently of you (if even there...). I personally don't envy you the evening - the stuff sounds disgusting (and that comes from someone who has drunk both (but separately) whisky and gin with iron brew...). Anyway - now you know a bit more about how Wikipedia works and what goes on behind the scenes. Peridon (talk) 16:51, 16 November 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} 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Mammography and PACS[edit]

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

Hopelessly promotional; I attempted to remove some of the promotionalism, but the result was that more was added. Since it does not actually describe the technique but talks about the advantages of one way of doing it, I do not think it fixable; since digital mammography is notable, this articles should be deleted and , a NPOV article started. The combination with PACS is not by itself notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. By the way, thanks to Gordon for giving me some help :) Endofskull (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be an essay on implementing digital mammography. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rattles Band[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable "animated musical property". Single reference is to a short blog entry, and GS only seems to find self-published stuff. Article has previously been speedied and PRODed to death, but here it is again. Favonian (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands now per failing WP:BAND and WP:GNG. if some sources can be added and/or notability established, I may change opinion, but it is doubtful. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably the best source is this from the article. But that fals well below the coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If more sources pop up the article could be restarted, but right now there is just not enough coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:33, 22 November 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.

Alessandro Capone (linguist)[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was withdrawn. Article has been sufficiently changed. — Timneu22 · talk 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Farmer[edit]

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

Absolutely no independent coverage, likely WP:VANISPAM. No real claims of importance, rather, it seems there are claims of implied importance as efforts to advertise this topic. — Timneu22 · talk 20:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment of non-notability for an internationally recognized artist seems ill considered. Multiple sources are cited to support claims of Farmer's importance; there is wide consensus on this. Among the thousands of people who call themselves artists working today, only the elite top percentile will ever be shown at the Tate Modern in London. This is one of Farmer's accomplishments cited in the article. Deleting an entry about this widely acclaimed artist would undermine Wikipedia's credibility as an objective record on notable Canadian and international contemporary art activity. --Filtrate (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Internationally-recognized? Show reliable sources to prove it. A bunch of advertising "external" links don't cut it. — Timneu22 · talk 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - External links for National Gallery of Canada and Tate Modern do cut it in establishing notability. freshacconci talktalk 23:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are articles cited in reputable international art magazines, such as Artforum and Freize. The links are to the artist's exhibitions in numerous galleries internationally; including, as mentioned, the prestigious Tate Modern in London, which is cited on Wikipedia as being "the most-visited modern art gallery in the world". Critical articles; published books about the artist by reputable imprints; exhibitions in respected venues internationally: These are the ways that consensus about an artist's reputation is built. They are not "advertisements", but in fact the foundation of the whole enterprise. With all due respect, I would request that this proposal for deletion be withdrawn.
Comment/Question Are the Monographs listed on the page merely reproductions of his work, or, are they essays about him, his life and his work as one alternate title of one of the monographs I found suggest? Additionally, the Montreal Museum link, under external links, seem to be more of a reference than the others, it does talk about the artist for a significant portion of the article, instead of merely showing his works. From looking at the external links it seems to me that the artist is notable in some circles, but because there are no clear independent sources to attest to his notability he the article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendrop (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, probable speedy keep. Farmer has exhibited at the National Gallery of Canada, Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal and Tate Modern. That in itself establishes notability. If you google "Geoffrey Farmer" + artist you will find plenty of sources in news, books and scholar as well as web. His name is a bit common to do just a straight search. freshacconci talktalk 23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, see WP:BURDEN. Second, there need to be reliable sources written about this man; notability is not established because of where his work was displayed. — Timneu22 · talk 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, the sources are available, they just haven't been added to the article by an inexperienced editor. And where his work has been shown does establish notability: it's the equivalent of a reliable source in the world of art. Exhibiting at Tate Modern establishes notability (plus there would be a publication that went along with the exhibition giving you your published source). The article needs improvement, not deletion. Also, accusations of "vanity" are to be avoided as vanity is not a reason for deletion. If there's a conflict of interest we deal with that as a separate issue. Also, WP:ARTIST is the standard we use for artists. All the claims are verified already by the external links provided (and we accept the links to Tate Modern et al as reliable sources). We just need to clean up the article and add more sources, which are available from Frieze, Canadian Art, Artforum and the monographs. freshacconci talktalk 00:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't want to hear about something showing notability; I'd prefer to see evidence of this, added to the article. — Timneu22 · talk 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't know you were in charge of Wikipedia. I mean, c'mon, "I don't want to hear about something showing notability". Seriously, who the hell are you? My opinion is that the subject is notable, the exhibitions provide proof of that notability and that the current lack of sources in the article are not a reason to delete. I can't imagine that the closing admin will delete this. In any case, as I said, the article needs work and with that clean-up will come the sources. AfDs last 7 days. Plenty of time. freshacconci talktalk 02:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine. The only thing that is relevant is that the article provides sufficient sources that prove the notability of the subject. Currently, there are no such sources, just you saying it's your opinion that it's notable. So? Also, ever hear of WP:ATTACK? Watch yourself. — Timneu22 · talk 02:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There was no personal attack. I just don't like demanding attitudes. Again, the exhibitions are the sources and my opinion has nothing to do with it. Further sources are available and can be added at any time but not by your schedule. Did you even try to find sources before nominating for deletion? Farmer is an established artist with an international exhibition record. He easily passes WP:NOTABILITY as it stands right now without any further edits. I just feel you really jumped the gun on this nomination. We're not talking about some weekend painter here. If you'd done even a quick look you would have found this link which is the Canadian Artist Database (a reliable source) which gives thorough details on his exhibition records and a list of sources as of 2002. In the last 8 years he has built on that but let me be clear: he was notable in 2002 already. All the article needed was some tags for adding more sources and we wouldn't need to waste time with an AFD. freshacconci talktalk 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not up to me to assert notability. — Timneu22 · talk 03:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The shows in significant galleries and museums demonstrate that the subject is clearly notable per WP:CREATIVE. The fact that the referencing in the article could use improvement is an editting issue and has no bearing on the notability of the article subject. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs format clean up, but notability is not an issue. Solo museum exhibitions alone see to that. I've added a few more external links to reviews, etc. JNW (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability would seem to be established by these links which look fairly substantial. Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable from material added. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and encyclopedic, although the article needs some work...Modernist (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else, besides, the coverage seems substancial. Longevitydude (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An insult: "see BEFORE". The article had no references and only vanity links when I nominated it.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Skitz[edit]

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

I believe that since this artist is a DJ, the correct measuring stick here would indeed be WP:MUSICBIO. I believe the subject falls short of meeting this, despite the fact some refer to him as “legendary”. He may be locally popular, but is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Brief review of sources listed:

1; bbc interview, 41/2 yrs ago, talks about himself (POB, influences, hobbie,etc)

2; Australia tour dates.

3; interview with another artist, Roots Manuva, who mentions Skitz in passing.

4; trivial mention in story about new station geared for black audience in UK.

5; show dates and venues

6; article about top clubs, trivial mention of subject

7-13;album reviews by some ok websites but also some iffy sites that seem to be non-consequential or notable.

WP:MUSICBIO # 1 is not met because most coverage is trivial “Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates…”, and the one that is significant (source #1) is where the musician talks about himself; directly disqualified per musicbio # 1. I see no evidence presented to meet WP:MUSICBIO #2 - # 12. It also does not help that the subject created his own record label, hence is in effect self-published, and his music consists of mostly remixes. Turqoise127 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I will give it there is a decent amount of ref's, they just are not quality. It is super short, and has not been expanded it looks like since the article was created over a year ago. Subject does not appear notable enough for an article.--NavyBlue84 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so should we delete any stub that hasn't been expanded in a year? SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I consider WP:MUSICBIO # 1 to be met, this interview with Resident Advisor is probably the most mainstream direct coverage of him but the other reviews of his first album are also in the mainstream press demonstrating notability. These clearly demonstrate that there have been "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" as required for inclusion. I believe the nominator is mistaken that source where "the musician talks about himself" are not suitable to meet MUSICBIO #1 since the interviews are conducted by reliable sources, rather than the artist themself. The MUSICBIO #7 is a bit unclear, but I think it would be fair to say the reviews (and not just from the time the album was released) indicate he was "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". This source (not used) this (not used at the moment) and this (used) provide non-trivial reliable coverage of an international tour (MUSICBIO #4) (particularly the second link). This obviously makes the nominators suggestion that he may only be "locally popular" to be inaccurate. The claim that his music is self published is also incorrect, the first album was released on Ronin Records and the most recent on Dragon Drop, Titan Sounds is a label he started as a producer to release other people's work on. Similarly, his work does not consist of remixes (not that that would make a difference anyway) but he was the producer of his first album (maybe I hadn't made this clear in the article, but I'll try to clarify this soon). SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a reference I found from Billboard (magazine) which discusses him in depth. There are also hits in google books from The Wire (magazine) but they are not accessible. SmartSE (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also got a hit from the LA Times: [1] which I'll try to get hold of. SmartSE (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it it calls him "a prominent British hip-hop DJ". Although it isn't about him, the artists the reporter quotes are all featured on his album released earlier that year. SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. persuasive view of sources listed and per falling short of WP:MUSICBIO. I do not see it satisfied. This is a borderline article, but a BLP.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note WildHorsesPulled stated in this deletion review last week that they would like to seek "retribution" for my nomination of an article that was deleted, and the nominator (who had authored the article in question) agreed that it would be "fun" to do so. Take from that what you wish. SmartSE (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content, not on conduct, Smartse. I think Horses was speaking hypothetically, “what if someone were to do that, it would be unfair just like in that case…”. Do re-read that statement. Me, on the other hand, I was just going through your contributions (as you had stated when you went through PamelaBMX contributions) and I found this marginal addition to the project. And, just like you had stated, I assure you, I am acting in good faith. Your vehement lengthy defense of this article indicates some possible WP:OWNERSHIP issues… Respectfully,Turqoise127 01:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lengthy"? "Vehement"? "Respectfully"? Ever the comedian. ^Bongo_matic 04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is better, but I still have my doubts on notability. It is longer and has more ref's and at least one really reliable one. So I am ready to support it being Kept.--NavyBlue84 02:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Smartse is canvassing of sorts, leaving notes on "delete" voters talk pages and asking to reconsider... This in itself speaks volumes. Even after the vote change, editor Navyblue wisely has doubts on notability. You worked hard, Smartse, great effort, but sources you added are merely more of -the same. Are we to include every nightclub DJ of every nation on the project? They will all have a fair amount of local sources...Turqoise 127 04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just notified Navy blue84 that I had substantially expanded the article since they commented, which is entirely appropriate per WP:CANVAS. Turq - have you checked the article since I expanded it? This DJ is not simply a "nightclub DJ" but presented a national radio show for 5 years as well as receiving press coverage in American magazines and newspapers (not local sources, by any stretch of the imagination). SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak keep. ~~Fails applicable notability guidelines.~~ Comment refactored to reflect sources added since last review (time of notability tagging). Billboard reference provides reasonably in-depth coverage, other passing mentions of the artist suggest some degree of lasting ~~importance~~ influence / relevance. ^Bongo_matic 03:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underlining your vote does not make your argument stronger.Turqoise 127 04:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underlining denotes text inserted from the original, while strike-through denotes text deleted from the original. It is not a form of emphasis, but a means of indicating changes from one version to another. ^Bongo_matic 07:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To clarify, I don't believe SmartSE was canvasing. As to SmartSE's comment on my talk page, I was not offically changing my !vote. I was stating that I could back the article being kept and not deleted. But, I still believe that the subject is not notable enough. Billboard does stuff on a lot of indie artis' and they don't all deserve an article. I still believe the article should not be kept, but if it is, then I don't see any issues with it.--NavyBlue84 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is hardly a field I am expert in, so I'm commenting on the basis of some criteria I think I do understand. . First, a BLP that is borderline or non consensus closes the same as any other article, with the single exception that if it is borderline and the subject has made a request for deletion, then this can optionally be taken into account--but even then it does not have to be. Anyway, that is not the case here. Second, Billboard is the usual RS to show notability for film and popular music when the coverage is a full article--as it is here. The awards for his work seem significant also, and, given these awards, the only thing that puzzles me is that we do not have an article on Countryman DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hardly a household name, but for me the sources now included in the article are reliable, independent and non-trivial and therefore show that WP:MUSIC is met. Thanks sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability guidelines could be said to serve two purposes: making sure we have enough coverage to write a verifiable article and that we are not just collecting data indiscriminately. The guy has clearly some reputation and the article is fully verifiable so I see no reason for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:43, 22 November 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 g5, created by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kane (footballer)[edit]

