Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 29

< 28 October	30 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Colleges Group[edit]

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

Contested Prod. All I can find by searching is promotional material sourced from the company, and trivial passing mentions. Nothing substantial, independent and in a Reliable source. Hence, while some of the individual (secondary) schools may merit their own article, the company which owns them fails our notability standards. dramatic (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article looks self-promotional. No indication of sufficient notability to deserve an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:15, 3 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 the articles to an appropriate character list (at this time, probably the character list, as that seems headed toward a keep result). Whether and what to merge from each article is, as always, an editorial decision. History will be left intact as there does appear to be strong support for merging of some material. Note that the articles noted later in the discussion were not tagged as being part of it, and so have not been redirected, although of course this can be done if desired. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrunners of Goddess Keep[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fictional characters for which there are no reliable sources to support notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are individual characters from the same series, again with no reliable sources:

Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth I've already prodded AFD'd the obvious target (Characters of Dragon Prince) for the same reason. I'm still looking for sources to support notability for the individual books in the series, and I'm of the opinion that the merge of so many trivial details (to the books or the main series artice) would just have to be removed as WP:UNDUE - thus this AfD. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: the merge target is now at AfD too. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What even is this, an obscure webcomic? T3h 1337 b0y 03:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh. It's a pair of fantasy novel trilogies written in the late 80s to early 90s. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per the above. I've deprodded the Characters article, since it's being discussed here. Look, if you doubt the underlying notability of the novel series', you're going about this backwards: If the novel series are not notable, AfD them, and if successful all this content will be much easier to AfD on the basis that they're characters from a non-notable series. But since the character list and the book series articles are currently bluelinked, you've got obvious merge targets. Strike at the heart of the matter, rather than the periphery, and you get much less resistance to removing content. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW brief searches like gnews and gbooks show clearly that the books meet the GNG, and look promising that they might meet WP:BK as well. Thus, there's no justification yet for removing character articles that can just as readily be trimmed and merged to an appropriate character list. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) The difference is that the novels might be notable (I've now found at least one review for each novel) whereas I'm fairly certain these aren't and so I've nominated them for deletion per WP:DEL#REASON. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the Dragon Prince character list. Notable author, notable books - and still on sale. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to character list per Jclemens; do not keep as separate articles as their notability is not (and probably cannot be) established. They are somewhat likely search terms though, as is the case with most fictional characters, so a redirect should be left, also to prevent recreation. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What happens with these articles should also be done with the following character articles from this series (per Category:Dragon Prince characters): – sgeureka ^t•c 08:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pol (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince Rohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sioned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lords of Radzyn Keep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment Agreed - good thinking. Peridon (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge There is a suitable merge target even if this content fails notability guidelines. 24.114.233.34 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge support merge as a way to build consensus. Lacks sufficient coverage in third party sources to verify notability Shooterwalker (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- what content do you think is mergeable? Where are the sources? Reyk _YO! 22:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—even the main articles do not demonstrate notability as of yet. As far as I'm concerned, a "Characters of Dragon Prince" subarticle is not warranted at this time. There is no reason to discuss detailed story information unless the characters have been discussed in multiple reliable sources, such as reviews or author interviews. We are a general encyclopedia; topics receiving significant coverage in at least a couple reliable sources can be overviewed, as long as they are not given undue weight (e.g. 100kb). There are quite a few movie and video game character sub-articles because they include out-of-universe information in addition to plot summaries — there are dozens and dozens of Final Fantasy reviews, as well as published interviews with the developers. A redirect may be appropriate until someone can find, at the very least, some sort of reception and criticism of the characters. Published interviews with the author can also be a great way to dig for conceptual information.
In short, I feel deletion is too strong an option, though not completely off the mark. Why not redirect these articles and preserve the edit history in the event that out-of-universe material is found? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:22, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country Yossi[edit]

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

Unable to find any non-trivial, reliable sources independent of the subject in order to sufficiently establish the notability of the contested prod. This is a long-standing unreferenced BLP that does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V because the Country Yossi brand is a widely-known and distributed set of musical tapes, magazines and a long-standing radio show that caters to the hundreds of thousands of English-speaking Orthodox and Haredi Jews and to their youth in the United States and beyond, and sold in most Judaica and online Jewish music and song for children stores and online outlets. Yes, the article does need sources, but this subject is encyclopedic. I will try to add more sources. P.S. In the future, could the nominator please put in a request at WP:TALKJUDAISM to see if any Judaic editors could help out with this. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I posted this discussion at WP:TALKJUDAISM. It certainly appears that he is notable, but I made a serious attempt to source this article and found nothing but trivial mentions. I do hope that someone out there can do a better job but until then this an unsourced WP:BLP so should be deleted, userfied, or sent to the incubator. J04n(talk page) 19:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears notable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The article has now been re-structured, upgraded and considerably improved with 22 new references and sources that describe and explain why this article is important. By the way, "Country Yossi" is actually a brand name that is derived from its originator, (just like Newman's Own does not equal Paul Newman even though he is the supposed creator of it). The nominator is therefore kindly requested to withdraw his nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I happily withdraw my nomination per the strong work by IZAK. J04n(talk page) 00:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear JO4n: Thank you so very much. IZAK (talk) 15:22, 2 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) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetrace[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, published sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pure promotional fluff for a non-notable game. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence or indication of notability. PK T(alk) 21:33, 5 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) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Earnshaw[edit]

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

This appears to fail WP:NTENNIS. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a non-notable tennis player: has not won any junior Grand Slam tournaments and was not ranked inside the top 3 of the junior rankings. Additionaly there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:33, 4 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) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency (theology)[edit]

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

Per WP:MADEUP. I can't find any evidence of this concept, given that it is different to Presidency at the Eucharist. St Anselm (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless enough WP:RS references are added to show that this is a legitimate thological concept. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not the theology of any credal Christian church, and the two examples cited are not notable. Unless someone can source this unsourced stub, it smells of something made up by a fringe denomination in one day. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fringe theory that may also represent original research. If reliable sourcing can be found, some of the content could be merged to First Presidency (LDS Church) in a section describing the theological underpinnings of Mormon hierarchy. Uncle Dick (talk) 06:28, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands School District, Arkansas[edit]

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

This school district only became briefly notable for the single event of the existence on the board of one Clint McCance who became notorious for homophobic remarks on Facebook, and who has been pressured into resigning.. Otherwise it is a non notable school district like all the others Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In past AFDs, we have redirected or merged countless articles about elementary schools to their school districts. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says "Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) ..." Past practice has thus implied de facto notability of school districts. Various states have hundreds of school districts with individual articles. I cannot recall an AFD which deleted an article about a public school district. A school district typically satisfies WP:N and WP:ORG via multiple reliable and independent sources having significant coverage. Some behavior of a school district official which got widespread news coverage should not get undue weight in the article about the district, but that is a matter for the normal editing process rather than deletion. Edison (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a school district that covers and entire American county. It educates hundreds, is a major employer and landholder. It operates (arguably) the largest 'business' in that county. How is it not notable? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. CUSD has its own page, it's not prodded or AFD'ed or anything, but strangely, it's less notable than Midlands SD.T3h 1337 b0y 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edison. Edward321 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison and past precedent. It's procedure to merge elementary schools that aren't notable by themselves to school district articles such as this. Please clean the article up a bit. Vodello (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (I have tried to clean it up, but gee their web site has very little you can hang your hat on. It is very important to stick to the strictest facts. I hope at least there are no mistakes.) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, governmental entities such as school districts are notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what are they notable? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:47, 31 October 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 the lot Courcelles 00:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gangplank Galleon[edit]

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

Not notable. Trivial level from a computer game. QU ^TalkQu 21:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100% Delete very non-notable. CTJF83 chat 22:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See also Crocodile Cauldron and Krem Quay: good candidates for adding to this AFD.
Delete Completely devoid of notability and lacks content, "article" is just a sentence. --Elassint (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These articles don't even qualify for WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I would normally suggest merging them all to Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, but that article doesn't even mention the names of the worlds (well, a couple of them are mentioned, but only in passing). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's also the final boss level in Donkey Kong Country. But that still doesn't make it notable. Reach Out to the Truth 16:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Gangplank Galleon to Donkey Kong Country#Audio. May be a plausible search term as far as the soundtrack for Donkey Kong Country is concerned, though clearly not notable enough even for its own article (note that there is information about the Donkey Kong Country soundtrack itself, which I would recommend be in that section). –MuZemike 19:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you redirect a world to the audio?! CTJF83 chat 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's also the name of one of the more popular tracks in the game's soundtrack. –MuZemike 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AfD is where the largest discussion is taking place, I'm moving all the related article AfDs here and closing the other ones. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no independent notability from the game(s). Doesn't pass WP:GNG. --Teancum (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All to the game page. As per MuZemike, some might be plausible search terms for the game soundtrack - or for the game in general. IF the articles' author thinks there is enough content, he could pad out the game article with some info about the levels (while being careful not to write a guide) - but none of them are able to assert notability enough to warrant their own article. -Addionne (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my redirect !vote was for Gangplank Galleon only; I don't see the others being much of a search term, though, and all the AFDs I see were merged into one since then. I would hence probably support outright deletion of all the others. –MuZemike 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all others except Gangplank Galleon, which I already have suggested a redirect, per my comment directly above. –MuZemike 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in that the levels of a videogame are not independently notable, although Level 4 of Ms. Pac-Man was kind of cool. None of these even had anything interesting to say, basically "this is the --th level of a game" and the implied "buy it and play it to find out what's there". I don't see a reason for a redirect at all-- if you know that you're on the level called "Gangplank Galleon", but you forgot that the game you're playing is Donkey Kong Country 2, time to go outside and get some fresh air. Mandsford 14:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of these articles assert notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:34, 4 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) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lefkowitz[edit]

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

This article appears to have no context nor is this a person of importance or any significance. Perhaps a short blurb regarding University of Penn Athletics, but this is not worthy of a dedicated page/article.