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

Youth footballer who has not played at levels required by WP:NFOOTBALL] notability guideline. Only played youth internationals which is also below bar. Coverage is standard sports journalism of general type as would be expected for any lower level footballer. Previously deleted as copyvio. Recreated largely as copyvio but violations removed. ClubOranje^T 19:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note possibly WP:G5 deletable now that I find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Owen Jnr Ronaldo showing user was blocked at time of creation.--ClubOranje^T 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:36, 15 November 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. non policy based keep arguments by spas have bene given little weight and the established consensus is that this lacks multiple reliable sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KidCrusher[edit]

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

Autobiography that lacks notability for the subject. References provided are mostly from non reliable sources or don't cover the subject in detail. The closest we seem to get to significant coverage in an independent reliable source is from Fangoria but that appears to be a press release (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidCrusher) (also has wp:verifiability problems). I didn't find further coverage. Artist appears on a compilation, but it appears non notable, and has had a song on Law & Order, but that was just a single episode use and wasn't "performed music for a work of media". Is a member of KcaveMen but they appear non notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KcaveMen). duffbeerforme (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He's not hugely important, but he's real and has been heard on television. That's a lot more than many biography subjects can say for themselves. Also, as compared to the first AfD, he now shows up on Google, including Google News. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary claim of notability is having had a song used on TV, which isn't enough to pass WP:MUSIC on its own. It sure doesn't help that the article is so poor either, complete with head-scratchers like the following: "Also mixing vibes and samples from his favorite Horror Films, Dramas and Documentary's sounding like Jason Voorhees or Stephen King on the microphone with his own Tales From The Crypt story telling drama. His brutal lyrics are purely fictional for entertainment and should not be taken seriously." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - KidCrusher is a part of a growing underground scene. Simply because he hasn't sold tens-of-thousands of albums doesn't mean he should be deleted. He is playing a pivotal role in the development of Horrorcore music in Australia and internationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.47.93 (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — 122.107.47.93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do you have any references to support his "pivotal role"? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - KidCrusher does meet the music Criteria on WP:MUSIC , for check points 2, 10, 11 & 12. First (2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart... His debut studio album " Tormented Mutation " was on the Awesome TV Independent Charts at number 3 right under the hill top hoods, Which I have added to the page, however all i could find for a reference was a Screen Shot of their site as it was from 2006 and their site has changed a lot since then. (10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film.... His music and performance/video was featured on a Law & Order Episode "Steel Eyed Death" which is highly notable and controversial, he has also written and performed the theme song for two movies " The Disturbed Movie " which he released a music video on the set of the movie " Meet The Monstors " the movie is still under pre-production but their are articles everywhere about the film. also the theme song for " Death Walks The Streets " both theme songs where reviewed and interviewed by Fangoria and recently working on Cinematic Ambience's and Special Effects and Theme songs for the movie " From Part's Unknown" (11) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. In Rotation on Adelaide 3D Radio & Fresh FM, Also Melbourne's Underground FM Radio Show. (12) Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. For the Melbourne Underground FM Radio Show and has also been apart of Underground TV which is done by the radio show. I have been gathering as many references as I can, I'll also dig up any other evidence you need to keep the page alive. Thanks Guys ! comment added by (Juggalotus5108) 5:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — Juggalotus5108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You do not meet wp:music as you describe. 2)Awesam TV 'Music SA Top 10 Independent Charts is not national and is not a good chart. 10) The song was not performed for Law & Order, it was a simple use on a single episode. The other works mentioned are not notable. 11) Adelaide community radio and a Melbourne radio show are not national and are not major radio networks and there is no evidence of rotation (especially since at least one does not have a formal playlist). 12) A Melbourne radio show is not national and is not a network and neither is their TV show. Ther is also no evidence of a half-hour or longer broadcast. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For one, he has about 10 cds, hes part of the underground scene, hes made a music video for an underground movie, hes been featured on Law & Order, and hes independent. Mainstream and underground scenes are wikipedia friendly. The matter is if deleting KidCrushers wikipedia page is to be discussed start discussing deleting everything else thats part of entertainment. Hes even part of Tunnel Runners which has its own wikipedia page. He has an underground fame thats been lasting for a while and he has a business. A business run like that which is written earlier in my comment should be paged on this website. It meets requirements. Thank you. (Sirch-A-Lirch) 12:09, 10 November 2010 (ETC) — Sirch-A-Lirch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Where is this Tunnel Runners page? Which part of what you have outlined do you think meets requirements. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duffbeerforme successfully shows KidCrusher does not pass WP:MUSIC, and there are is, at best, only one source for notability the Fangoria interview, so fails WP:GNG as well. Bigger digger (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendyn Zachary[edit]

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

Not notable. This person was a contestant on a reality series. No secondary sources have discussed him or his role on the show. The Eskimo (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could probably have been speedied at CSD A7. Just being a contestant on a TV game show or participant in a reality show is no big deal.--Kudpung (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to pass WP:GNG, no notability through WP:BIO. Bigger digger (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover Flywheel[edit]

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

non-notable device. The single reliable source about it was nothing more than a local interest story. This device never gained mainstream use, and evidently has not been heard about since. Also obviously promotional, given User:CrossoverFlywheel wrote the article. PROD removed with the argument of "notable as the world's only Ice-skating Skatemill", which I do not buy. Reso lute 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 17:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of this article is notable as the as the world's only Ice-skating Skatemill. Although not in general use, the informmation is verifiable and meets the criteria for inclusion. Notability is not temporary. Dolovis (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, makes being the worlds only "ice-skating skatemill" notable? Reso lute 21:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its not the only ice skating treadmill. Its the only one of its kind (ie that you can do crossovers on). There are not multiple reliable references to indicate notability, as such it does not pass WP:GNG. Notability isn't temporary you are right, but it yes yet to show that it has acheived notability. Clearly written as a COI and being that only one local newsbite can be found about it, it appears to fall into the local interest story pile which is not good enough to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dolovis, seriously; the definition of notability on Wikipedia isn't "It's the only one of its kind" or "I think it's noteworthy." It's whether "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, [and so is] presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." What links to independent, reliable, third-party, published sources have you found? Ravenswing 19:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Fails WP:COI. This article is spam. Also fails WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I have put a copy of the image into the rather empty skatemill, but otherwise there is nothing worth keeping as it fails WP:GNG. Bigger digger (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butch Conde[edit]

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

I don't see notability established here...and can't find any sources other than some social media-type sites, and promotional websites (and even those are limited). His church's website, and a questionable book (with no ISBN number provided) are currently the only sources. The Eskimo (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this article is the subject of a complaint at WP:BLPN.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not independantly notable minister, if there is anything independently worth keeping then add it to the article about his church. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any deleted info can go into Bread of Life Ministries International.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with the consensus. The article is poorly cited. Peridan 06:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peridan (talk • contribs)

Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have said, maybe some of this can go in the Church article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyleptha Roberts[edit]

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

Prodded by David in DC: "Trivia, Fails WP:GNG, practically no reliable sources, WP:NOT". Also found at talk: "Only TWO Ghits, and ZERO Gnews hits. That smacks of non-notability. ArcAngel (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)", which has never been addressed. I add that due to issue advocacy "Nyleptha Roberts" also gets bare list-mention in five other WP articles, which is quite excessive for the single perhaps-RS and the single inaccessible care-center writeup. Only notability is being verified to live to 112, and per developing consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Notability, we don't need articles on every verified 112-year-old, lists are fine. More reasons happily provided as necessary; Ryoung122 deprodded on seventh day, ah well. JJB 17:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete Taken from my edit summary when I put up PROD: At time of death she was the oldest living person in Tennessee, the 9th oldest living person in the US, and 20th oldest living person in the world? So what? WP:GNG. Almost no reliable sources. Hobby stub cruft. David in DC (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:David in DC. Her section at List of American supercentenarians should be plenty enough.142.207.79.205 (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mainly per David in DC... I'm not seeing the type of coverage that would satisfy the guidelines at WP:N. Canadian Paul 06:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of American supercentenarians, id still like the grg's opinions on this article though. Longevitydude (talk) 14:41, 16 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G.A. Siwabessy[edit]

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

Possible copyright violation. Page was tagged for CSD as a copyvio with the note "The article had been published in magazines Tabaos, Media Information & Communications, for limited community, Maluku Foundation Scholarship Fund (YDBM), Volume 7, No. 3, October 2010, Jakarta". Speedy was declined as there was no URL provided. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Copy right violation This reversion at the bottom saysThe article was written by Mutiara Siwabessy (grand daughter of GA. Siwabessy and published in magazines Tabaos, Media Information & Communications, for limited community, Maluku Foundation Scholarship Fund (YDBM), Volume 7, No. 3, October 2010, Jakarta. Which makes it seem an Open and shut copy violation. The Template for speedy would not let me include the Diff. After all the Pictures were deleted as Copyright violations this seems even more likely to be the case The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and WP:REVDELETE As long as previous versions are WP:REVDELETED I see no reason to delete it. Though some more WP:RS would probably be beneficial.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:REVDELETE. The subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. I've stubified the article to remove the copyright concerns. Location (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current version. Closing admin may want to revision delete the copyvio. Ray^Talk 23:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that as long as the old version is REVDELETEd the current version can be kept and expanded and this AfD withdrawn. Any admin can feel free to close this AfD. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:11, 16 November 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) 04:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nitipong Limsuwan[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for which I can find no sources to verify that he meets notability criteria as outlined at WP:NSPORTS. He is not listed on the current team roster, and there are no sources to confirm he has played even a single match with Mueang Thong NongJork United. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. I could not find a record of this person at thaipremierleague.co.th and I suspect he only has played in the lower levels of Thai football. Until someone can find a reference to verify he's played in the top flight, I can't see how this article passes our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without evidence that he played in the Thai Premier League, he fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any references either. TiMike (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He went to 2010 Osotspa Saraburi F.C. ( See 2010 Osotspa Saraburi F.C. season), but no trace of him otherwise. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FriendlySeats[edit]

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

Lack of notability. The only online information about this software are press releases of the own software company. Quest09 (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe there may have been an earlier deleted page of this name with similar content. See User talk:Mavstuff and the comment on my 8 November edit edit. Presumably an admin can advise if this is simply a recreation of the deleted page. Kiore (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: I'm not an admin, but page logs show that it has been deleted earlier as WP:G12 (copyright violation) about 2 months ago. Ipsign (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have added the links to third-party resources:

This is the major software and IT website in Russian segment Internet. It is definetely not affilated with authors. http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/DIY/98293/

NoNaMe website - also a major russian IT technology website and blog http://nnm.ru/blogs/DemArAl/friendly_seats_multimonitornaya_sistema_dlya_vashego_kompyutera/

This website is also not affilated with the author, but compares FriendlySeats with Windows Multipoint server http://www.istartedsomething.com/20100115/windows-multipoint-server-multiseat-computing-solution-worthy-home/

Also, this new article was completely rewritten from scratch and does not contain copyright infrigement like the old one.

Please remove Deletion Template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.99.76 (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator account is interesting: Padrecamara (talk · contribs). Created an OK page back in April 2009, recently came back seemingly only to create this page. The wording of the page is fairly spammy, and an anon IP posted above regarding how "we" have added links. Some of the refs, such as LA Business, Yahoo Finance, and Daily Finance, are simply reprinting the same October 4th press release. The "comparison of FriendlySeats with Windows Multipoint server" does not mention FriendlySeats by name, but links to it's website as an example of a product, probably because of google rank. The Russian reference I can only read by way of Google Translate, and it looks like it's some sort of press release. (Although is not the same as the Oct 4 one.) The habrahabr.ru ref is simply a single YouTube video, and does not appear to establish notability. Delete as NN spam with RS problems. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my earlier comment & In addition, whois shows friendlyseats.com has a registrant address ending "Kyiv, Kyiv 04211 Ukraine" while 82.193.99.76 is delegated to an address in Kiev Ukraine. According to the Kiev article, Kyiv is an alternate transliteration of Kiev. While an anon editor and a business being in the same city isn't remarkable I find it strange that the editor should edit a (to them) foreign language Wikipedia to promote non-notable software. I suspect COI and agree with OSborn's assessment as NN spam with RS problems.Kiore (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to work on the issues that you have brought up. Multiseat systems are widely used, and the main software programs that belong to this category are from big companies (HP, Microsoft...). FriendlySeats is not developed by a big company but, as a multiseat system, I honestly believed that it was worth an article. The article on Multiseat configuration mentioned it until yesterday, when the link was deleted for being considered a hidden ad. I assume this happened because it was marked for deletion. I have edited the references- deleted 2 of the 3 links to press releases and changed the habrahabr.ru reference to the YouTube link with the video tutorial. I have also tried to find what you considered "spammy" (resembling an ad I guess) about the article and have rephrased the description of the product and deleted the sentences where I described the interface as intuitive and the installation as simple. As far as I know I have some time to try to improve the article so I will take your comments into consideration for possible further edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padrecamara (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly may I suggest that you read Wikipedia:COI. Secondly taking the "references" on the page:

Yahoo finance begins "Press Release Source: Friendly Seats Team"
I Started something page doesn't seem to mention your product in the text, except for a rather strange link to your site. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I am aware of bloggers who have been approached by SEO marketers asking them to do similar links on old pages. Interestingly the page is blocked at archive.org ... Also, is "I started something" a reliable source?
NoNaMe.ru uses javascript that throws google translate into a reload loop. When I cut the text out of the page source & ran it through google translate it looks suspiciously like your press release. Also, is NoNaMe.ru a reliable source?
FriendlySeats.com - your site
Distrowatch - definitely a reliable source, unfortunately all it's really confirming is that ubuntu is the most popular Linux distribution download.
Youtube - not a reliable reference.

In short, I don't see any reliable independent references for the notability of your product & WP:COI tells me you shouldn't be editing the article on it. Kiore (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have proposed this article for deletion and still believe it was right. I just have to add that Padrecamara cannot address all the issues brought here, since the problem is not only the article itself but the lack of notability. Quest09 (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not spam, and the software surely has reliable sources. This software is used used in a study in National University on Ukraine "Kiev Polytechnic Institute". There is an article on the University Website about the software, and the link will also be provided. Please do not delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.129.50 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: putting a link into the article, even to a university, still doesn't make it notable. Not everything that is produced at a university is notable. Quest09 (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Site NoName.ru is a notable russian software website. It has been online since 2001, and it has pre-moderation and ranking system. See the translation of the article here: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://nnm.ru/blogs/DemArAl/friendly_seats_multimonitornaya_sistema_dlya_vashego_kompyutera/&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhhsmA9pegF3pu4xVKiKUa8PKC_mgQ It doesd not contain javascript, I could view it in Mozilla Firefox with no problem. The users rate the articles that worth publishing on the blog. So this definetely cannot be payed.

2. Istartedsomething was not payed at all. Do you think that the link to that states "existing third-party Windows multiseat solutions" is worth bying? Who on Earth will search on google for "existing third-party Windows multiseat solutions"? This is ridiculous.

3. Article on the University webiste is not about a software itself, it is an article that mentioned systems are used widely on the faculty of near 4000 students. This IS notable

4. habrahabr.ru resourse, which published a video, is a very popular Russian weblog and the articles are only published with voting of many editors. The price of the pulishment of the "paid" article is only affordable for Microsoft, Intel, Samsung and several other big companies. The video was pulished on this resource means that the software is notable.

1. noname.ru forwards me to daiting.ru, which could be a very notable dating site, I guess, but there is nothing related to software in it.

2. Istartedsomething is a blog like many others, and without Pagerank. Nobody accused FriendlySeats of paying for the PR release. It is simply self-publishing, which is non-notable, no matter if you pay or not.

3. Couldn't check it. However, simply been used by an institution doesn't make something notable.

4. Another blog without Pagerank.

I now believe that this is a case of strong delete.

Quest09 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. nnm.ru, not noname.ru PR of nnm.ru is 5/10

2. istartedsomething.com has PR 6/10

3. The link will follow

4. habrahabr.ru has PR 7/10

Personal attack removed. Courcelles 16:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.99.92 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not notable according to guidelines (Yahoo Finance article starts with "Press Release Source: Friendly Seats Team") Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW: I don't believe that Google PR has any relevance to notability; I feel it falls under the same category as WP:GOOGLEHITS. If my assumption is correct, all references to Google PR above become irrelevant (from both sides). Ipsign (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure that all of nnm.ru, istartedsomething.com, and habrahabr.ru have no editorial oversight, therefore content there qualifies as self-published and is inadmissible for notability purposes per WP:GNG. Ipsign (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet the WP:GNG. Admrboltz (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian Church membership estimates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement. Majority of article is sourced repeatedly to "Raelian Contact", some sort of internal organization publication - a primary source directly affiliated with the group. -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The embassy is only being planned. The main article on the Raëlians could include a section saying this is planned, but it doesn't seem that an dedicated article is needed yet. Even though there has been some media coverage nothing very definite is known to provide substance for an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm - There seems to be enough coverage for a notability stub. Many of the refs in that article however are an to a raelian journal. As it appears nothing concrete has happened yet, I'm almost of the mind that a full artcle should wait, at least until they get some land. Ideas are wonderful. Crackpot ideas are no less wonderful, but need strong sourcing to be in an encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we do make contact with aliens it would be nice to have an embassy ready. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Vision" sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me, or better yet, WP:HAMMER. Delete per these precedents, analogies, and comments by Steve and Cirt. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there has been substantial discussion regarding the topic, all there is to date is such discussion. Not really sure that is sufficient to keep a separate article; a mention of the discussion could be included in one of the more central articles on the topic. If a building is ever created, or even started, then there might be cause for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 21 November 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) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geremita[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Software product without claim to notability. A search for sources didn't yield anything. bonadea contributions talk 15:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Another bit player proprietary web-based issue tracking system and bug tracking system; more back office trivia for web administrators. Google News, Books, Scholar have never heard of it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every project which not mentioned in google news must remove from wikipedia, you say!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeerrrzzz (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every project which have not published with great advertising campaign must remove from wikipedia, you say!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeerrrzzz (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much indication of anything. And to Eeerrrzzz, please sign your posts with four ~ things, and please look at WP:GNG, WP:RS and possibly also WP:COI. Please note also that the presence of an article on one subject has nothing to do with the existence of an article on any other. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 15 November 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) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freefoto.com[edit]

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

Unremarkable company with no attempt made to establish notability, and no significant references Simple Bob (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:CORP as far as I can see. No meaningful assertion of importance or notability, and I can't find any references of any quality.--Korruski^Talk 15:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable at all. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 November 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award Performance: And the Envelope, Please[edit]

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

Delete. No source. Tagged for more than four years. if WP:Verifiability is to have any true meaning, articles like this one must be sourced. if not, they must be removed. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep artists album which featured multiple charting and award winning songs. here's plenty of references on ONE song off of the album. adding sources is not too much more involved than opening an AfD. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To my knowledge, a Web search for one song is not a WP:Reliable Source. If anybody with a greater knowledge of pop music than I could find a source for even a few of the statements in the article, then I agree that it could be salvaged. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What this article needs is citations, not deletion. One must remember that something from 1975 is unlikely to have a lot of modern online coverage, but as Theornamentalist said above, finding stuff doesn't take that much longer than starting an AFD. If this nomination was to force action on finding sources, that is an incorrect use of the process. See #9 of WP:BEFORE. Meanwhile, hopefully someone with enough time will improve the article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is really annoying to be accused of "an incorrect use of the process" and to be told to read a page with which one is thoroughly familiar. A request for a citation was posted with the original author at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jpete#Academy_Award_Performance:_And_the_Envelope.2C_Please. One should strive for politenesss, even if one is having a bad day. And one should keep comments on the subject at hand. (Sorry for the discursion, although my spellchecker tells me there is no such word.) Sincerely, your friend in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry if you were offended... in all-text communication like this we lose pesky little things like tone of voice and body language. But I don't see how my comments were not about the topic at hand. You nominated an article for deletion, for a reason with which I disagree, and I backed up my disagreement with a long-standing policy that is definitely relevant to the discussion. But I do have a question: if you are concerned about how nobody has added sources to the article for however many years, why not do it yourself? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some references (off-line, dead trees style) from the search performed by Theornamentalist. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, thanks to Doomsdayer520 for finding some sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have done it without Theornamentalist as well. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:01, 18 November 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) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed[edit]

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

Per this. Hike796 (a supposedly banned user who hasn’t been unblocked, see the recent WP:SOCK entry for US40AL-01) recreated the deleted category in article space. Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and comment. There are nearly 200,000 USGS hydrologic units. Do we need pages for every one? Argument against similar to argument against having pages on individual ZIP codes, unless they are particularly notable. Also, if pages like this are kept, shouldn't they be renamed to following the USGS hydrologic unit system, which involves strict and exact usages of terms like "watershed", "basin", etc. This page says it is about USGS HUC 16060009, which in the system is a "subbasin" not a "watershed". The term "watershed" is reserved for the next level down in the hierarchy, with 10-digit HUCs. See Hydrological code#United States. Pfly (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pfly. Clearly this lacks notability as would be expected when you try and create articles for over 200,000 items listed in a database. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hodges[edit]

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

~~Subject~~ Subject or close aquaintance has requested deletion via OTRS submitting that they do not qualify under WP:ENT. I must admit it is difficult to find sources to support notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENT (significant roles in notable film/TV). Notable movies include The Architect, The Adjustment Bureau. Notable television includes Rubicon, In Treatment. My feeling is that the subject is notable enough for an article. It's a young article that is still in the process of being improved. That being said, the subject's personal wishes should be given serious consideration. If the closing administrator decides to delete the article, I request that it be userfied in preparation for a possible deletion review case at some future date. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend for deletion. Its hard to argue that someone who has never been mentioned in any newspaper article or TV newscast is notable. Just because someone appeared on TV doesn't make them famous (or give you the right to post stuff about them on wikipedia over their objections). Let it go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.53.185 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She has been mentioned in a newspaper article (source). Also, with so much vandalism and sock activity, there is a teeny bit of suspicion about the OTRS submission. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend for deletion. I cite Eviltrojan's account of her identity crisis and believe she is too unstable. We want the biography to be encyclopedic and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.151.5 (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — 98.14.151.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: 98.14.151.5 has been vandalizing the article. The person requesting this deletion is probably the same person that has been vandalizing and removing sourced information from the article for quite some time now, and has been banned twice for it, and if she can't get it her way no-one can. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OTRS ticket number is 2010102610006149 if anyone would like to get another OTRS member to take a look at it. I would personal take this one on good faith that it is the person in question. However, good faith only stretches so far and I haven't been involved in the history of this at all. So as I said, please feel free to have someone else take a look at it. Extra input is always welcome!

On a similar note, please make your votes based on whether or not you feel the article deserves deletion. If it doesn't (and someone found sources so yay!) then it won't be deleted and no amount of OTRS emails is going to change that (short of action by the office, and that would be out of my hands).

Thanks guys! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend for deletion. The sources cited are not the basis for an accurate biography. It seems the author/editor of this page has tried to connect the dots of this woman's life by creating his own assumptions/interpretations of barely bare bones facts found on a couple of websites that would not be viable sources for any college paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voice4l (talk • contribs) 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — Voice4l (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think it is amazing that the editor who added the following unreferenced text to the article:

"She worked with an outreach for runaway circus clowns and wall street bankers for a large part of 2000."

has something to say about sourcing. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sourcing does not demonstrate that this meets the notability criteria; no userfy as this is a BLP, but of course Scjessey can have an offline copy in order to continue working on it to add sufficient sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have taken an offline copy of the article per John's suggestion; therefore, if the decision is to delete there is no need to wait for me to do so. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, marginal notability at best, subject requests deletion, let's not be evil. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion. If hodges were notable, sources would be plentiful. a page could always be created later if sources found/ notability established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.151.5 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC) — 98.14.151.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sourcing issues and lack of obvious notability would be sufficient; in addition, I see no reason not to comply with the OTRS request. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:04, 18 November 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) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysical Healing[edit]

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

Proposed deletion as per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience #2, Generally considered pseudoscience. Moocha (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Look where that link 'Metaphysical healing' goes - surprise, surprise - a company who facet and sell 'healing gemstones'. Other than that, it's unreferenced, probably fails WP:OR, and I would like to bet that Ellen Langer's research did not specifically promote the wearing of gemstones. Peridon (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the link in the text that's still there - Moocha removed some more open stuff. Peridon (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless pseudoscience article probably created in order to promote the company. Offliner (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first sentence says why it should be deleted: New article name is Metaphysical Healing Metaphysical healing is a science practiced by many doctors, mathematicians and scientists. .-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like an attempt to promote a fringe idea. Fails WP:OR and, unsurprisingly, WP:verifiability and WP:reliability.--Korruski^Talk 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This text would appear to be original research proposing a recently developed version. What hath Mary Baker Eddy wrought? On the other hand, there ought to be a chief article on this sort of teaching that this could be redirected to. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is, I think - Crystal healing. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crystal healing, term appears to be somewhat notable. Article is almost entirely OR. Creator is an SPA spammer: Alan Roddis (talk · contribs). OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable nonsense. Based on the use of the phrase found on Google News archive, it seems to be used in a very vague way for a great variety of things. A redirect to crystal healing would be only one of them. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 22 November 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) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mrigendra Kumar Singh[edit]