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

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

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

This article seems entirely self promotional an self serving. It is not sourced, verifiable nor are there any citations. Wikipedia rules clearly state that If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizwitch (talk • contribs) 08:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — Tizwitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article does not meet the general notability guideline. If notability is not affirmed by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic and If notability cannot be established and verified with the appropriate sources and/or citations, the article should be deleted.

Additionally, this appears to be a biography of a living person and does not cite any references or sources. It appears entirely self promotional in nature. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, contentious material about living people that is un-sourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.-Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizwitch (talk • contribs)

Delete I agree this does not appear to noteworthy or verified. Wikipedia should delete the article.Sibox (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seen to have done much outside the unreferenced school records. In fact, none of the article is referenced, and there are quite a few red links too. Current position doesn't seem to me to be notable either. Peridon (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two AfD pages for this article were created by accident I copied the second nomination and the two above delete !votes from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Lefkowitz (2nd nomination). --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Totally unsourced vanispamcruftisement that fails WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{23:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is completely unsourced vanispamcruftisement and appears to be written for the purposes of WP:SPIP Buckshotshorty (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC) — Buckshotshorty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I completely agree. This is fully unsourced vanispamcruftisement and fails to meet WP:GNG. Nothing about this person seems notable, important or worthy of having an article page about. Makso (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC) — Makso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Nothing particular notable about this person and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - strange how so many first-time users are appearing on here and !voting delete with essentially the same rationale. A fair warning to you who are doing this: if a CheckUser search is performed and you are all the same person, your IP will be permanently blocked from editing. Just thought you should be warned. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no idea who these WP:SPAs are who did a copy&paste of my comments, nor why they did it … I'm the one who flagged them, BTW. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure about the SPA issue, but I orginally notcied this article based on some flags that had previously been tagged to it. Regardless, the reality is it still lacks any real significance or notability. Tizwitch (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - college/professional career not notable when active and now he's out of the public eye. Rikster2 (talk) 13:17, 3 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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prudanoid[edit]

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

Neologism, Prod removed by author. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 21:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This pretty well says it all [1]. I was expecting that this would be describing someone like me who is both a prude and paranoid. I think that even the name "Prud Gavilkovic" is made up, and I live in fear that it's probably something rude in another language. Mandsford 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism without any coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:23, 4 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 close. Larger AfD discussion about related articles by the same editor is taking place here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krem Cauldron[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable video game level. Dac04 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yecch. About as non-notable as you can get. This probably would have been kept back in the old days when Wikipedia took just about anything, but it ain't 2004 anymore. Mandsford 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability, trivial. QU ^TalkQu 21:44, 29 October 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 close. Larger AfD discussion about related articles by the same editor is taking place here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Kremland[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable video game level. Dac04 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. This is part of a bunch of stubs for something that isn't entitled to a stub. You can help Wikipedia by getting rid of it. Mandsford 21:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Trivial. QU ^TalkQu 21:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fun world...but non notable like all the other level articles. CTJF83 chat 22:09, 29 October 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 close. Larger AfD discussion about related articles by the same editor is taking place here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gloomy Gulch[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable video game level. Dac04 (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Mandsford 21:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability, trivial. QU ^TalkQu 21:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. CTJF83 chat 22:22, 29 October 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 close. Larger AfD discussion about related articles by the same editor is taking place here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Krock[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable video game level. Dac04 (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bad idea for an article. I guess that the point was that someone would reach this level and then describe it, but only inherently notable things get the "this is a stub" privilege. Mandsford 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. QU ^TalkQu 21:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable like all the other level articles. CTJF83 chat 22:09, 29 October 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 close. Larger AfD discussion about related articles by the same editor is taking place here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. Rool's Keep[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable video game level. Dac04 (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is a single sentence on a single video game level which falls well outside notability. --Elassint (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Elassint. Boarder line CSD. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Drop a barrel at this one. Mandsford 21:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. QU ^TalkQu 21:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable like all the other level articles. CTJF83 chat 22:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red, White & Boom[edit]

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

This article is about a series of unrelated events that happen across America, that happen to have the same name. If the events were related beyond sharing a punny name and being a celebration of Independence Day (had the same organizers, sponsors, etc.) I would think they are plenty notable - but most of it reads like a disambiguation page - and while sources exist that mention Red, White and Boom (none that are listed in this article...) the fact that they are not really talking about the same event limits their effectiveness. Addionne (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no broad notability for fireworks shows that share a particular name. It's essentially a list of non-notable single events with a trivial relationship. — Scientizzle 19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CTJF83 chat 22:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Straus[edit]

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

This is not true, Straus is a lightweight fighter, and no where in the article is there a reference to him being a "light heavyweight." Also, he is not a featherweight, and to my knowledge he has never fought as featherweight. His last fight, which I witnessed first hand, he fought Karen Darabedyan it a lightweight fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gc 424 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably fails WP:MMANOT. Has no sources. Worst of all, it contains many factual errors. He's a featherweight, not a light heavyweight. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Paralympiakos (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I was unable to find much evidence of notability in a Google News search; the only relevant article I saw was a recap of an event he took part in. Don't think that's enough to prove there should be an article. As a side note, I think it would be beneficial for future discussions if WP:MMANOT indicated which organizations are considered "top-level". The UFC is easy, but what about promotions like Pride or the WEC? I don't think Bellator would be in that class, but it would be easier for many editors if the organizations' importance was spelled out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (P.S.: I see that a list is included on MMANOT and have struck that part above, though I'm not sure if I would consider Bellator top-class myself. If we're talking notability, the level of coverage surely isn't as high as some of the other organizations.) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MMA project's talk page archives contain the discussion of what MMA organizations are notable, as well as the objective criteria that were used. It's true not all of the organizations listed are equal but, for simplicity, we didn't want too many tiers.Papaursa (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about a fighter who fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fighter who doesn't meet WP:MMANOT.Astudent0 (talk) 13:42, 2 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. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood Highlands[edit]

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

Non-notable local amusement park that does not appear to meet WP:CORP; seeing as how it is a business, this would seem to be the most logical notability criterion. Barring that, there isn't enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Some information can be found in local newspapers, but all of the content found is of the "it exists" ilk without any sort of non-trivial coverage from WP:RS. PROD contested with the edit summary unnecessary for a beloved park, which does nothing to address the notability concerns. Kinu ^t/_c 18:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Wildwood Highlands for a speedy deletion "... as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject ..." on September 30, 2010. However, Phil Bridger contested it believing it to be an an amusement park. I understand the confusion, but this article is about a business. No matter how the company is registered, it is not notable enough for its own article—Delete. All is One (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable being covered in works such as Insiders' Guide to Pittsburgh and Amusement Parks of Pennsylvania. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source provided above appears to be a brief quarter-page listing in a 450-page travel guide. Most of the books in which this topic appears are of the same scope. Being mentioned in a travel guide, especially so briefly, does not show why it is notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm seeing some coverage in Google News, especially from Pittsburgh area newspapers. There does seem to be quite a bit of coverage once you weed out the results of a retirement home in Minnesota by the same name. Redfarmer (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ... and even less coverage when you weed out the results for the riding/racquet club, the ski area, the peddler's market, etc., of the same name. Most of what's left is very trivial information (hours, etc.), press releases, and articles in which the subject is not even the primary topic. If one actually trudges through the results more closely, they'll find: this one about a fundraiser, this advertisement for townhomes close to the place, this one about a disposal site near the place, this one which is ultimately a list of places that happen to use the name "Wildwood", etc. Overall most of the coverage is unimpressive, cursory, or what is ultimately expected in WP:LOCAL sources, but nothing that really shows why this place in itself is notable... simply mentioning its "great facilities" doesn't cut it. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with Kinu that the Google News Archive search link provided above doees not provide sufficient sources to allow Wildwood Highlands to pass WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If editors have found significant coverage, then I suggest they add those sources to the article. However, at present I don't see any indication there is anything else beyond trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources about Wildwood Highlands. The passing mentions and trivial coverage about Wildwood Highlands do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travel to Italy (Mácha)[edit]