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

Article about the son of a non-notable who has had a number of articles deleted; the subject does not appear to exhibit any notabilityCrusoe8181 (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. Ray^Talk 23:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator !voted "keep", I read that as withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tierney (professor and venture capitalist)[edit]

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

Speedy deletion was declined. The subject is not a notable professor, he's an adjunct, see here. I can't find any reliable sources to prove this person is notable. Let the community decide. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no opinion whether he's a notable venture capitalist, but other than the sources in the article, I can't find anything attesting that he's notable. I think he fails WP:PROF. My nomination is, at this point, procedural. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's an adjunct professor because he's busy as a major player in the fund industry and on various boards and as the head of a major (ie. notable) NGO. There are numerous sources discussing the funds he's helped establish and manage and the major billion dollar deals they've been involved in. The first source cited is a two page article in a major business publication (Forbes) entirely about him and his work. There are also other sources noting his work in funding investments outside of major markets and in putting together deals and in shareholder activism etc. He's been at the head of the NGO for 20 years and heads the board of Columbia's school of international studies and public affairs (both of which are notable subjects in their own right and have their own articles). The article just gives the basics and introduces the subject, but it's ripe for expansion if people want to go into details on his various investment deals, views on development approaches, etc. which are covered very substantially in the sources provided and elsewhere. PicodeGato (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable businessman, as proven by the Forbes article on him specifically, which is substantial coverage in a 3rd party independent RS for notability. Given that reference, the article should not have been brought here. I moved the page to the proper heading: Paul E. Tierney; the existing one, besides violating the Manual of Style, was promotional. He is not at all notable as an academic--he is not a professor, he's an adjunct professor, which means he maintains an academic affiliation with the school and perhaps teaches there sometimes. It may merely be an honorary position. But it's adjunct professor, not adjunct assistant professor or adjunct associate professor, which means he's a high level senior businessman, at such a position outside that if he were an academic that position would correspond to the rank of professor. To see the various possible titles, see their overall faculty list [2] He is furthermore a member of the Columbia Business School's advisory board. The advisory board of a school (or department) -- just like the Wikipedia advisory board-- is composed of prominent people in the field, in this case, the venture capitalist investment community. I wouldn't take it as proof of notability by itself, but it contribtes to it. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Re-looking at the context, being chairman of a notable organisation which works in Latin America and Africa should make him notable per WP:ANYBIO statement 2. Minima c (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well-referenced, and he is the chairman of a notable organization. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incorrectly deleted by a clueless admin. --Step hen 23:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am going with DGG's rationale. I am not a clueless admin. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 15 November 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. Author requested Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usnavi[edit]

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

Article about a fictional character that does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability, without any reliable sources proving the impact of the character outside the primary source or in popular culture. LoЯd ۞pεth 03:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to musical Sadads (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it could redirect to In the Heights. --S.S. Miami (talk) 21:36, 15 November 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) 12:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Ketchman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vic Ketchman

Vic Ketchman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

This article should be deleted. Mr. Ketchman is simply a writer for a website; he's not a published author, nor is he a public figure, and there is little public information about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erjenkins1 (talk • contribs) 2010/11/02 18:18:58

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure he does a great job, but I don't see it as a notable job...--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:36, 15 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sulzer[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP page, tagged with notability concern by another user. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I was the one who gave the NYT cite, I think that it is not really a "poor" cite. Sulzer decidedly meets notability requirements - many cites from Ohio papers are around. Is "notability" being given as the sole real reason for deletion? If so I commend the following for attention: [3], [4], [5] show he is regualrly mentioned in local media. It is definitely not an "unreferenced" BLP. so I suggest that other BLPs should be a higher priority for weeding. [6] singled out as a candidate by Rahm Emmanuel. [7] transcript in Clinton's autobiography. He is not the most notable mayor in the US, but the WP standards are met. Collect (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [Changed vote, see below, but keep the following to show weakness of these sources so they are not used in the article] As per the references that Collect has provided, [8], [9] are routine news coverage that only in passing mention Sulzer. While [10] is a profile of a completely different person, who just happened to be running against Sulzer. In [11] Sulzer is merely a moderator at a deabte Clinton was in, it is not, in anyway, about Sulzer himself. And I couldn't access number the other one. Overall, these references have no sustained, focused coverage that signify notability of any form to Sulzer. Ravendrop (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP does not require "national notability" last I checked. He was a State Rep, Mayor, and Congressional candidate of a major party. He got mentioned in the national press. He has many mentions in local press as Mayor. Note the applicable criteria include "members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" which 8includes Sulzer. " mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion " also includes Sulzer (Chillicothe is a former capital of Ohio). He meets two criteria for a politician being notable in the WP guideline - which is one more than is needed. Collect (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I missed the part where he was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives, which does qualify him under WP:Politician. Still believe the article is in need of some work, but that alone isn't a reason for deletion. Ravendrop (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep I added an infobox to make his 'notability' more obvious so this debacle won't repeat itself later, although I find it difficult to believe so many of you "didn't notice" he was a member of the state legislature. It's not as if this was a long article, or that his service there was only mentioned in passing. However, I will Assume Good Faith on your part(s) that you actually read past the first line of the article. Flatterworld (talk) 15:16, 22 November 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. A few additional sources to address the notability issues raised in the nomination have been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine McQueen[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP with tag identified as notability concerns by another editor. -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to fit the criteria for notability per WP:BIO, particularly for Entertainers. Google search turns up mostly social networking links. Outside of that, I was unable to find anything with substantial, in depth coverage. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm having trouble finding coverage to meet WP:ENT too. FWIW, I'm the one who tagged it for notability. I figured a Bond Girl should have it, but it looks like a bit part, unremarked upon. Ray^Talk 07:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone click the news link? I found the sources listed below, which for me passes WP:GNG. I will be asking the other editors to reconsider their !vote. Bigger digger (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Independent, UK
- The Herald, Scotland
- The Hindu, India
- Middling mentions here, here, here, here and here
- Scurillous gossip here.
- And WP:HOTTIE...

Some good examples, but while we may have some substantial amount of coverage it seems to teeter on the trivial side, at least in my view (i.e. covers items that do not meet WP:ENT). The Hindu seems to be the only one that has in depth coverage, and even then its just a resume. I will say that The Hindu article would be good source for the article to use in the article as a reference. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The coverage found by Bigger digger does make her notable per GNG, if only barely so: I agree with Barkeep about all coverage but The Hindu's being rather trivial. Sandstein 06:45, 23 November 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 Article has been speedy-deleted as copyvio and spam JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Futuretrend Training Academy[edit]

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

Seemingly self promoting article Pol430 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the Holodomor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Holodomor denial

Articles for deletion/Denial of the Holodomor

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

This article currectly is a POV fork of already existing articles Holodomor, Holodomor genocide question and Holodomor in modern politics. The article is created to make the reader think that the denial of Holodomor is a denialist belief, and hence, according to English meaning of "denialism", false, to evoke associations with Holocaust denial and so to push a point of view that the famine was intentional genocide of Ukrainian people by Bolsheviks, comparable to the Holocaust. The previous deletion request for this article was heavily influenced by the members of the so-called WP:EEML group, a coordinated cabal which was discovered later (at least 6 votes were by the EEML-associated users). Compare the similar discussions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soviet_occupation_denialism and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denial_of_Soviet_occupation about articles, created by members of the same group and with similar aims. The both articles were deleted as POV forks designed to push certain agenda. I believe the capacity of already existing three articles about the same topic is enough to reflect any possible points of view on the subject. Dojarca (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Holodomor genocide question, move useful content to new article Historiography of the Holodomor. – Claims of 7 to 10 million deaths by Robert Conquest and others are based on population statistics, derived from censuses. The detailed modern study of population data shows the number of deaths from the famine in Ukraine to be 2.2 million. According to Holodomor theorists, citing this number would constitute "Denial of the Holodomor". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See also "controversial" Armenian Genocide denial ("Western propaganda"). Peltimikko (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From that article "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged by genocide scholars to have been one of the first modern, systematic genocides" - this is not the case of Holodomor which assertion as genocide is controversial. This article represents this point of view as incorrect.--Dojarca (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourced and notable. --Yopie (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as shown by sources topic distinct enough to merit own article. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Marik. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is very important, since denial of Soviet atrocities in general, and Holodomor in particular, is a part of modern historic revisionism that is popular in some post-Soviet states (where the Soviet anthem is still respected)--vityok (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That the famine is a "Soviet atrocity" is not universally accepted. This title is inherently non-neutral.--Dojarca (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Universal acceptance is not a requirement for for inclusion in Wikipedia, reliable sourcing is. If the title is non-neutral, that's grounds for changing the title, not deletion of the article. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is already well covered in other articles which are named neutrally.--Dojarca (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A surprisingly in-depth article covering the issue since the 1930s. The title can indeed be changed if necessary. The word denial does suggest an association with the Holocaust, and may be POV given the lack of consensus on the Holodomor genocide question, but this article deals with those who denied that famine existed altogether, so it's a somewhat separate issue from whether the famine constitutes genocide or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the WP:PRESERVE policy (72 refs) but I hope to see interested parties at a move discussion - to historiography of the famine, a more neutral and inclusive title. Novickas (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a huge difference from the "Soviet narrative" of the famine as a whole, and the coordinated campaign to discredit and deny the events as a whole.--Львівське (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close this per SNOW? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:38, 19 November 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) 12:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank the Lion[edit]

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

Does not assert notability per WP:Notability#General notability guideline, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to complete lack of coverage other than the two occasions he managed to get a local paper to print something in 2001. And although it's not covered by policy, probably also delete for Dale Pywell's own protection, because the publications sections is just asking for ridicule. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search on ("Frank the Lion" +Pywell) brings back zero returns. Search on "Dale Pywell" brings back only 3 unique returns, most about a separate Christian author. No significant coverage in independent publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School tie[edit]

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

I found this page deleted prodded, but school ties are an important part of some people's lives and are worth an article about them, after some editing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be kept but it needs a major rewrite. The bit about public schools can be kept but rewritten as nearly every school in the UK wears a tie, not just public schools. It also does not have to say 'in Britain one does not graduate' as that makes it seem like it is written for an American audience and the bit that says 'A humorous unisex alternative is socks in the appropriate colours'. I have never heard of socks.

School ties are exclusive to each school and even some years within a school or sports teams, but this is NOT just for public schools. 94.168.41.206 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable topic. The article should be improved, but even as it is I learned more than I knew about school ties before reading it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs rewritten but particularly needs retitled... it should specifically be OLD School Ties... the article specifically relates to ties of FPs (Former Pupils) which is different in every sense from "School Ties". Many schools have a tie but only a small fraction have an FP tie. The FP tie is usually much more sophisticated than the school tie from which it "derives". Whilst some ties are almost "public knowledge" the majority are unlikely to be recognised by anyone other than other FPs and school members.--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can "Old school tie" be a section within "School tie"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.
Keep. A notable social custom. Sources can be easily found to confirm what the article says.[12][13] Distinct enough from old boy network, which is where old school tie redirects to, to warrant a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree it's a significant social custom, but I have a feeling much of its content could be more efficiently merged into old boy network and, simply, ~~tie~~ necktie. That said, I'm open to the possibility of this as a standalone article with content that is distinct from either of those.--Korruski^Talk 17:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article on necktie already contains a section on "ties as a sign of membership" that may be partially redundant to this article. Ideally, this is an article that cries out for a gallery of images, although that will unfortunately be controversial. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedia-worthy topic, in my judgment; as the See Also notes, Class ring is the American equivalent. Whatever shortcomings exist in this article should be corrected through the usual process, not via deletion. Carrite (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article is kept, I propose that it be moved to Old school tie (currently a redirect). It is really about old school ties, as someone has commented above. I would make the change now, but I don't want to do anything controversial while the AfD is in progress, unless there is broad support?--Korruski^Talk 09:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article needs a substantial rewrite, but AFD isn't cleanup. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:10, 17 November 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) 12:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spaz Attack[edit]

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

Nothing more than a (badly worded) definition for a slang term. Spaz is already defined in wiktionary, with references to the slang meanings. A^RendedWinter 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that "Spaz attack" is more of a culture thing than an actual phrase, it has its place in an encyclopedia. My problem with the article is that its too short. If it was longer it would make sense. Maybe include use in culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitwith (talk • contribs) 09:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It only has a place in an encyclopaedia if it is a thing with a coherent and concrete definition. It's up to you to demonstrate that there is a coherent concept by this name, and that that concept has been properly documented in depth by the world at large. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. A Google search produces urbandictionary, blogs, facebook, this Wikipedia article, an advert for a CD entitled "Spaz attack", etc etc, but nothing remotely resembling significant coverage in a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur that it is just a piece of slang and not note worthy. Dan arndt (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Chang[edit]

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

One event, coatrack. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a clear violation of our policies on biographies of living people. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a gossip site. Stories such as this need to be handled with great care and sensitivity. We don't do articles about people accused but not convicted of crimes unless the incident has received significant ongoing coverage in multiple independent reliable sources above what would normally be devoted in the news media to alleged criminal activity. See WP:PERP for this policy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. --Juno the pregnant little girl (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. She has received national and international coverage, but the coverage does not seem to be ongoing. I don't buy that this is a WP:COATRACK, and I would be willing to revisit this if or when there are more developments. Location (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:BLP1E. Ray^Talk 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure if it should be kept or not. I have been following this news story. As a dean and professor, she barely ranks as a notable academic. I would agree to later re-creation if it is deleted, per Location, and gains traction. This was a classic front-page story. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Not Delete I am the first writer of the Cecilia article. I see several opinions on the article. I have some questions before I agree on the delete. First, by comparing Mag Whitman article, the Cecilia article seems more fit to the Wikipedia rule on living people. I want to see which sections is violated. Second, it is not a gossip. It is a criminal case involving FBI on prestigious school in liberal art and law faculty. This seems like the first time incident in the US, especially, for the foreign students. We see how the society has reacted on Toyota brake system problem in the US teritory. There is a similar incident; Meg Whitman's Latina housekeeper. The allegation is involved firing not even treating bad like a slave, and it has been an important event in the 2010 election. In the Meg case, there was apparently no mistreat or wrong doing, but the status of the defender (foreigner) leads various reactions in the community. I consider Cecilia's arrest is an interantional issue related to status in the US and distortion in social and econmical levels (class) at this moment. The main difference in the Cecilia's case is the vitims' identities are still concealed. I think this is one of reason not to bring different communities actions. Third, I agree that she is not noticed figure until the arrest, but as I notice on the St. John's editing history, there were long arguments and exchanges on adding Cecilia's information. Finally, it was not allowed. I do not know reason behind it. I think now she is well known figure in the US and over the sea, especially in Asia. Until I hear the clear explanation, I cannot agree on the action. I think this article should be kept until her trial finished.Woonhocho (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Cullen328. Note Woonhocho is the creator of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Woonhocho, the additional information you provide does not justify keeping the article. Meg Whitman was indisputably notable as an eBay executive long before she ran for governor of California, which itself would have made her notable. The Whitman housekeeper incident is a relatively minor part of her biography. This arrest is the sum total of the claimed notability of Cecilia Chang. This information simply does not belong in Wikipedia at this time, according to our long established policies and guidelines. She is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Cullen328, I have two comments on your opinion. First, the Meg housekeeper incident is not the minor part of her biography. The event apparently leads the surge of Latino vote in California. It is well known the gap between two candidate was not wide and Latino vote was around 20% in total count. It was a major impact. You may need to read the research, fact and news. Second, this arrest looks like the sum total of the claimed notability of Cecilia Chang at this moment because there is no other information about her in the Wikipedia. This will be improved by adding facts and news about her by other users in the Wikipedia and Internet. This action can be possible only when the basic article about Cecilia exists in the Wikipedia. For this reason, the article should be kept. As you know, Meg's housekeeper case is not finished yet. Now, I have a question to Cullen328, which section in our (or your) long established policies and guidelines are violated? I could not see them. Woonhocho (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read his opening comment where he referenced WP:BLP and WP:PERP? Location (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Location repeated the most applicable policies, and I recommend that you read them both carefully, Woonhocho. As for the facts about Meg Whitman, her biography is now 31 paragraphs in length, and there is just one long paragraph about this controversy. See the third paragraph of WP:UNDUE. As for the role of this matter in that campaign, Jerry Brown beat Meg Whitman 55.5% to 43.3%, a decisive victory. He was ahead in a big majority of the polls in the last two months of the race, and the poll numbers didn't change significantly after this particular news broke. The comparison of Meg Whitman to Cecilia Chang is not useful in this AfD debate. Cullen328 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Location and Cullen328, I read the both sections. For the first one, WP:BLP; overall, my article is neutral point of view, verifiability by news papers and the New York court record, and it is not original researchand. For the second one, WP:PERP, I see only the Perpetrators section could be applied in this article. Please, let me defend one by one. First, section 1. - She was the college dean and Asian female. Not many Asian females have that positions. Section 2. - Please, pay attention the sentense of "not limited". Section 3. - Her action is considered noteworthy and her coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources (The New York Times) that devote significant attention to the individual's role (Again she was the dean of St. John's College). Last, there is note, and it says that editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured - As my article is written, she is under investigation of FBI, and her lawyer's defending comment is "the government should not specify the type of labor". Doesn't he admit tha Cecilia done what the deputy officers accused? As Cullen328 indicated, I see the third paragraph, and it clearly says "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to" Doesn't my article need more information to be added by the time? Regarding Meg, before the event was exposed, the gap was 2% and sampling error was 4%. It means that she could be favored to be elected. After one week of the accident and followed debate, the gap became widen, and your number is the final voting result. Would you expose your source on the information? One more about the length of paragraph, the length does not value the importance of event. Meg just has large information on her article.Woonhocho (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators wake up! This artcle may be defamatory and should be speedy deleted to avoid affecting the outcome of any legal case. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I think Xxanthippe needs to open your eyes and ears. Xxanthipee, are you one of interest groups in the Cecilia case? The article dose not affect outcome. The US legal system is not that bad. We can talk openly, honestly, and find the truth by gathering information, which will be shown in the Cecilia article of the Wikipedia. That is the power of opened information, Internet.Woonhocho (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Xxanthippe is spot-on. This article is a WP:ATTACK, speedily-deletable under G10. Should be disposed of quickly, especially since there is a pending legal case. Admins please take a look ASAP. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Woonhocho reads policies but does not really seem to understand them. Any adminstrator, please delete ASAP. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, specify which sections are violated. The two areas, WP:BLP and WP:PERP, include wide range of characteristics. Cecilia article has only five sentenses, so it probably does not take a long time to comment each one. Or you may pinpoint what are not acceptable on my previous defending comments. Woonhocho (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woonhocho, we keep going over this, which is OK, but the policies are clear.WP:PERP says, "Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." Cecilia Chang has not been convicted. WP:BLP says that BLPs must be written conservatively and with regards to the subject's privacy. Cecilia Change is entitled to her privacy, at least until a conviction is obtained. The subsection WP:BLP1E is applicable to this article. Please note that there was a spate of press coverage from mid-September to early October, which has now died down. I haven't found any in-depth or ongoing analysis of the case, but just a slew of articles immediately following her arrest and bail arrangements. Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. The allegations are well-sourced, so I don't know that this demands speedy deletion, but it's not very encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Cecilia could belong to the BIO1E violation, but I think that the article does not have general information, such as education, policy, career and etc, yet. As I wrote upper comment. I expect the article will have more than one event by other contributors. For the NOTSCNDAL section, I have a different opinion; the arrest is close to ethical violations, fraud and misleading government officials. The four subsetions under the Scandal is not showing the detail of this charge.Woonhocho (talk) 05:38, 21 November 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) 12:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McKenna[edit]

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

As an unelected candidate for state office, this person fails the notability guideline for politicians. As an assistant professor, this person failes the notability guideline for academics as well. Secondary sources exist but are local in nature; no indication that this person will be the subject of continuing coverage. VQuakr (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would point out this individual received nearly 30,000 write in votes which according to the mass secretary of state is a United States and Massachusetts Electoral record. Also, as this individual received 37% (837,813) of the vote and was covered nationally in for instance AP articles [14] it would be kind of strange if he was removed and yet we kept Jill Stein who got only 31,000 total votes period in the election and received only a mere 1% of the vote. My understanding is notability does not go away. However, I would agree with RG I should just afd the other third partiers that get no votes rather then keep this guy who was really just a fill in -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You're quite correct that notability doesn't go away, but that presupposes the subject's notable in the first place. WP:POLITICIAN gives no pass to failed candidates, and getting 37% of the vote against an embattled candidate is an old-fashioned asswhupping. What is the source, by the bye, for your assertion that this is a Massachusetts OR a United States record for write-in votes? It is neither; go take a peek at the Write-in candidate article, for instance, which has numerous candidates passing that bar in Massachusetts. Dwight Eisenhower, for instance, won the Massachusetts Republican primary in 1952 with a quarter-million write-in votes. (And FYI, no one will stop you from filing an AfD against any other failed candidate you believe is not notable.) Ravenswing 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete There's so little information in the article it can easily be merged into the election article. imo this is a case of 'notable only for one event'. iow, his notability as a candidate doesn't extend to having his own article. I only worked on it earlier (adding the usual non-partisan links and a link to the actual election article) because it was created the day before the election, preventing a serious discussion of whether or not it should exist. Draw your own conclusions. I am totally fed up with the whole process here, especially the lack of concern by Admins. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jftr, I have now restored my original statement after Tracer9999 'edited' it. Her edit summary claimed something entirely different, of course. And that, dear friends, is just another example of why I'm so fed up with what's going on. Flatterworld (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see how he has done anything noteworthy enough to have his own article. Maybe a by-line that stated he did receive such and such number of write in votes would be appropriate on a page covering the election itself. Article seemed kinda biased even in the few words it does have.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:POLITICIAN has no prohibition against candidtes who do not win a general election. As a state-wide major party nominee, there is significant, in-depth coverage[15] as required by the WP:GNG. The write-in campaign result was notable, and garnered coverage beyond the local level. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:00, 21 November 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) 12:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew edward hall[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article contains unsupported claims. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is lacking Google News hits because he was just recently signed in mid October. The main stream airing and Promotion hasn't even begun yet.

His Single "abortions" has saved lives, and changed the minds of thousands of teens on getting an abortion. that sir, is a notable individual. and with research and a contact with the artist, i can get references. his Manager failed to include that in his papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicagilmore (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please indicate how these items meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He meets the criteria because he is very popular in Florida and Wales and continues to spread throughout the world. Notable is the sense of being "famous", or "popular". Take a moment to view his Myspace music page. http://www.myspace.com/durdyboy352 he has over 34,000 fans and over 3.6 million plays. He is on radio rotation daily here in central Florida. Mention his name anywhere in Florida and see if you get a response. He is indeed popular, and due to the recent signing to warner bros. his popularity will soon sky-rocket.I am in-deadly sorry that i haven't included all the information in the article thus far. I Intended to get it started, and work on it tommorow because it is 1:57 am here and i need sleep to perform well at usc tommorow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicagilmore (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In order to be included in Wikipedia an article must meet Wikipedia based notability criteria. There is a difference between "real-world" notability and Wikipedia based notability. Wikipedia based notably is defined in the articles WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Popularity has no bearing on Wikipedia notability. Again, please indicate how the article meets the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.( he founded the band stereo skyline and is an active member of the band The Ready Set —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicagilmore (talk • contribs) 07:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Ready Set is not an ensemble. Hall is only a member of his backup band. It should be noted that his membership in the backup band was added to the article by you this evening after I pointed you to WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This artist is of importance and has sold over 500,000 copies on iTunes alone. he is a huge part of central Floridian culture and has a huge fan base. he was just recently signed under warner bros. records and you can confirm that by the reference. He made a song With the Platinum artist Never Shout Never and im about to include that in the Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicagilmore (talk • contribs) 07:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is no evidence in the article of this. Again, please indicate how the article meets the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/never-shout-never/id403627607 1. "a wish of mine" featuring Never Shout Never

"significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." he is dyslectic and epileptic. I find that interesting and unusual enough to deserve attention. He could be a figure in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicagilmore (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well i am human and i have to sleep. I hope its not deleted when i wake up in the morning. and if there is any way of pausing it instead of deleted it, please help me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicagilmore (talk • contribs) 08:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources for this BLP subject. Most of the information in the article is not even verifiable, sourced to iTunes, Myspace, and his personal site. Goodvac (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jessicagilmore. Yes, I know Jessica !voted Keep, but her arguments rather convincingly show the subject's lack of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 17 November 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. Courcelles 19:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Nicaragua relations[edit]