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

Hoax? Can't find any sources for it. Seems very unlikely. TalkToMe_c^intelati 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi intelati - I have added about a hundred articles that are all honestly sourced and I have been working today on three new articles about Mácha who will have celebrate 200 years from birth on 16 November. The other articles are Cikáni and Jan Nepomuk Štěpánek and tomorrow I will add more because Mácha is Czech National Poet and I want to contribute to the celebration by having several articles on that day on DYK, where I have had about ten articles so far. The articles are being processed, I have wiki friends who check and correct my English and the I put it to the list of DYK Suggestions. So if you can help, you are welcome. You can check what is bad in the three articles. Thank you very much. Aloysius (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Aloysius has been a contributor for more than five years, so I don't have any doubts about this one. Mandsford 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: sources can be found by Google searching for the title in Czech[2]
Keep - article is sourced, is historic, and has encyclopedic content. It is part of a series of articles this editor is writing about the life and work of Karel Hynek Mácha. --Kudpung (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This travel book/diary is one of the literary works included in the "canon" of Czech literature. Unfortunately, very little is known about the work in English speaking areas. I suggest to search for the Czech title "Deník na cestě do Itálie". The work is mentioned at the official website of the Czech Republic (en) etc. I think the offline search in printed sources could be more useful in this case. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable book--Yopie (talk) 10:58, 3 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 List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Courcelles 00:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Noble[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be enough reliable independent sources for this character to have an article. Yes, she was a recurring character, but essentially she was just Donna Noble's mum. She did nothing more. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So is there a good merge target for this article? Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Probably Donna Noble, imho.~~ --Redrose64 (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC) List of Doctor Who supporting characters; have revised my opinion. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly would be List of Doctor Who supporting characters, so this nomination clearly fails WP:ATD. Harry, even you don't seem to argue that we have to remove the content completely, just that she does not warrant an article. That might be correct but AFD is not the place to discuss where valid information is organized. So please withdraw this AFD and start a discussion about merging the content instead. Regards So Why 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much in the article that isn't WP:PLOT, IMO. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there is nothing at all in that article that can be kept? Regards So Why 18:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I suppose the first and second sentences could be salvaged... Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it can be merged somewhere else where you think it would fit better? Remember, if you propose something to be deleted, ask yourself "Would Wikipedia be improved if all information on this subject is removed?" I don't think this is such a case. Regards So Why 19:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is saying she's a Doctor Who character. The second is saying she's related to Donna. The rest is just WP:PLOT. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the question. What you were asked was, So it can be merged somewhere else where you think it would fit better? Remember, if you propose something to be deleted, ask yourself "Would Wikipedia be improved if all information on this subject is removed?" I don't think this is such a case. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia would be better off without the article. Has anyone read the article yet? Its only got actual episodes as sources and most of the article is something I consider trivial. IMO. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone read the article yet? Of course we've read the article. What sort of fools do you take us for? And as for your response above, you have still not answered the very specific question: Would Wikipedia be improved if all information on this subject is removed? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Wikipedia would be improved if all the information that is in this article (other than the obvious This is a Doctor Who character thing) is removed. IMO. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. So then why did you nominate the article for deletion? ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 06:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you know what? I see no notability in this. Wikipedia would be better off without her. A brief mention in Donna Noble and List of Doctor Who supporting characters, but nothing more. IMO. Harry Blue5 (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep—seems perfectly notable to me. She did a fair amount; I don't have much time now, but I'm willing to find some refs for this at some point. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 18:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Minor fictional characters are seldom notable enough for stand alone articles, and there's no indication this character is one of the exceptions. Character lists are still useful in the understanding of the work so there's a place for minor characters, though even then this character barely scrapes by.Edward321 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JUSTAVOTE—invalid. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 10:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I have expanded my earlier comment. If you want to persuade anyone, I think your time would be better served by providing reliable, independent sources that discuss this character. Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge into List of Doctor Who supporting characters 212.20.248.35 (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JUSTAVOTE—invalid. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 10:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noes - someone dissagrees with me - and there an IP!!! Why don't YOU actually give a decent reason for why this article desevres to stay seperate? You want reasons - non-notahble character with relatively few appearances - and article is practically all plot. Happy now? of course not, I still disagree with you. 212.20.248.35 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the above comment is complaining that I marked, "merge into List of Doctor Who supporting characters," as just being a vote without any reasoning, then it seems to be missing the point that the comment was just a vote without any reasoning. Now that some semblance of an explanation has been provided – although simply identifying the character as "non-notahble [sic]" isn't altogether adequate either – that problem has been, broadly speaking, rectified. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 11:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, he also added that the article is pratically all plot (I presume we're using {{xt}} to quote editors for this AfD now.) Not that that's a perfect argument. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. No matter how hard I try, I can't find any significant coverage for the character. The best efforts were this and this, which are fairly pathetic. If anyone can find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG I'll retract this, but it won't be easy. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG which would be enough to warrant deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:57, 4 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. Consensus among uninvolved editors seems to be that the coverage provided constitute passing mentions rather than significant coverage, as required by the relevant notability guideline. ~ mazca ^talk 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMLC Group[edit]

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

Weak notability, at best, spammy. PROD'ed but IP editor with edits to no other article removed nom and issue tags. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think notability is proven here. There are some quotes by employees in various reliable sources, however according to WP:RS that does not constitute significant coverage. -Addionne (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I ran a google search and found around one hundred entries from objective sources referring to this company, including news items from major publications not just the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comment about this being spammy is laughable. If you do proper searches you will see this firm is major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchronson (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Author of the article. Nakon 02:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though this may not be relevant to the USA as much as Jones Day or other firms, it is clearly notable I'd those links and google search results are real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbankerc (talk • contribs) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. Nakon 02:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - CU-identified sock of article author Mitchronson. Looie496 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.69.153 (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Addionne. Nakon 02:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I would also advise the editor(s) giving "keep" opinions above that those comments can only reflect badly on the MMLC Group. Who would engage a law firm whose representatives can't make a coherent evidence-based argument? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (only one !vote each please) See: http://au.legalbusinessonline.com/contents/law-firms/41260/3/details.aspx and http://www.complianceweek.com/article/5748/china-whets-its-enforcement-appetite and http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/3/213.abstract and http://business.highbeam.com/articles/435489/managing-intellectual-property/november-2004 and http://business.highbeam.com/435489/article-1G1-126014405/mmlc-group-chinabased-legal-advisory-group-hired-courtney and http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/335405/extorted_companies_silent_stolen_data_/ - notability is clearly established. Phil Bridger - Wikipedia can not be accessed in China, so I doubt that they can see any of this - further, I can't imagine they would prepare for a Wikipedia entry like they would an international patent infringement case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ (once again, only one !vote each) In addition, see http://www.marketinglegal.com.br/mkt/files/20070419_ARK_China_Conference_2007.pdf and http://www.shb.com/newsevents/2009/UnitedStatesChapter.pdf and http://blog.dacare-group.com/index.php/all?blog=1&cat=25&page=1&paged=8 and http://www.legal500.com/firms/30085/offices/31883 and http://www.glgroup.com/Council-Member/Matthew-Murphy-73188.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Also see http://www.amazon.com/Practices-International-Business-Transactions-China/dp/0314199403 and http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/general/IP%20_contacts_China.pdf and http://www.jurispub.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=7936 and http://www.chinalawandpractice.com/SearchResults.aspx?Keywords=office%2Bopening&PageMove=0 and http://www.sha.britcham.org/sh/events/details1.php?id=416 and http://www.itechlaw.org/vegas2008/mmurphy.html and http://www.c5-online.com/regulatory_compliance/ChinaImport/agenda.htm and http://www.c5-online.com/regulatory_compliance/ChinaImport/agenda.htm and http://www.itechlaw.org/boston2010/itl_boston_brochure_web.pdf and www.cafte.gov.cn/other/20041229/.../P020030910428107031247.xls and http://www.chinastudies.unimelb.edu.au/conferences/2009/assets/pdf/China-Conference-Abstracts.pdf and http://www.dgri.de/dateien/anhaenge/akt_070703_programm.pdf and http://global.korcham.net/File/International/Board01/기업정책이슈3_주요국가의경쟁정책동향과대응방안.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Also see http://www.strategy-business.com/media/file/leading_ideas-20070703.pdf and http://guadua.org/news/tags/Australia and http://www.internationallawoffice.com/NewsArchive/Detail.aspx?g=1bc7b417-2f61-4ed6-9d6a-a4c9e3d927ee and http://asia.legalbusinessonline.com/news/breaking-news/prc-law-firm-opens-australian-office/29963 and http://hetii.com/cn/library/news_info_view.asp?news_id=394 and http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/default.asp?Page=12&OB=D&Catalog=ITR&DatePeriod=0&SearchStr=MMLC&x=7&y=9 and http://www.ibls.es/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2192 and http://wenku.baidu.com/view/1ddfcaa20029bd64783e2c08.html and www.bullivant.com/getFile.aspx?file=6225 and http://www.acc.com/chapters/china/legalresources.cfm .... there are literally hundreds of references to this firm online, from hundreds of independent objective sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established above, but article needs substantial reworking to make more Wikipediaish. --BenOneHundred (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- CU-identified sock of article author Mitchronson. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, significant coverage from WP:RS does not appear to exist. Blatant sockpuppetry in this AfD only undermines any presumption of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak stubify and keep. Meets WP:ORG just barely, though the article itself is a spammy mess. I wouldn't see a great injustice if it were deleted, though. THF (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is passing mentions and such. Can anyone find a source that discusses the company in depth? Article is spammy. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:11, 4 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 California state elections, November 2010

California Proposition 22 (2010)[edit]