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

although article claims Denmark gives a lot of aid (although many countries do give aid to Nicaragua) there is not substantial third party coverage of the relations between these 2 countries. [16]. the external link provided in article is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a cursory google search revealed this and this. That is indeed notable third party coverage. It is actually quite rare for a country to withdraw aid from another and the economist suggests it is political, making it even more notable. I'd suggest you withdraw the nomination and look a little harder for sources on obviously notable topics before bringing them here next time.--TM 07:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that's only 2 sources, countries decrease and increase foreign aid all the time, certainly if this was covered in multiple sources and also covering multiple aspects of relations it may be notable. LibStar (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's only two sources? Well someone was listening in maths class! ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 09:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per independent third party coverage such as this – ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 09:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the reliable and verifiable sources that support notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no third party sources cited in article. The two third party sources mentioned above are neither prominent, extensive (a paragraph each), and in fact only document the ceasation of relations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The two sources in the article are primary. Some of the external links in the article show that Denmark's embassy in Nicaragua has been closed. The only notable events that have gotten any press are Denmark ending its comparatively tiny amount of aid to Nicaragua. The two sources provided above are about the same event and are nearly identical. I wouldn't consider them two separate sources, and I'm not sure that either of them even pass WP:SIGCOV. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are not primary sources. The news site is not run by the Danish foreign ministry, nor by the Nicaraguan equivalent. I don't know why you would say such a thing. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said that the two references in the article are primary. They consist of links to the Danish embassy website and the Nicaraguan embassy website. SnottyWong ^verbalize 15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's quite common for news articles about a subject to be largely based on information from that subject. What sort of "reference" do you expect those journalists to use, other than the relevant aid authorities? Wisden? Bradshaw's? Heat magazine? Are you for real? ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 15:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snottywong: I think Treasury is attempting to convince you that a couple of single-paragraph pieces in some obscure news-aggregation site (see links above) amounts to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote, rather than taking a glance and then spending twenty minutes thinking up so-called witticisms satirising it, you would understand that I was simply trying to point out that they are third-party sources. In my dialogue with Snottywong, I never once mentioned the word "significant" – nor "notability" – in fact, all I did was state that they are reliable third-party sources. Which nobody could plausibly deny. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Kindly keep a WP:CIVIL tongue in your head. (ii) Kindly read WP:GNG (from which my above quotation was taken), and familiarise yourself with the difference between "significant" and "trivial" coverage. (iii) I would not ~~'cast pearls before the swine' (to use a well-known adage) by wasting~~ [waste] a witticism on you, nor would I take twenty minutes to think of one. (iv) Please don't waste my time by posting on my usertalk that you've posted something here -- that's what watchlists are for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Civility presumably applies to you as well? I have read WP:GNG, and my discussion with Snottywong was not about the GNG. It was about one specific question: are the sources provided, whether trivial or significant, independent of the subject? And that's what we were discussing, as you would have noticed if you read it. (And that's what {{talkback}} is for.) ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking these two sources together, you'd be able to write a single sentence: "The Danish government reduced its aid from $34.6 million for 2009 to $26 million for 2010, and later announced that it would be ceasing aid altogether thereafter, in order to concentrate on aid to Africa." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not sure why this has blown up, but I'll try to explain the rationale for my !vote as clearly as possible. There are two sets of sources that I'm talking about. The first set are the sources that are already in the article (i.e. go to the article, find the "References" section, see the two sources there). Those sources are primary, without a doubt. Primary sources are not inherently problematic, however they are not eligible to establish the notability of the subject. The second set of sources are the sources that have been identified above as part of this AfD discussion. These sources are clearly not primary. However, they cover the same event, they are nearly identical, and they are extremely short. I have surmised that they might not provide "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG to establish notability. I hope this clears everything up. SnottyWong ^comment 16:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources—Zelinsky, The Twinning of the World: Sister Cities in Geographic and Historical Perspective, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1991. Nygren, Violent Conflicts and Threatened Lives: Nicaraguan Experiences of Wartime Displacement and Postwar Distress, Journal of Latin American Studies, 2003. General Assembly, International Organisation, 1952. The Legal Position and Functions of Consuls, The American Journal of International Law, 1932. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 16:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TreasuryTag. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems easy to improve and I have added some material supported by a good citation. The article should therefore be kept in accordance with our editing policy as deletion would be disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article should be kept, but alleging "disruptive editing" is way over the top. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 12:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would obviously be "disrupting progress toward improving an article". We are expected to make policy-based arguments here and this is our policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, you seem to regularly use the statement "Deletion would obviously be "disrupting progress toward improving an article" without addressing how an article meets WP:N, WP:GNG or another notability guideline. most articles can be "improved" with more info, the question is their notability not ability to be improved. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question devotes a whole 1/3 of a sentence to Denmark's donation to Nicaraguan mine-clearing. This is 'trivial' coverage as that term is defined in WP:GNG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that item tells us that Denmark and Nicaragua had bilateral relations for this purpose and that the sum of money was $1.8M, which would usually be considered non-trivial. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) "A billion here, a billion there -- soon it adds up to real money". (ii) But regardless, it is the triviality of the coverage that is at issue, not that of the sum involved (which therefore was not the thing to be demonstrated). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triviality is not a matter of the word count as it is possible to talk at great length without saying much. It is more the salience and substance which matters. In this case, we have a substantial fact which testifies to the notice which is paid to the relations between these countries. It is by no means all - it is just a token of what may be found when a brief search is made. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triviality is a matter of DEPTH OF COVERAGE -- and your source has NONE! "Denmark contributed 1.8 million bilateral basis" is ALL your source says on the subject. THIS IS TRIVIAL COVERAGE! And bringing up "talk at great length without saying much" just adds insult to injury. "In this case, we have a substantial fact which testifies to the notice which is paid to the relations between these countries." = mendacious bloviation. We have what, in international financial terms, is a very small sum, which "testifies" to your make mountain out of any old molehill to confuse an AfD style of discourse (exemplified also by your accusations of disruption). Four words and one number is not "substantial coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn, I assume that you've gone and read all the sources I added here and here – perhaps you could explain in what way they constitute trivial coverage? ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 13:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Where you provided a link, yes (Stokke et al provides a single paragraph on aid). Where you present just a laundry list of titles, lacking any information as to their contents, or even an ISBN or other identifying information, then no. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stokke's "single paragraph" concerns a party-dividing political controversy in Denmark regarding their position on Nicaragua, which is clearly significant coverage.
My "laundry list" contains clear citations enabling anybody to trace the articles concerned. They are all available on JSTOR. They are all available direct from the journals I clearly identified them as coming from. If you are either too lazy or unable to carry out this simple operation, that's your problem, not mine. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 14:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(i) As I did not nominate this artticle for deletion, WP:BEFORE DOES NOT APPLY! (ii) Your piping of that guideline to "lazy" is in violation of both WP:NPA & WP:TE. (iii) That I am unwilling to keep up with your 'Gish Gallop' of poorly-documented sources does not mean that I am in any way incompetent (as your link to WP:COMPETENCE seems to be trying to suggest). (iv) I would suggest you cease and desist throwing fuel on the flamewar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(i) I apologise for that confusion. However, you are arguing for the article to be deleted, and if you refuse to look at the sources which the opposing side has presented, that is highly irresponsible. (ii) So report me. See if I care. (iii) Perhaps you can explain how the following is in any way a "poorly-documented source" – Zelinsky, The Twinning of the World: Sister Cities in Geographic and Historical Perspective, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1991 It seems entirely comprehensive to me... (iv) Whatever. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 14:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I have no access to that full journal article, so cannot make much comment, the abstract however is not promising -- it suggests a very generalised, global overview. If you consider it to be "comprehensive" on this topic, then I would suggest that you use it as a cited source for adding information to the article, thus demonstrating its relevance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. So the reason you didn't look at the sources is because you have no access to those journals. Not because I failed to list the ISBN. Not because they were "poorly documented". But because you don't have access. For future reference, the normal thing to do would be to just say that, rather than trying to blame the person who provided the citations.
Now, you could request me to email you the PDFs. Or you could head over to the resource exchange and ask someone there to help you.
Or, you could cast aspersions on the sources, without even making an effort to get to read them, although that really doesn't seem like a constructive approach to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 15:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury: kindly find some other venue in which to reinflate your ego, rather than trying to score petty points and demanding that I respond to your every petty comment. The reason that I didn't look at those sources originally, was that they were a dense mangle of text, making it hard to even separate the references out from each other, or which pieces would make for the easiest search (hence my ISBN comment). My reaction to them was roughly analogous to WP:TLDNR. Given you went to the trouble of separating out Zelinsky, I went to the trouble of looking it up on Google Scholar. I found that it was behind a paywall, and that I could only access the abstract. I am now sick of the sight of you (thanks both to your behaviour here, and on my talkpage), and really don't want further contact. If you really think your sources are the 'bee's knees', then use them to add SIGNIFICANT coverage to the article, and stop pestering me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dense mangle of text" – do you find it hard to distinguish between full stops and commas then? It must make life quite difficult for you...
If you're sick at the sight of me, that is your privilege; however, the notability criteria do not recognise that as a valid factor. The sources I have clearly listed provide significant coverage; if you are either too lazy or too incompetent to chase them up then you should strike your !vote since its basis has now been called into question. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and Hrafn has ignored this direct question. So we can assume the answer. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn would respond considerably quicker if he didn't have somebody continually distracting him by posting unnecessarily on his talkpage. Treasury can "assume" whatever WP:BOLLOCKS he likes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source—Western Middle Powers & Global Poverty: The Determinants of the Aid Policies of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden (edited by Olav Stokke) [17] has the following to say: "The only recent, active, political issue with respect to the choice of recipient countries has been Danish aid to Nicaragua. The Danish Government, supported by the Social Democrats, has opposed untied grant assistance to Nicarague with the argument that this would be to politicize Danish aid, as this kind of assistance is reserved for low-income countries and Nicaragua, according to international statistics, belongs to the group of middle-income countries [...] This is a complicated case of internal party conflict among Social Democrats, as those who manifestly uphold the principle of reserving aid for low-income countries are at the same time those who are positive to aid to Nicarague. This group has correctly, but so far with no effect, referred to the clause in the 1982 report which says that transitional assistance may be given to countries in critical situations even when these countries are not low-income countries."
I suppose that that is trivial coverage, too, Hrafn? ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 13:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another source—the 1999 Danish NGO Impact Study contains both a short and an "in-depth" example of Danish operations in Nicaragua. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Treasury and plenty of independent sources exist on the topic. Outback the koala (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclona Sportswear[edit]

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

Notability is questionable. I just deleted an inappropriate speedy delete tag, but it still might not meet Wiki standards. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional. No established notability. Suspected COI as user has only done this article and reports an uncited 'interview' with someone presumably connected with the business. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, advertising tone, cites subject's website. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just an advert, no encyclopedic merit--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt this is notable enough. Also looks like a bit of self-promotional text... DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:58, 15 November 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 Redirected/Kept. Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four (TV Channel) NZ[edit]

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

It is not a "new" channel as such, it is just a rebranded C4. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to C4 (TV channel) as a plausible redirect; the eventual title of the newly branded page can be hashed out on the C4 page. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Trick 'r Treat. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda (trick 'r treat)[edit]

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

Should probably be merged into Trick 'r Treat. I'm sure there's a fiction guideline for this sort of thing, somewhere. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Trick 'r Treat in agreement with the nominator... but I am wondering why there was no attempt at discussion per deletion policy of a merge on Talk:Rhonda (trick 'r treat), before simply sending this to deletion discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on film. Does not merit independent article.--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above, Sadads (talk) 18:06, 15 November 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) 12:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoscope[edit]