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

essay, totally non encyclopedic WuhWuzDat 17:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, author blanked. Hairhorn (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. For being original research and political soapboxing.
Comment. I believe this is copied from the California voter's pamphlet. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The above comment is correct, as well. UOSSReiska (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copied from voters pamphlet. The proposition is adequately summarized at California state elections, November 2010. Anyone wanting to see the voter pamphlet can find it at the California Secretary of State's webpage. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect to California state elections, November 2010 -ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Elassint (talk) 17:05, 4 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) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spark (game)[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable, independent publications to verify this material. By extension does not pass notability guidelines. (WP:V, WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being based on a Sierra game does not assert notability here. The sources are all at Spark's official or fan sites - no independent third parties or news sources. In my opinion, it fails all possible tests of notability. -Addionne (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 October 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. WP:CSD#A7 no assertion of importance or significance JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business Consulting & Design 21[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Was previously prodded as "Seems a non-notable company, see WP:CORP, WP:GNG" and endorsed. Author removed prod, yet no references were provided, and notability still questionable. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising and only advertising: specializes in Cross-Cultural training, complete marketing serives, study abroad programs and graphic design. They hold executive certification and custom tailored seminars quarterly for business executives looking to further their knowledge of ever changing global business practices. (The change! It's so relentless! And global! I must throw money! Throw money!) Google News, Books, Scholar all draw blanks; they're hardly noticeable on general Google web. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No indication of notability - no references other than the company site. I've tagged it for speedy as non-notable. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Mathia[edit]

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

Delete. One of ten candidates for governor of Michigan who ran on the U.S. Taxpayer's Party. Did not make it past the primary election. This article presents her personal and religious background, as well as her platform and stand on the issues of the failed campaign. Lacks notability outside of being an unsuccessful candidate for governor, represented by a fringe political party. Lacks significant coverage presented in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article reads like a campaign ad and it's redundant since she failed to be elected. Fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe candidate does appear on the general ballot for governor (Nov 2, 2010) not just the primary, but like most third party candidates, she's unlikely to get a significant number of votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.113.43.49 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Biographies of 3rd party candidates can offer ideas that the major party candidates don't have. Although not elected, she has made some mark on Michigan History, and this article records a piece of it, through the fact she is a Michiganian. Igo4U

Delete. This is WP:SPAM for a person who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 02:29, 4 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) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raëlian (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Raelian itself is a redirect with no competing usages; therefore there is nothing to disambiguate, and none of the terms supposedly handled in this article contain the word. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to say "so let's just move this over a redirect to Raëlian", but you're right, there's nothing to disambiguate. This is just a simple adjectival form of an unambiguous proper noun; all three "senses" of the word are so closely intertwined that I don't think any ambiguity exists. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:58, 30 October 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 withdrawn. I really just hoped someone would find some decent refs. done. — Timneu22 · talk 14:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nury Halmammedov[edit]

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

Zero sources provided, hard to determine any claims that he was relevant based on google searches. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought more people should have a look. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I tried searching with a few alternate spellings and think there's enough here to qualify for notability. This profile at Radio Free Europe calls him "one of the Turkmen nation's greatest sons." This guidebook describes him as Turkmenistan's most famous composer; the same claim is made in this French book. This is a profile at the Turkmenistan government official website, and there's another lengthy feature in "Turkmenistan Analytic" magazine (though I'll admit the latter isn't on my regular browsing list; it appears to be registered locally as a newspaper but I can't speak to its compliance with WP:RS.

I'd like to see better sources than these but I suspect we'll need a Russian speaker to get them. As it stands I think these are adequate to demonstrate notability and to source a stub. I'm going to add some references from the books and RFE to the article. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Ghassan Youssef[edit]

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

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

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

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

Apparent autobiogrpahy de-proded by creator. Notability is asserted by claims such as "famous in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and known as the father of Islamic banking" but the sources provided are a the author's Wordpress blog (from which much of the content is copied verbatim) and this, which I can't read but is from appears to only be an article written by the subject for a site of undetermined notability. The "father of Islamic banking" claim seems dubious given that the subject is about 30 and Islamic banking is, while still young, definitely older. Searching for other sources comes up empty. This article fails WP:BIO. — Scientizzle 13:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant third-party sources whatsoever to indicate how the subject meets WP:BIO inclusion requirements. Your point about the relative chronologies of the article's subject and of Islamic banking is well made too (though "father of Islamic banking and time travel" would be a *fantastic* claim to fame). Gonzonoir (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were right too about this being copied almost verbatim from the blog. Because those contents are not marked as available under CC-BY-SA, I've blanked them as a copyright violation. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promoting autobiography of subject who fails the general notability guideline. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO, not notable and quite possibly made up QU ^TalkQu 22:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Blatant disregard of WP:AUTO by a WP:SPA … totally lacking WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:BLP. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{23:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No evidence of passing WP:BIO. A possible CSD G11 candidate. Nsk92 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete as failing WP:V and notability criteria. Ray^Talk 01:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This piece of vanispamcruftisement looks like a blatant copy and paste of the subject's website … can anyone say {{Db-copyvio}}? — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete hi i am the editor of the article and i have changed the article in accordance with the advices you have generously made, due to errors in transelation i may had writen something by mistake but it is now Rectified, i sincerly hope that the page won't be delted, i didn't make it in vanity or some thing else, it is just an info page about one of aknowledged Jordanian writer, also i included refrences from my articles in the news paper where i write, it is in arabic, and if you don't understand it or aknowledge it as third party refrencing, then i may inclued my publisher link for my book once it is created, other than that i am really not trying to publish false info on this site, and if you don't believe or agree with me, then thats your right to do so, but knowing that deleting this page you would deletetd another arabic refrence page in an already poor arabic data base number of pages in Wiki, which many users in the arab world needs to extract more arabic info from, but the poor number of arabic info on your website is one of the major problem with wiki for the arabic user, so i really hope you won't delet the page. Regards PS: thsi is the editor of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.77.12 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC) — 86.108.77.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - This is an English language wiki … why don't you try the Arabic language wiki at http://ar.wikipedia.org/ ? OTOH, they probably have a policy discouraging autobiographies as well … for purposes of WP:Notability, how much the subject may have written is not nearly as important as what has been written about the subject. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete becuase i changed the Disbuted word hi this the writer khaled yousef i changed the much disputed word, it is my nick name in journalisim and not a fact, i appreciate your support on not deleting the page. Regards to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.77.12 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

struck multiple !vote from anon editor (same IP). Agricola44 (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Don't Delete this important Autobiogrophy page we in Jordan know the writer and he is one of the experts in the Islamic Banking and Finance and his page has lots of useful info, why you want to delete it? is it becuase about Islam ? do the admins have Islamo phobia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.154.133 (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons contributors to this discussion have articulated for supporting the article's deletion are based on Wikipedia's notability inclusion policy - the requirement that all articles' subjects should already have received substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources, like books, newspaper pieces, scholarly journal articles, and so on. No such coverage appears to exist for the subject of this article. I do not believe this has anything to do with Islamophobia in any shape or form. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete this Article hi i am a collegue with dr khaled at the news paper, please don't delete this important article, as for father of islamic banking, it is his journalisim neck name that is called by, it is a prevelige for you to has his page on your website, and this is a public encyclopedia after all.Rami —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.154.133 (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

struck multiple !vote from anon editor (same IP). Agricola44 (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Copyvio, fantastic claims with no supporting WP:RS, etc, etc – this is a vanity page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the subject, Khaledyousef (talk · contribs), has been adding links to their WP:AUTO to other articles … I have reverted them and warned them that continued disruptive edits could lead to their being blocked from editing here. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 23:28, 5 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) 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtiss Colvin[edit]

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

Sporting achievements appear to fail WP:NSPORTS, but more importantly all the coverage seems to be about his arrest/trial for an assault/manslaughter. Therefore I think it's important that the community have an opportunity to verify if this is a WP:BLP1E problem. Bigger digger (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PERP and WP:NSPORTS/WP:ATHLETE. I was hoping that there might be enough for a pass on the college record claim or even the high school state championships, but I cannot find anything to verify those claims. One reference states that he was a Golden Gloves champion[3], but the best I can find at GoldenGloves.com is a top 8 finish in his weight class[4]. Location (talk) 21:14, 30 October 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) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Offender (song)[edit]

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

This song did not chart in any country, noted here. The only notability it offers is the song's use in a commercial and a video game. Also, the reference given does not mention this song. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the Official Chart Company it charted at number 24 in the UK when it was rereleased. That info is also in the the bands discography that the nominator linked to. External reference here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dylanfromthenorth. Edward321 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 30 October 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) 09:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die, All Right!/Supply and Demand[edit]

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

Neither of the two songs on this release charted in any country (shown here). A similar discussion is here D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 23 October 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) 12:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Double A-Side, as per WP:NSONGS, which states that: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." If the redirect is reverted, an admin can always protect the page.--hkr Laozi speak 17:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage and didn't chart. No objection to a redirect, but think The Hives would be a better target. PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 6 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aegean Republic[edit]

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

This article seems as someones fantasy and there are no sources added. (WP:Sources) Vinie007 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Vinie007 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User made his comment on Talk Page of Aegean Republic. —Vinie007 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete and utter fiction. Constantine ✍ 11:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be wonderful if Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Albanians and Macedonians could all get along well enough to merge, but I somehow don't see that happening any time soon. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source, no fact, no encycloapedic information. This is not a place to tell dreams. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A heap of contrived rubbish.--Damac (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOLLLLLLLL, Delete as utter fantasy. A union of Greece and Turkey?? Wut? Hairhorn (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A union between Albania and Serbia is even a bigger deal! --Vinie007 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the mutual enmity that we see on Wikipedia the union of Greece and Albania seems the most unlikely. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And actually it's a waste of time to have this as an AfD, it should have been a speedy.--Sulmuesi (talk) 18:27, 5 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 Khleo Thomas. Ged UK 09:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Unlimited[edit]

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

Founded in 2010, hasn't released anything major yet; creator states on talkpage s/he's trying to promote the founder. Google-hits are difficult to sort out as the name is used by other companies as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Khleo Thomas. Founder is notable, company is not. Also, this entry is relatively short, so size isn't a problem.--hkr Laozi speak 12:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Khleo Thomas VER Tott 12:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and all his unreleased or un-notable albums as well Just A Sample (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The World Is A Cartoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Triwbe (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall Attack[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a game guide: "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides...". Colonel Warden (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I'll disclose that I am the original author for the article, although it was back in 2005 when inline citations weren't considered so crucial.) Chess has more independent literature on it than all Super Mario and Pokemon games put together and almost all serious chess openings have multiple books written about them. Regarding the Stonewall Attack specifically, the opening is not a primary opening at the top level, but it has received a fair amount of coverage, and a look at Amazon shows that there is at least one monograph book devoted to this opening, "The Stonewall Attack" by Andrew Soltis (1993). In addition, several books devote a chapter to the Stonewall, for example "How to beat 1 d4" by Rizzitano and "Dealing with d4 deviations" by Cox. This in addition to the sources cited in the article, so I am quite certain the article is notable. An overview of the strategies involved in the Stonewall, and its popularity is appropriate material for an encyclopedia as long as it doesn't get bogged down with specific moves. There are parts of the current article I don't like much, for example "Sample game" (which was taken from the Evans article), but that is not a reason to delete the whole article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other books on the Stonewall (besides numerous general books):

White Opening System: Combining Stonewall Attack, Colle System, Torre Attack (Soltis)
Aagaard, Jacob (2001). Dutch Stonewall
Johnsen, Sverre; Bern, Ivar; Agdestein, Simen (2009). Win With the Stonewall Dutch
Dealing with d4 Deviations: Fighting The Trompowsky, Torre, Blackmar-Diemer, Stonewall, Colle and Other Problem Openings, by John Cox
Modern Stonewall Dutch, by Eric Schiller
Trends in the Classical and Stonewall Dutch vol 2, Bogdan Lalic Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disputed that there are books about chess opening and lots of them. The issue here is whether strategy guides are appropriate material given that we have a policy which explicitly forbids them. Walkthroughs and strategy guides are commonly deleted for other games, such as computer games. This happens even though there are books written about them too. This material seems no different. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer games are plot-based, and game guides/walkthroughs are then more or less on par with extensive retellings of the plot. Such game guides and walkthroughs are usually poorly sourced as well (either being OR, sourced to game magazines which are published by the same people who made the game, or self-published by fans.) Chess is a different thing entirely, and often treated as a sport and science as well as a game. Overviews of strategy are crucial for understanding the game's nature. Chess openings can be covered in encyclopedic instead of an instructional fashion, as illustrated by books like Oxford Companion to Chess, which is a specialist encyclopedia and not an instructional book. Instead of comparing this to computer game guides, I think a far more pertinent comparison is with Formation (association football), which tells about contemporary football strategy without being game guide content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Games played on the computer are of all kinds - the computer is a medium not the message. Chess may be played on the computer too and the article in question discusses computer play and strategy. Your claim that this "is a different thing entirely" is thus refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two sentences about computers in the article. The article isn't telling you how to play against a computer. People play the Stonewall against other people. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference as our policy forbids game guides of all sorts, not just computer game guides. The how-to policy is used to strike down instructional material of all kinds. The point is that we are not here to provide detailed instructions on how to do something. For one thing, someone might sue us if we get it wrong. So, we might have an article about chess openings which discusses them as a cultural and intellectual phenomenon and gives a few examples. What we don't do is list all the openings, detailing their moves and pros/cons. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is descriptive and not "how to" and not instructional. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Keep - It's a Chess Opening and none of those things described by the AFD nominator. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A chess opening is a game guide, being a walkthrough or how-to for the game. These are explicitly forbidden by the policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is definitely notable. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in question. There are many topics which are covered in great detail in sources but we still choose not to cover them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the objections do not apply. The article describes one of a very large number of chess openings. It isn't a walk through, game guide, etc. It isn't written as an instruction manual. It doesn't say "put this piece on that square then put this piece on that square." It doesn't tell you what to play, as there are many alternate openings. It describes how this particular system is played (i.e. it is encyclopedic as opposed to instructional). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:12, 29 October 2010

(UTC)

Of course it's a walkthrough. It's all about the particular moves one can make in this branch of the game tree and their strategic and tactical merits. For example, it starts "it is characterized by White playing 1.d4, 2.e3, 3.f4 and 4.c3". It then goes on to discuss how if White does this then Black can do that and so on. Just what is meant by a "game guide" if it is not material of this kind? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game guide links to: "Strategy guides are instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games." This isn't hint, a complete solution, or a video game. Read the intro of walkthrough and you see that it doesn't apply either. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the articles you cite are poorly sourced. Per the OED, a guide is "In the titles of books: A book of instruction or information for beginners or novices (in an art, etc.)". A game guide is therefore, in plain English, a guide to a game and we forbid these just as we forbid travel guides and other instructional works. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is Original synthesis. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as most serious chess players will know, this is a chess opening and merits a place alongside all the other chess openings on WP. Yes, there may be elements of strategic or tactical guidance contained within the article, but intrinsically, that is what a chess opening is - a systematic method of developing the pieces in order to achieve certain strategic and tactical objectives. Other chess opening articles offer similar guidance and for good reason. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that we need an explanation of what a chess opening is. The point at issue here is our policy. Do you have a policy-based argument? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are all about interpretation. You have to look deeper. It is clear that the many opening articles on WP attempt to describe, in an encyclopedic manner, what are the known elements of an individual opening, the basic moves, the common themes, tactics, motifs and tabiyas. Removing this material would be to treat the subject in a shallow, superficial manner and it would fail to communicate any understanding to the reader. Simply stating the established strategies and aims of an opening is not however the same as - (1) advocating the use of a particular opening to the reader, or (2) delivering a detailed exposition of which lines lead to an advantage and the extent of that advantage, or (3) pointing out any unexplored avenues that exist and which might lead to promising positions, or (4) describing how known positions might be evaluated or re-evaluated to enhance or improve our theoretical understanding of a position. It is those types of treatment of the subject matter that would comprise an instructional guide on chess openings and would of course also contain subjective opinions and original research. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is no more a game guide than Sacrifice bunt or Intentional walk. It is about a single strategy that can be used at a single point in a game. As such, it is clearly outside the intent of WP:NOTGUIDE. The subject has obviously received significant coverage, and book-length treatment is about as good as it gets. Given that NOTGUIDE does not seem to apply as written, there is no policy-based reason for deletion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's chess opening articles are not game guides. This hasn't come up recently, but a few years ago several chess openings were nominated for AFD with the same rationale and the articles were kept. Certainly consensus can change, but other commenter's comparisons to articles describing aspects of other sports are apt. These articles are akin to those you can find in Category:American football formations. Quale (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 30 October 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 The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn (WP:NAC)--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raminder Gill[edit]

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

Declined prod, non notable politician, the article is largely a list of elections the subject did not win. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gill was an elected member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1999 to 2003, serving as a backbench member of the governing party. He's notable, even if the article could stand to be improved (which I may do presently). CJCurrie (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per CJCurrie. All provincial members, modern or historical, warrant articles, from any province (ditto any territorial members).Skookum1 (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MPPs are deemed to be notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, I'm convinced. Can we find some sources and this this one up a bit? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Raminder+Gill%22. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:27, 30 October 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) 07:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Interests of Latvia[edit]

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

Entirely inappropriate as an article and would be inappropriate in userspace under WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nominated, and don't you dare increasing fishing quotas! Side note, official govt's stance on the subject is far less radical [5] and does not even mention the anchovies! East of Borschov 06:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no encyclopedic value. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 08:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - ZOMG! A summary of tv show, probably biased towards representing views of a minor political party, how will we ever live without this? Oh, wait, if you are really diligent you could try to merge it with PLL ~~Xil (talk) 17:52, 2 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) 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Robert von Brennen of Hanover[edit]

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

I think it's possible, that the article is a fake. The father Dennis is not a son of Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover (1914–1987). In this case this article is Wikipedia:Vandalism and author should be blocked. --Pitlane02 (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His title Prinz Robert Patrick von Brennen das Sechste von der Haus von Dusseldorf is incorrect German, so it's most probably a fake. Delete. --Komischn (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is nothing wrong with this article except that this person obviously doesn't exist. But there is plenty of precedent that a colourful name is sufficient for entitlement to a Wikipedia article. Hans Adler 16:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basic inconsistency regarding place of birth (Düsseldorf or some hospital in the US?), neither reference mentions him and the access dates are back in 2008. I cannot find coverage sufficient to establish notability and although I am not sure what our standard is with respect to members of the (former) aristocracy, I believe that at least until he comes of age and preferably until he inherits something, right now his only possible claims to notability are literally inherited. So, not encyclopedic even if the article were improved to not contradict itself and to have valid refs. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:29, 30 October 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. Apparently withdrawn by nom, also WP:SNOW. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPA vowels chart with audio[edit]