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

Software with no sign of notability. No hits in Google news archive nor Google books. This would be an A7 speedy, if only software were eligible for that category of speedy deletion. But it was prodded and deleted once already, in 2007, so now we have to go to a full AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A straight google search reveals a fair few hits, but these mainly consist of a couple of press releases and a lot of blogs and galleries of images made using the software. Given the number of hits in google it seems fairly popular; perhaps it has been featured in a graphical design magazine or something similar at some point. I can't find anything though, so it's probably best to delete it, and if such a reference can be found later, it can be recreated as having addressed the issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 19 November 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) 12:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mylifeisdesi[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources do you need? Again, I was told before that the sources I have are good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.145.30 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. Lack of good quality sources.--Korruski^Talk 11:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia Perin[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer Perin did not made his professional debut and U21 caps should not be considered. Matthew_hk t c 04:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he makes his debut for Genoa. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete premature creation of youth footballer who has not yet reached the notability bar per WP:NFOOTBALL. Only general nature sports coverage. Recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^T 10:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:59, 15 November 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) 12:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Perone[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, and no assertion of notability is made here. The article reads as an obituary. I am sure he was a fine gentleman, but this article does not meet our thresholds. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio[18]. Maybe with a lot of effort an article could be created (its hard to tell, but there is some minor old press coverage available), but just cutting and pasting the obit is not much effort.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much - thanks for verifying. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:23, 15 November 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 g3, blatant hoax. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shanil Dutt[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unremarkable footballer; claim in article that he plays for Hamilton Wanderers not backed up by their own website where he is not mentioned in the 1st team line-up. Fails WP:ATHLETE. role^player 02:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer. Only claims to have played in about 4th level amateur football in New Zealand and there is no reliable source even for that. Any mentions appear to be Wikiscrapes and only suggest he played U-17 for Wanderers. No coverage at all outside these passing mentions.--ClubOranje^T 10:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:11, 15 November 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) 12:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NBA at 50 Signature Basketball Collection[edit]

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

Not really encyclopedic. If anything it almost seems like advertising. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is little more than an advertisement for an expensive but non-notable set of autographed basketballs. Many of the reference links are dead. I was not able to find reliable, neutral sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More information The dead links seem to be to the website where the autographed balls were sold. Maybe they sold them all and let the website lapse? The other references are to a company that sells expensive sports memorabilia. WP:SPAM, anyone? Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless secondary coverage can be provided. Although I think the topic has some potential if the claims made for the uniqueness of the balls are true. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable. Reso lute 17:58, 15 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hesarooyeh[edit]

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

It seems unencyclopedic. It also seems to not be adhering from a neutral point of view, such as "his well researched book titled: The History and the Culture of Shahr-e-Babak". Endofskull (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable human settlement, per WP:OUTCOMES. AfD is not cleanup. POV issues can be resolved through the normal editing process. Numerous hits on the Persian spelling (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Incidentally, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency gives the spelling as Ḩeşārū’īyeh [19]. (call) 05:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable settlements are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 10:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improvement, not deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CaliforniaAliBaba and per AWP:Energy conservation. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Actual settlement. NPOV is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement. The article could just say "Hesarooyeh sucks" and I'd still vote "keep," and obviously improve.--Oakshade (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of volumes in ReViewing Chess (series)[edit]

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

Non-notable book series lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but a collection of external links. Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 05:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:NBOOK, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, article is mostly a huge batch of Amazon links, with consequent highly WP:PROMO tone. Top Jim (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, possible hiden advertising. SyG (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None notable books per WP:NBOOK. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a collection of links. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is not an informational encylopedia article, nor does it serve any navigational purpose in binding together articles or serve any developmental purpose as suggested by WP:LIST. I agree with SyG's and Bubba73's comments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author made this comment on the talk page: "This series is about the first chess book seris designed specifically for kindle. If that is not notable, nothing is." This seems very overdriven to me. The way I understand it, it means the same as "the first chess book series designed specifically for Kindle is not only the most notable thing in the world, it's the most notable concept that could ever exist". More notable than the Kindle, more notable than chess, more notable than us humans, more notable than the Earth, or the entire universe. I'm amazed the author hasn't realised how ridiculous such a claim sounds. JIP | Talk 20:15, 18 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roll (gymnastics)[edit]

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

It doesn't have any references, and it seems to not be notable enough to have an article. Endofskull (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep such a self-evidently core part of gymnastics, refs aren't hard to find and I see that another editor has already added a few. WP:BEFORE seems relevant here. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly an encyclopedic type entry. I am sure references can be added.--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's intended to be the difference between this and somersault (to which forward roll redirects)? Uncle G (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rolls are generally on the ground, somersaults off the ground. Rolls can be classed as a subset of somersaults though, and diving rolls are (or begin) off the ground. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Lackey's "Capturing Life Through (Better) Photography"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tamara Lackey's "Capturing Life Through (Better) Photography"

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

Advertisement for a publication of unsubstantiated notability. JNW (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 05:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eww, tacky. Sorry, I mean delete as advertising for an entirely humdrum commercial product. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have just subjected the article on Lackey herself to an, um, "extreme makeover". Energy permitting, I'd also tackle Ballard; but energy doesn't permit. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 17 November 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) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onomatomania[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the page already exists on Wiktionary; PROD removed by author. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ukexpat (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's room for this new contribution for a newcomer to Wikipedia, although it needs to take a different approach than a dictionary definition. Not surprisingly, this obsession-compulsion was considered a behavioral disorder back in the early 20th century [20], and perhaps exists under another name in current OCD literature. It's notable enough for a stand alone article. Mandsford 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe, but it's not this article. It would require a complete rewrite. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A dictionary entry not an encyclopedia entry--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, as it stands, but it seems to me that an encyclopedia entry probably is justified, and could be written for this subject.--Korruski^Talk 15:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just a simple note, but if this is about Onomatomania, then why are we talking about etymology? RomeEonBmbo (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhpMyLibrary[edit]

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

No sources, does not establish notability.

In fact, the project appears to be dead: Last release was 2006, the website the project links to on it's SourceForge is dead: http://www.phpmylibrary.org/ OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pirillo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I turned this down as an A7 speedy, as it makes some claim to notability. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary clam to notability is running a website we don't have an article on. Not an A7, but doesn't pass WP:N, WP:V, or WP:BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long time TechTV host and well known internet personality who runs his own large convention every summer. Nomination here was certainly not in bad faith, but the A7 speedy was made by a user whose third contrib was to speedy this without as much of a basic read of sources. Should be kept, if only for hosting Call for Help. Nate • (chatter) 07:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Un-notable person from a defunct network channel. --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE. I am seeing quite a bit of coverage from multiple different reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was at one point a reasonably well known international internet personality thanks to his Lockergnome newsletter and had many fans/subscribers. Also hosted the Tech TV show and a radio show on WHO.
keep. I'm finding coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject including this and this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Chris is not a "one-time" Internet celebrity. All of his sites continue to receive several million hits per month. He is a keynote speaker at conferences all over the world. His conference, Gnomedex, attracts some of the biggest "names" in social media and technology every summer. He sends out an opt-in newsletter to more than 200,000 people per day. The active communities he runs boasts more than 100,000 members between them. He publishes monthly in a magazine and is highly sought-after to appear at social media and technology events around the United States. Kat Armstrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katarmstrong (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon project[edit]

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

Declined speedy; contested prod. I'm a little on the fence about this one, though; this collective doesn't appear to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Apparently they have collaborated with some notable artists, but there aren't any notable artists in the group itself. Simply having albums available on iTunes doesn't equal notability, and of the three references (which are really external links), the first two only mention the group's name in passing while the IMDb link doesn't mention them at all. And as far as a charted album, CMJ doesn't appear to qualify per WP:CHARTS. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erpert,

Actually the article about the hip hop workshop for kids is a weekly workshop the group puts on (Kingsley Mannasa also known as Kingsley Garrick) for kids throughout the community and have been flown out to other Police Activity Leagues nationally to perform as well as share their knowledge on how to successfully run workshops. Now in the documentary "Freestyle" the director Kevin reached out to J-pro & Kingsley from the group to be in the documentary. J-pro is known as one of Californias elite emcee battle champions. His scene along with Mos def is one of the most popular scenes in the documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOoruUopgpM) As for the group They have worked with many notable Artist and Producers (which is not an easy task without a fanbase) and their notoriety is blossoming. After coming back off a 2 week tour in France, Germany and Switzerland performing in packed venues with DJ Qbert, Max Romeo, BBoy Ivan & Stones throw artist Wildchild their overseas popularity grew. (All this will be noted in their Career). After reaching #7 on the college radio hip hop charts nationally they caught the ear of DJ Vadim from Russia and he reached out to Epsilon to collaborate on a few songs. which they did. "America" which was released on Epsilons album and soon to be released on DJ Vadims album. They have recently been contacted to perform at the Hip Hop Kemp festival in the Czech Republic also negotiations are in progress for another European tour possibly in March. I along with many other people Internationally feel Epsilon Project is a notable hip hop group and deserve a place here . Hopefully this persuades you on their side of the fence.

Thank you for your time.

Proof of anything you need ( Weekly CMJ chart stats, Flyers and links from overseas shows & Conversations with Booking agencies) can all be presented by email or however you prefer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.89.131 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you don't get it. A college radio hip-hop chart does not qualify as an adequate music chart per Wikipedia guidelines. And although this workshop has worked with many notable artists, notability isn't inherited. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and have deleted the chart 72.129.89.131 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inhereted from people they have collaborated with and the group lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGM Western Legends[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a compendium of companies' product lines and branding initiatives. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Glen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGM Decades Collection[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a compendium of companies' product lines and branding initiatives. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Glen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miramax Award-Winning Collection[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a compendium of companies' product lines and branding initiatives. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Glen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studio Selections[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a compendium of companies' product lines and branding initiatives. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Glen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100% Music[edit]

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

I declined this as a speedy because it makes some claim to notability, though I don't think it passes either WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated it for speedy, as it did not seem notable, and the article was created by and is maintained by a single purpose account. Pure spam. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 15 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qamosona[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. The article gives no indication that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:WEB, nor did the PROD remover do anything to address that issue. The only "resource" listed is an article in the Pashto Wikipedia, which of course is not a reliable source. —Angr (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The PROD remover is an older IP user, and different from the author. Varlaam (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The resource you mention is ps:قاموسونه which is just Qamosona written out in Pushtu.

That article in turn links to this page, ps:احمد ولي اڅکزی, which is the bare bones page about Ahmad Wali Achakzai, the Afghan student mentioned in the article.

It's not very substantial over there either.

Varlaam (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, I should add, that as someone who taught himself to read this script in 1991, I personally don't mind being informed of a free on-line Pushtu dictionary.

However, a paragraph on the Pashto page would suffice in that regard. Varlaam (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or even just a link in the External links section. —Angr (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I own Arabic and Persian dictionaries in hardcover. I'm not sure I've ever seen a Pushtu dictionary. (Pushtu is what my linguistics prof called it 30 years ago, rather than Pashto.)

From what they seem to be describing, it sounds like a significant undertaking, and therefore perhaps warranting more than just a link.

But at this point, I have no feel for whatever specific precedents there may be which are relevant in this precise context, either regarding online dictionaries, or new websites.

Neither has been a focus of mine here at WP, which is why I am commenting, rather than stating some opinion.

Varlaam (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 November 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. Sandstein 06:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria[edit]

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

This article about a Light novel series has been tagged since August 2010 for lack of notability and reliable sources. The article does not seem to meet any of the notability criteria for books, particularly, the book has not been the subject of "multiple, independant, non-trivial" reviews or articles, has not won any major literary award, and its authors (Eiji Mikage and Tetsuo) appear to be relatively unknown (and they don't even have an entry here). Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it's fairly short, it does have references for it's size, even if it does mainly focus on the pulications. It just needs some expansion. and a few more refs anad it will be notable to be a "start" class at least. But if it can't be helped, then perhaps delete is good too.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is precisely that there doesn't seem to be any reliable source for this, the article has been tagged since August, and besides blogs, there really isn't anything about it on the net. How long is it going to stay tagged if the article is kept ? Just assuming we might find something one day isn't helpful, if you think the article should be kept then provide sources right now, otherwise it's just postponing the inevitable. If the article is kept, as you propose, without it being sourced and without it being compliant to thenotability criteria for books, then it will go to AfD again, and that would be a waste of time. Either we find sources, or we delete, I didn't find any source, neither did you, so on what basis should it be kept ? I don't see any.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well imysefl aren't good at finding sources related to novels. But if someone who knows more on reliable sources then it would be good. I'm not so sure how reliable fan site's reviews are. sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. just like ANN, it's situational. have you posted this to the WP:ANIME or WP:NOVEL before?Bread Ninja (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're fan sites reviews then they're unreliable (Wikipedia:RS#Self-published sources(online_and_paper)). ANN is a professional website, fans can't post reviews there. I went through all the google results about "Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria" and I could only find forums, fan wikis and fan blogs. The search with the japanese title only gave what looked like blogs and commercial websites like Amazon. I did post a note about this AfD on WP:Anime, but people didn't seem to be interested in it. Well then, I'm going to ask for help in establishing notability through reviews, and we'll see. But I'm sure we won't find much.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reopened a discussion at WP:Anime here, and as you can see, no source has been found, even in japanese, and no one seems to know the books. The article still doesn't fit the notability criteria for books, which say the must have been the subject of "multiple, independant, non-trivial" reviews or articles, I really think it should be deleted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COnsidering there isn't enough information, and hardly any repliable sources i change my mind to '"Delete". I originally intended to change my first one to delete, but for some reason, i wasn't fully aware and though i put delete instead of keep.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable reviews. When at least two notable reviews are found or the light novel is adapted into an anime, then a new article can be created. As it is right now, there isn't enough information to believe that this has notability per WP:BK. Jfgslo (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uni-5: The Enemies Strike Back[edit]