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

Does not seem to be an article at all, as such. It is completely without context and these issues have been highlighted by others. Article creator simply repeats 'no consensus' and gives other seemingly meaningless edit summaries. If anyone wants to randomly push buttons without a scooby what they're doing, they would be much better off here <http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/news/radiophonatron.shtml>. Mannafredo (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is pretty useful, and certainly encyclopedic. The only thing lacking is a decent introduction to provide context. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Recently bundled into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPA pulmonic consonants chart with audio. Abductive (reasoning) 09:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits, as I think this could prove useful - if it is expanded into a proper article. It could be argued that it is a reasonable fork of International Phonetic Alphabet, in that having the chart with audio links would bloat the main article unreasonably. I almost closed this outright, btw, since it was last nominated for deletion last week, with a no consensus result. I don't see any discussion or change in consensus since that AFD to suggest that this one will end any differently. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added a rudimentary lead and context paragraph, to explain what the hell the chart actually says. Seeing that the main article includes this template, I'd suggest that it could be removed in favor of a See also hatnote on the section. If the template remains in the main article, then yes this version is redundant and should be deleted. But it works better as a fork, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - I see no harm as a fork, and it's an article with large embedded files, which work better and load faster as a separate article. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Abductive comment above: was already discussed, concluded "No consensus". I noted this in edit comments here and here. Strange that the nom here (Mannafredo) has not read even one of these links. The correct action should be: read the closed discussion (linked twice), if needed talk with the closing admin. This is my third and final reference to a well done discussion. Best solution would be: nom retracts proposal. -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nom here (Mannafredo) seems to think that by removing the AfD template from the article, that the proposal has been withdrawn. -DePiep (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they confirmed their intent on the talk page, and that no one has reverted the removal? Probably. I'll ping WT:AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close this was just discussed. Waiting a fortnight first would be nice... if not longer. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator may have withdrawn this one - see this diff on the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 30 October 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) 07:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Steel[edit]

Casino Steel (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)

The page is total nonsense and is a complete falsification that is very provocative for the REAL artist Casino Steel. www.casinosteel.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kweenqueen (talk • contribs)

Delete - Casino Steel, the former member of The Boys, does seem to have made some (probably non-notable) recordings with Gary Holton, but nothing on this page seems to be true -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a "real" Casino Steel, but the content of this is totally invented and has to go under WP:HOAX. If someone wants to write a proper article they're welcome to, but this should be blown up and started over. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 30 October 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. But with no prejudice to the various ideas for improvement such as moving, etc, which can be discussed elsewhere. There is consensus that the redlinks should be removed from non-notable clubs which is a normal editing move. Davewild (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of curling clubs in New Brunswick[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTDIR. almost all list entries are non notable. also nominating similar articles:

LibStar (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination (but remember to tag all articles when you make a bundled nomination like this!). Curling is clearly a popular sport in Canada, but the vast majority of these clubs are amateur organizations which certainly should not have articles. Coverage of every amateur club is an excessive amount of detail. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The solution I think, is to remove the red links from non notable clubs. According to WP:CURLING, most curling clubs are in fact notable, anyways, but that could be up for debate. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I created these lists, because I felt the ever growing list on the curling article was getting too long, and it's better to have some sort of page. Also, these pages are not just a "directory", they also explain the zone structure in the provinces which are important for the various provincial tournaments. Lastly, the pages could be improved like the list of curling clubs in Ontario page to include stuff like sheet numbers, and perhaps even more information in the future. Year built, rock colours, etc. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CURLiNG is not an established guideline. "Most curling clubs are notable" I strongly disagree, most would fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's debatable, and irrelevant. The List of curling clubs in the United States for example does not even use red links, and that is something that can be done for these lists. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT Vodello (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For whom? Care to elaborate? -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, possibly Move - Some of the information is valuable, but I think it is misplaced in a list like this. I think a better location for these articles would be Curling in Saskatchewan, etc, which could include the zone structure and list of clubs, as well as notable alumni from those clubs, national champions, as well as world and Olympic champions. The information is important, but I think these standalone lists are not the correct way to present the information. Canada Hky (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting compromise. This information is useful, and will have to be incorporated somehow even if these articles are deleted. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, interesting idea. I think it would be a better thing than to simply throw everything out. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive detail, the vast majority of the clubs are not notable. I like the idea of possibly working the content into Curling in ... as a means of saving them, but there isn't even a Curling in Canada article yet, let alone each of the provinces. PK T(alk) 12:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if most of the clubs are not notable, that's not a reason to delete these lists. Some of the clubs are notable, and it would be biased to remove the non notable ones, but we could de-red link them. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace temporarily.The Manual of Style (lists) tells us to avoid lists of redlinks. I know this entails a heck of a lot of work, but I support Canada Hky's idea of creating regional curling articles. Would be willing to help if that ends up being the case. The Interior(Talk) 18:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the information to my userspace FWIW. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and de-redlink. The individual clubs themselves may or may not be notable but that doesn't make a listing of them unencyclopedic or not useful to our readers. -- œ ^™ 17:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and deredlink theres nothing wrong with the list Aisha9152 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. please explain why it should be kept? LibStar (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into a List of curling clubs in Canada, containing just those with blue links. This combined page should have headings for each province, with the above titles being changed into targeted redirects to those headings. Sebwite (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, it would be quite POV to include only some clubs whilst excluding others. I am not opposed to merging as a last resort, however it would be quite a long list. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all at least until it can be determined how many of the redlinks merit articles. Wikipedia is a directory of its own contents, so WP:NOTDIR would only have relevance here if these lists were too far removed from notable subjects or encyclopedic organization and information thereof, which has not been shown. Without that analysis, invoking WP:NOTDIR is nothing but a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Though I do see that many of these lists are years old and the redlinks have not yet been filled, on the deletion side I don't see anything above beyond unsupported generalities that most are not notable. I have no idea. Some presumably are, and these lists appear to be a good means of organizing potential article creation, i.e., one of the main purposes of lists. I trust that this AFD will be a kick in the pants for Wikipedia:WikiProject Curling to endeavor to trim these down where needed, and make many of the links blue, or present a good argument as to why completion is an encyclopedic goal such that non-notable clubs should also be listed. And if that doesn't happen the issue can be revisited again later. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:NOTDIR wouldn't apply because it's meant for Lists containing contact information or being used as a resource for conducting business. This is nothing of the sort, it's just a listing of the clubs themselves. -- œ ^™ 22:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The fact that the lists are well organized into Zones makes the information useful, even if there are no individual articles.Ng.j (talk) 04:09, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Numbers? Everything According to Wikipedia[edit]

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

Has previously been deleted at more than one AfD, primarily because of WP:CRYSTAL concerns (it has never been released, despite claiming for years that it was about to be). I had planned to speedy it, but a number of editors protested, so I've brought it here instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment for clarity: the documentary's own promotional material claims that it won't be out until November 30, but there is an apparently authorized online video available to viewers in the United States, see here. I'm mentioning this in the spirit of providing complete information. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I marked this for G4, and I still think that it should qualify, due to crystal balling and promotional issues. Moreover, films released primarily through DVD/download channels are not inherently notable; previous arguments to keep an article on this film presumed that it would be screened in theaters. It's claimed that there will be a "limited" release, but that's more crystal balling. Unless and until there is substantial third-party coverage of the significance of this film, we should not act as a promotional vehicle for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the film has completed principle filming and has premiered in New York, Crystal does not apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand why the article was deleted earlier (2007-2009), but the situation has surely changed significantly compared to the previous AfDs. I wasn't involved in them, but it seems to me that the decisive factor back then was that the film didn't exist yet and the article was merely about a project to create one - see the "vaporware" comments and the justification for the last (December 2009) nomination: "Its nice that someone wants to make a documentary about Wikipedia, there are lots of books about it after all, but this one doesn't look like it is ever going to happen." It has happened, the film's existence isn't in doubt any more and it has had both its premiere (in July) and its release (on October 20 according to IMDb[6], the day of the screening at the Paley Center for Media). We also have more coverage in well-known reliable sources now: New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, IndieWire, Süddeutsche Zeitung (the largest German daily) as well as in other notable publications (The Register [7], The Inquirer [8]) and in specialist but reasonably reliable media [9][10] etc.). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no longer merely crystal. The sources are fully adequate. It's a shame the film has been so long in production that its significance is not as great as it might have been, but it is still notable DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now the film exists and the sources are here. Koko90 (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Difficult to deal with, but obviously notable. Reviews are starting to show up and will increase when the film is released. Fred Talk 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sourcing is provided to establish notability, and there seems to be plenty more out there. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: AOL's "Urlesque" blog published a review yesterday and actually made reference to this AfD. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is certainly not guessing about the future (at least, not any more). The film was previewed at Wikimania and was premiered a week ago in New York - http://www.paleycenter.org/paleydocfest2010-truth-in-numbers-everything-according-to-wikipedia I know - myself and SJ Klein (WMF board) were on the panel!. Witty Lama 03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF, topic aside. Worries of Cystal have been dispelled. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of reliable sources to pass GNG and notability criteria for films. There is no crystal balling in the article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:59, 4 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 The article has been speedily deleted as a hoax, and its author indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No More Love (Vanessa Hudgens album)[edit]