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

Only sources to be found about this future album's existence are WP mirror sites and a couple of very minor social networking sites. Violates WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL until there is a confirmed track list and release date. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing to constitute an article as of now. Fixer23 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 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) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Krajden[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion because not sufficiently notable. (Wikipedia:Notability) --24.224.177.85 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the IP who requested it is an WP:SPA whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been this deletion request. Just FYI. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems notable enough per WP:ACADEMIC; some of his articles at Google Scholar have more than a thousand hits. The article is a stub and needs expansion, but that is not a reason to delete. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was unsourced; I expanded it and added a couple of references. --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. 4 gnews hits but only would count as a significant mention. [21]. gscholar indicated participation in research but not enough to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References which confirm his existence are not the same thing as references which confirm his notability — he's not the subject of any of the references that have been added here. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. GS cites are 1590, 1126, 149.... h index = 27. Although this is a highly cited field WP:Prof#C1 is clearly satisfied. A time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And where, pray tell, are the reliable, independent media references about him? Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In GS, of course, there are several thousand of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Incorrect. Notability for BLPs/BDPs of academics/researchers is determined by WP:Prof. Closing admin should give careful attention to this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abnormality (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, having a song in Rock Band 2 does not appear to signify notability. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling River Day Camp[edit]

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

Prod removed by IP address, Non-notable summer camp. Links given are either not independent of the subject or do not mention this camp. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 November 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 Comeback Season (mixtape). Jujutacular ^talk 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement Girl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:MUSIC. Apparent claim to notability is that the video for the song make the artist the first unsigned Canadian artist to have a music video featured on BET. (I'm searching for the article on the song where the dance-remix made an artist the first unsigned Mexican artist to have a song on MTV2.) SummerPhD (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Forgot to mention: this is a contested redirect to Comeback Season (mixtape), which is also of questionable notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Comeback Season (mixtape), there is plenty of room in that article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Vox[edit]

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

There's no clear indication that this is a notable musician. Not signed in a notable label. Spatulli (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any notability about Victoria. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:44, 15 November 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. Delete all Courcelles 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreters/Translators Society of the Northwest Territories[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Interpreters/Translators Society of the Northwest Territories

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

fails WP:ORG, nothing in gnews [22]. and the article says the organisation is dormant. so I don't see the point of this article unless significant history can be found. also nominating:

Corporation of Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters of New Brunswick
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Saskatchewan
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Nova Scotia
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Manitoba
Association of Translators and Interpreters of Alberta
Nunavut Interpreter/Translator Society
Society of Interpreters and Translators of Yukon
Society of Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia

however not nominating Ordre des traducteurs, terminologues et interprètes agréés du Québec as this has marginal notability. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interpreters/Translators Society of the Northwest Territories as non-notable. Google finds no news sources, only one scholarly work and five books (which may be false-positives; they are not preview-able), and only 24 web hits for the group. I have not checked the others, but if there are no more sources than this available, they should be deleted, too. Cnilep (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ontario, weak keep Alberta and Saskatchewan, delete the rest. Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario actually has several mentions in Google news archives; Alberta and Saskatchewan are mentioned in books or scholarly articles (though perhaps only in passing). Cnilep (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ontario one does not get any indepth coverage in gnews [23]. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dang me for not properly noting those sources when I found them; now I can't re-locate them. There is, however, mention of ATI Ontario and Societe de traducters du Quebec here: Repa (2010) "Training and certification of court interpreters...." This is probably not sufficient to establish notability, but is a step in that direction. Cnilep (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of reliable sources to demonstrate notability, delete all. These are all holdovers from 2004, a time when Wikipedia's inclusion rules were being made up as we went along: sourcing requirements weren't so tight and the distinction between notability and mere existence wasn't so well defined. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In light of my inability to locate reliable sources, I have no objection to Bearcat's rationale. Cnilep (talk) 03:00, 15 November 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) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew J. Sadler[edit]

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

Non-notable poet. No references given and no sources found to show he passes notability for creative professionals. Triwbe (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: WP:AUTHOR - No. 3. Several verifiable sources have been referenced, and an independent work from this author is forthcoming. Jmoyryla (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all the sources in the article are links to works by the subject of the article. Are there reliable secondary sources, articles, or reviews about the author or his work as outlined in the notability guideline you referenced? VQuakr (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this. I'm working with the poet to track down more sources. Apparently former poet laureate Billy Collins has commented on Sadler's work. Thanks for the suggestions - Jmoyryla (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are working with the subject of the article then this constitues a clear conflict of interest and now looks to me like your aim is to promote his new book. --Triwbe (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, adding a !vote to my reasoning above: lack of secondary coverage. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cheri Oteri. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis (TV pilot)[edit]

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

Television pilot from 2001 that was scripted and casted but never aired (possibly never even filmed). IMDb has a cast listing but that's it. No reliable Ghits. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to article of show's producer/star Cheri Oteri. The "find sources" above proved useless, but finding suitable sources all depend on one's search... and with a bit of thought to my search parameters, I was able to find sources that could make this a suitable sourced section in the Oteri article.[24] Apparently the show was filmed, actually aired once... but was never picked up by CBS... and in cancellation died a quick death. Sounds just like the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George wrote a pilot that aired and was then cancelled. Seems that reality sometimes mimics art. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Michael; never aired and no significant coverage. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:53, 24 November 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) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Mirfakhraei[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject. Farhikht (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. In fact, not even self-published sources are available as the subject's web site is "coming soon". -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Hay Más[edit]

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

Non-charting "single", with no article for its parent album. The only chart I found it on was a depracated chart WP:BADCHARTS. The article is not likely to expand. Notability of the artist is also questionable outside her group. In any case this fails WP:NSONGS, there is also notable independent coverage of this song. Fixer23 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 November 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) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Khan (film)[edit]

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

Not as as per WP:N and WP:NF.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 04:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 16:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a future film for which I can find no sourcing to indicate that principal photography has begun per WP:NFF. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Warhammer novels. That list does not appear to accommodate plot summary much, so I am cutting off almost all of that, but I will keep the information on authors, etc. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance (Warhammer novel)[edit]

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

AFAIK this novel is no major importance. It's just yet another Fantasy novel (and thousands upon thousands are published every month). IMHO it utterly fails WP:N. The novel is already mentioned in the article of the author Steven Saville (the mention should be satisfying). I also wish to point out that this novel is part of a trilogy and that even IF this nomination is defeated at least it should be moved to an article about the trilogy. Flamarande (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge as the default for this sort of novels in series. Cut the plot a little, too, and add some refs to reviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verified material into Warhammer Fantasy (setting), per User: DGG.--Pink Bull 00:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge verifiable content only (no huge plot summary!) to Warhammer novels. It can have its own article after it has been the subject of third-party reviews in reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:52, 23 November 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) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Dinwiddie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This actor is no more notable now than he was when first nominated for deletion and the deletion was accepted. Has several minor roles in episodic television, but nothing notable. Plus the article has no reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 04:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page, from what I can see from the the original AFD nomination, has not changed whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomeEonBmbo (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No substantial coverage in reliable sources. All I can find are TV listing entries such as this which is insufficient to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Baptist College and Heritage Theological Seminary[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG/WP:GNG: no significant coverage in secondary sources. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no extensive coverage [25]. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All degree-granting college are notable, by established practice here, as long as they have a real existence. I added a reliable source showing the accreditation of the seminary DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep this seems well within notability guidelines for wikipedia, for reasons DGG has stated. BEARinAbasket (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If WP policy says all colleges are notable. Still without secondary sources it is not a very interesting article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general consensus that degree-granting institutions are inherently notable. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Dull[edit]

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

Completing process for another user Edgepedia (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason given by Nom Reason: First of all, while I am an inclusionist rather than deletionist (although as an exopedian, I do not really bother too much about these labels) it might seem strange that I should nominate something for deletion. However, as I note on the talk page at Gladys Dull, I worry about the accuracy of this article. Please let me know whether I have got something wrong here - this is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copied from talk page I think it important to let people know that this article is rather dubious, and while I am inclined to inclusionism rather than deletionism, I might even call for its deletion. In the year 2000 - when, incidentally, I was first diagnosed with Type One diabetes - I wrote a letter to "Balance" (the bimonthly magazine of Diabetes UK) asking whether any diabetics had lived to beo one hundred. At least two people responded and said that they had known people who had lived to be 100 or even 102. This would make these diabetics longer-lived than the person; there may be a difference of their age at diagnosis, though. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion completing an uncomplete nomination. Edgepedia (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and weak on verification. The article is not supported by multiple independent Reliable Sources as required for notability. The references provided at the article are not Reliable Sources. I could find only one published source, which is part of the "Marlowe Diabetes Library"; I don't think that's enough to qualify as multiple independent sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 15 November 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 Non-admin closure. There's a consensus that the article should be kept in some way, but that it shouldn't be at The Chair. I have moved that article to The Chair (Grand National) and turned The Chair into a dab, which is a move supported by this AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chair[edit]

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

Not notable. No sources. Term is too vague for a redirect.

Convert to disambiguation to prevent the ugly-ass triple hatnote at the top. There should be no reason to have THREE hatnotes on one article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename or merge. It is not vague. It is very clear what this article is about. I am not a racing man, but I would have thought there would be reliable sources for information about one of the most famous fences in one of the most notable house races in the world. But then it should indeed be renamed to perhaps the Chair fence. If there are insufficient sources some of the material should be merged to Grand National. The present title should indeed be a disambiguation page. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Chair (disambiguation)- hmm. This was tough one. I can find plenty of mentions in things like Google Books, but these are all passing mentions. But I agree with TPH that the three hatnotes are unseemly and IMO it is ridiculous that this minor aspect of a horse racing course should be the primary topic for the title "The Chair". This topic should be covered in a paragraph or two at the Grand National article, so ordinarily I would suggest a merge. The problem is that the current contents are sourceless and, I suspect, heavy with original research and so there's nothing to be done with it. There's no point in merging bad content and then scrambling around looking for proper sources for it, when you can use the same sources to write it properly at the right place from scratch. Reyk _YO! 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the status quo. I'm not sure how much of this information qualifies as encyclopaedic, and I'll bow to the expertise of horse racing experts. However, I don't see why a jump on a race course, however notable, should take precedence over the three other listed meanings of "The Chair". At the very least, this should be moved and this page made into a disambiguation page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Convert to DAB. This material belongs in the course section on the Grand National. Material about "The Chair" is related to a breakdown of the course such as this which does establish that it can be sourced so deletion is not helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprised that anyone can seriously doubt the notability of this article. There are only two horse-racing jumps I could even attempt to name individually: both at Aintree and this is one. Anything other than notability just isn't an issue for AfD.

As to naming, then clearly there ought to be The Chair (disambiguation), but precedence over a song and a game show isn't hard, so I don't see any need for a rename to The Chair (Grand National) (wouldn't object to it though). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grand National. It's one aspect of that race, would fit well into a section there and is unlikely to grow much larger given the apparent sourcing level. Sandstein 06:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If merged into Grand National, would you prune this article down, or would you risk WP:UNDUE? In terms of logical structure I would support the merge you describe, but not in terms of balancing the size of articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, per WP:V, only verifiable material should be merged. That should reduce the size of the merged content. And it can always be editorially shortened after a merger, given consensus. Sandstein 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but maybe rename and create a dab page (which is an editing decision, not a deletion decision). I can find sources (listed below) to verify almost all of the content and will add it in a minute. Bigger digger (talk) 21:04, 23 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Crossley[edit]

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

Probably non-notable comics colorist. I found this page when searching for a different Andrew Crossley, the head of law firm ACS:Law; most of the Google hits relate to him. I found one in-depth article about this Andrew Crosley, [26], but I do not believe this suffices for our notability requirements (and I doubt that being twice nominated for a Comics Buyer's Guide award makes him notable either). I recommend deleting this article, and redirecting Andrew Crossley to ACS:Law. Robofish (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm confident in your judgement on this matter. Note that I only did RC patrol-related cleanup on the article, when I edited in 2005. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. A single inteview isn't sufficient to establish notability, nor are a couple of nominations for awards that he did not win according to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 16 November 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.