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

Another false media article by ClapBoy380 (a constant originator of articles which have been hauled off to AfD lately), which on the surface seems to be a fine article but once you read it, you realize that Vanessa Hudgens has never been to prison for pot possession (much less while she was filming the HSM movies), is not an Island Def Jam artist, nor are any of the artists mentioned elswhere in the article Island Def Jam artists, along with a clearly MS Paint'ed album cover. And when you get to the bottom, no sources. Article creator has been warned multiple times not to create these false articles and this is their most elaborate farce yet. Nate • (chatter) 05:09, 29 October 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) 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Keaggy[edit]

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

Ian Keaggy is not notable simply because his father is. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, and subject does not meet the criteria listed in WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hot Chelle Rae. Merging and redirecting articles on band members is always a better option than deleting them. Content verifiable via [11], [12], but not individually notable.--Michig (talk) 16:03, 30 October 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) 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Case (physicist)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC NW (Talk) 03:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet those requirements, provided that someone bothers to update the article to detail his notability, as confirmed in Google Books [13]. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF. The googlebooks search linked by User:Regent of the Seatopians above, once inspected carefully, does not indicate any evidence of significant academic impact. GoogleScholar citability results are paltry[14], with h-index in single digits and the highest cited paper with only 21 citations. No significant academic awards or honors mentioned anywhere (I did check his webpage at Grinnell and did a bit of google-searching), and nothing else to show passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nsk92 with GS h index = 3. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete ~~I got an h-index of 7 or so (link to gscholar search), but still not significant in the context of the field.~~ Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 01:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's W B Case. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I see. My bad. Thanks for the catch. Ray^Talk 14:20, 31 October 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 as a poorly sourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meryl Runion[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete She actually does get a few hits at Google News [15], but they don't add up to significant coverage ABOUT her. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 28 October 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) 03:45, 29 October 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 IAR Speedy Procedural Close: Another AfD is taking place at the same time. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill van Rij[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Possible WP:HOAX. Despite claims of importance, this is the single longest uncited BLP on Wikipedia, and when I looked for citations I found... nothing. Wikipedia seems to be the only place that mentions him. There's a teenager with a facebook page, and a few sites for a buisnessman who did a web interview, but nothing on a politician or Christian leader. Zero news hits, image hits do not show any individual consistently, in other words, I can find nothing to prove he exists. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: When I AfD'ed this, it popped up that someone AfD'ed it yesterday, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill van Rij.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual film[edit]

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

WP:OR I don't know that "spiritual" is a typical genre of film like horror or romantic comedy, but it if is, then a properly-sourced article with links that satisfy guidelines should be written. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of religion films, very closely related topic.--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Hongkongresident (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Hongkongresident (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While all fiction is spiritual, or at least the case could be made, the expression "spiritual film" does not seem to be notable. Don't merge since "spiritual" and "religious" are not the same thing. I don't think anyone would call "Star Wars" a religious film, although its spiritual background is well-recognized. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it depends on how you define both words. You've defined spiritual as being something ephemeral, intangible, related to the soul, which is certainly one of the senses of the word. But, for many people, as per the second sense of the word, spiritual can also mean: "2.Of or pertaining to the God or a Church; sacred". Both are acceptable usages, but I think it's better that if a reader does look for spiritual film, he get something very, very closely related like religious films, rather than a red link.--Hongkongresident (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as for Star Wars not being religious, well, we've got an entire article to cover that: Philosophy and religion in Star Wars. ;) --Hongkongresident (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Until the deletionists notice it. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search shows tons of websites talking about "spiritual films," including Beliefnet.com which gives awards for the best spiritual films of the year. So certainly an article is possible. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , nothing but WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. He iro 18:16, 23 October 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) 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All that Heiro said, plus no sources. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:19, 29 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Intervarsity Choral Societies Association[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no references and no coverage in gnews [16]. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Comte0 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 14 October 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, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are not yet strong, but it has a reasonable history and it could be improved. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it currently contains one reference. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:27, 21 October 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) 00:19, 29 October 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 Umeå#Culture. (non-admin closure) ⅊™ 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umeå hardcore[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. uncited and possibly original research. hardly anything in gnews [17]. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge There are probably some Swedish sources out there, it's just that no one's bothered to reference them. While the article hasn't enough to stand on its own two feet, it may well be worth tying some of this in with the Umea#Culture page. (AbrahamCat (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Needs sourcing. Scandinavia was indeed a hotbed of hardcore punk. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 15 October 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, 21 October 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) 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Umeå#Culture per User:AbrahamCat. JIP | Talk 05:52, 29 October 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, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A + Plus Comics[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this comic company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources can be found online. Google hits are for a comic store of the same name; Google Books hits are trivial. The comics clearly existed and now fall in the realm of collectibles. They were published long enough ago that I would give a lot of benefit of the doubt for sourcing; my guess is that this article was based on the creator's own collection of the books. But the article lacks any outside sourcing to show notability and is basically fancruft. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. I'm trying to see what I can find in the way of sourcing. The 1970s underground comics scene is poorly documented, in general. Some references may exist, but are almost certainly offline. I'd be a little surprised if there's not something out there to cite for this, though, because the list of people involved is quite the who's who. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote. My best efforts are exhausted. I cannot find secondary sources that discuss this title with the level of coverage and specificity needed to support an article. On the other hand, I think I have the sources to author an article on the indie publishing house that produced this title. It's going to be several days until I can get that article up (it's crunch time on my current development project). If AFD hasn't concluded the fate of this article at that time, I'd propose a redirect to Megaton Publications. AFD shouldn't be held open on my account, however; if I'm not done article-writing (or absent anyone else doing the heavy lifting before I get to it), I'd !vote to delete this article. A history-only undeletion can be performed afterward to ensure attribution underneath the eventual redirect. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:13, 1 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, 21 October 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) 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search shows results[18] where they are mentioned. They are notable because the stuff they produce is given sufficient coverage. Dream Focus 11:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a lot of the Google hits are false positives. This article is about A + Comics, a specific comic book title published by Megaton Publications. There was also an indie publisher called A Plus Comics (also appearing as A+ Comics), which is totally unrelated to this title -- and almost certainly not notable. And finally, there is an extant comic book store operating as A Plus Comics (also appearing as A + Plus Comics). Serpent's Choice (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is unable to search for this. It searches for "A Plus", not "A + Plus". Check the advanced search box and it'll show you what its searching for each time. So if there was any mention of "A + Plus" It would not find it, since its only looking for "A Plus". Megaton Publications gets some results[19], and if this was the only title they published in it, then that counts as coverage I would think. Add in the word "comics" and two of those results stand out. Dream Focus 15:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^yak 17:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources. All references are primary. SnottyWong ^yak 17:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Dream. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources shown in the article, and none have been provided here. The Google news search given above [20] which supposedly shows "sufficient coverage" for this 1970s comic actually shows nothing but results for different completely topics from the 1940s and 1990s, and then doesn't even show significant coverage of those other topics. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google books search is the main thing. Its featured in "The Comic Art Collection catalog: an author, artist, title, and subject catalog of the Comic Art Collection, Special Collections Division, Michigan State University Libraries" and elsewhere. Dream Focus 08:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source for our purposes. That is solely a list of all the comics and comic-art materials owned by Michigan State University in one of their library's special collections. It is not "significant coverage" by any means. Serpent's Choice (talk) 13:24, 3 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 under WP:SK ground 1. NAC—S Marshall T/C 01:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Frank Morris (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD from July 2009! No evidence this footballer meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must be seeing things. There's a silly and unnecessary "if you came here" box that displays in the presence of other articles, but there's no evidence in the history of the editing of the article. If anyone else sees it, please let me know. Mandsford 01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see it on the AfD log page for today but not on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Morris (footballer)]]. It must be transcluding from somewhere else due to some faulty formatting or something, but for the life of me I can't see where...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was transcluding from the article below. Fixed now.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only found one source, so this chap verifiable but as far as I can tell he isn't individually notable. That means he shouldn't have his own article, but there are few circumstances in which it's appropriate to remove verifiable information from Wikipedia and I don't see why this should be one of them, because there's an alternative to deletion which we should prefer—we could start a List of Bohemian F. C. players and make this into a redirect to it.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly reasonable and ideal solution. There are numerous non-notable League of Ireland players from the 1950s and beyond with articles, and redirecting to a list makes perfect sense. Giant Snowman 11:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to create the redirect, begin the list and close this AfD under WP:SK ground 1?—S Marshall T/C 11:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah go for it. FYI, another related AfD you may be interested in is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Morris (Irish footballer). Thanks, Giant Snowman 14:04, 31 October 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) 19:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Party Marching Band[edit]

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

Non-notable band of unstable membership, no albums or at least singles released, doesn't even have its own website. Incarnatus (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability presented in article, apparently they show up at events and play unexpectedly, which would seem to confirm non-notability as even garage level bands are able to get official gigs at least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band was invited to play at the Detroit Marathon and at Honk. The band gets lots of other bookings where their appearance is known to the host but not the guests. Try typing "detroit party m" into Google and see what happens. Blame me for writing a poor article, don't blame the band. Detroit Joe (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quickly becoming famous throughout the Midwest, sure to spark imitators. In fact, I hope such an imitator crops up in the Midwestern city the suburb of which I live in. James470 (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band has been getting more high-profile scheduled gigs as of late (Filmore Detroit and Theatre Bizarre this weekend, Cobo Hall in November), and has been receiving quite a lot of buzz in the Detroit area. This article could be deleted, but it will likely just be put back up again in a few months. The band does have a core group of members that play at every show. This article sits at a crossroads. The Detroit Party Marching Band is more than what the current citations portray it to be, but until more news is published, only so much can be verifiably added to the Wiki article. Let's keep the article up for a while longer, and see what happens. AnArmyOfJuan (talk) 14:00, 22 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe this was not the best choice for starting to build my deletionist cred. This sounds like a band that is taking a very unconventional approach to fame and in the process is gladdening the heart of a very bad city. So much for me getting on ArbCom. Incarnatus (talk) 22:51, 29 October 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) 19:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Matison[edit]

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

I got one WP:RS between Gnews and regular Google search,not convinced he meets WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep one RS is pretty good for a quick search of google in a case like this. He was VP and founder of a notable cable television channel, and founded his own shows which still air, in which he acted. He has been the subject of quite a few articles which I've references - they may not be perfectly 'reliable sources' but they are not completely 'unreliable' either. Tduk (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Could you also please wikilink your abbreviations so I have a better idea of what you're trying to say? I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Tduk (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 October 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) 12:37, 22 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tduk asked WP:ARS to take a look. I found a few sources to add (and added them) and although they are not earth-shattering, we are able to maintain a sourceable article on this person.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 gnews hit doesn't cut it for WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I tried looking at your other nominations, and you always seem to only reference "gnews hits", which I guess is Google News? Where in WP:BIO is this discussed? Tduk (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

read the basic criteria of WP:BIO. You need published secondary sources. Gnews helps you find those. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some of the stuff i added wasn't from gnews but was from a reliable source, like the TV week industry publication. the coverage is not extensive in those pieces though. but libstar tends to lean delete in a case like this and i tend to lean keep though even i admit this one is harder.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are people really suggesting using Google as the only indicator for whether something should be removed from wikipedia? That seems kind of dangerous. Tduk (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not dangerous at all, how else do you expect people to find third party sources? google news and google books are good ways. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google News is fine for finding sources, but if someone has found good sources by another means, and included them in the article, as Milowent has been so kind to do, then wanting to delete the article simply because Google News does not return enough results for you empowers Google to have control over what gets deleted off of wikipedia. This doesn't seem dangerous to you? Tduk (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above, especially what LibStar said. --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 23:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Libstar seems to have said the same thing as the nom - what do you mean exactly? Tduk (talk) 00:17, 30 October 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 Thinking Pictures. Ged UK 09:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Fitch[edit]

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

Prufrock451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Co-founder of Thinking Pictures. No evidence he satisfies N. Source 1 is his own website. Source 2 are passing mentions. Source 3 is better, an article on some of his work, but little info on Fitch himself, and not enough to build any sort of article. I redirected this to Thinking Pictures but the article creator overturned this. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge: The leading G-hits point to this article and Wiki mirrors, various social networking sites, his Linkedin profile and the like. Conspiciously absent are any reliable, independent sources which discuss him in detail, as WP:BIO requires - as opposed to discussing his company or products. I'll take a merger to the Thinking Pictures article. Ravenswing 21:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There a quite a few GBook hits about the subject (and at least one from his MIT days), but I will acknowledge that none of them really give him a great deal of coverage. Also found mention of him in a BBC article. Location (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but that article is not about Fitch. It's about his company, the notability of which isn't at issue. The same holds forth for those other hits. Is there a reliable source that discusses Fitch himself in "significant detail?" Ravenswing 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe "significant coverage" needs to come from just one source (see WP:BASIC), however, I would be OK with a merge and redirect in this case. Location (talk) 04:15, 22 October 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, 22 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thinking Pictures. Company is notable, founder is not. Clear-cut case for a redirect.--hkr Laozi speak 11:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The founder of a notable company is notable; evidence showing the company is notable applies to him as well. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case at all. We need coverage of him, not the company. If most of the coverage of him is in relation to the company, then a redirect seems sensible. Christopher Connor (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Come on, DGG, you're not a novice, and you know full well that notability is neither inherited nor transferrable. That's quite startling an assertion for someone who's participated in as many AfDs as you have. Ravenswing 13:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wayne magician[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainer. As an actor, Wayne has a few minor credits (single episode background roles). As a producer, he has produced a one-man show of another non-notable actor. As a magician, there does not appear to be any indication of notability at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 17 October 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, 22 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a living person who is still active. Housewatcher (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is not a rationale for keeping the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:04, 29 October 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) 19:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New United States Football League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources, official website says launch delayed to 2012, Wikipedia being used for promotional purposes to attract investors. Brief mention is already in United States Football League. Recreate with reliable sources if the league ever does launch. Prior AfD had very weak keep support for 2011 launch only. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, delete per WP:FUTURE. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with the United States Football League that existed more than 25 years ago. In addition, there is no requirement that one must wait until a league actually begins play before an article can be created. As with other proposed football leagues, it has stayed in the news for years. I seriously doubt that they're going to find a prospective investor among Wikipedias population of 20-something white college boys, but there are plenty of sports fans who follow this to see whether anything has ever come of it. Mandsford 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are requirements for notability and coverage by reliable sources. A non-existant league with no media coverage hardly qualifies for an article. Having a Wikipedia article gives the organizer undeserved credibility with others, and I don't mean Wikipedia editors. If so many people are following it, where is the media coverage? —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google news shows nothing on "United States Football League" after 1998. Sure, a new league could be notable--show us the legitimate news coverage, and YouTube ain't it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm imagining that you typed in the phrase and got this [21] which shows a bar graph limited to the years 1980-1999 (1998-99 are in the last box). That doesn't mean that no hits were found before or after that period, only that the search engine displayed a range where the results peaked. In this instance, one would have to do the "search other years" function for 2008-2010 for the phrase and pass judgment on whether that's enough hits to be notable. This [22] should be taken with a grain of salt, since it's a mix of hits about the "new USFL" and the one that played 1983-85. Mandsford 15:20, 24 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as an article about unreleased services (in the form of a professional football league) that may never become available. Not only has this proposed league had to defer its plans by a couple of years (originally planned to begin play in 2010, now not scheduled to begin play until 2012), but it hasn't received much media coverage for its plans. Most of the sources cited in this article are to the league's own web site (many of the pages on which are dead links by now), and others are links to YouTube videos from a YouTube account which is now closed. The only relevant independent sources cited are an article mentioning that the league wasn't planning to have a team in Birmingham, and this 2009 article saying that the league would begin play in 2010 (which didn't happen). The article is filled with speculation about where the teams will play and what their nicknames will be, including which team names from the 1983-85 USFL will be reused, but it has virtually no discussion of anyone who has actually committed to being a team owner and thus investing the money the league will need to begin play, nor any discussion of actual contracts with stadiums being signed to allow games to be held there. And I suspect that so many proposed sports leagues have come and gone over the years that media coverage of this league's plans will be slight until they show some sign of actually getting onto the field. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 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) 09:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die, All Right![edit]

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

This song didn't chart anywhere, as seen here. A similar discussion is here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album, non notable for its own article. He iro 17:53, 23 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 01:14, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolven Ancestry[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing suggesting they pass WP:BAND or even have any notability at all. I'd have speedied this if I came across it in newpages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:MUS and WP:N. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing quite a lot of coverage, but not sure about how good it is. I've added two links to interviews for now - will look again. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 22 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of charting albums, notable members, or significant coverage to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:31, 4 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) 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Demo (Megadeth Demo)[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of this article, I disagree with this deletion. A demo is still a part of the band's music, and is very reliable. These people of wikipedia think that a page does not matter. This page does have true facts, it's very reliable, and the demo was very successful. So I see no reason why to delete this. -Tnd900
Redirect and Merge to the following release, or the remastered release. I support a demo whenever possible, I've searched for this and found only extremely brief mentions, and none in a "particularly" reliable source.. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to add that there appear to be several books written specifically on Megadeth, although non are viewable through Google books, so there could potentially be some information to make this article viable. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:15, 24 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD notice was removed on October the 29th, I just now putting it back. In the infobox, it links to a review by someone notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Doesn't that count as coverage? Also, did any of the songs make it to a hit album, and did any of them ever chart well afterward? Dream Focus 06:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to pose another idea here. Would it be acceptable to merge this into another Megadeth album (for example, 'Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!', since the original 3 songs were rereleased on the 2002 remaster of that album), or if there are other Megadeth demos, could a general page for all of them be done, similar to the page for Metallica's demos? --L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per guidelines and the nominaor. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 4 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. Ged UK 09:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Rautzhan (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Grsz¹¹ 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 23:57, 25 October 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, 29 October 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) 19:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Feeney, MBE[edit]

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

Is not a notable person (see: Wikipedia:Notability) and in my opinion is little more than a vanity article. Exiledone (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescue. MBE is a pretty high honor -- when The Beatles got theirs, it was major news. There are lots of sources, see this editorial or check the links above. It is an ugly mess, but that can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won a notable award. Those winning the awards are given news coverage, Google news finding three straight away [23], although the BBC doesn't have more than a sentence about him winning. Dream Focus 23:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 04:33, 26 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bearian and User:Dream Focus. JIP | Talk 05:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, the article should have ", MBE" removed from the title as such honorifics are not normally included in the title itself -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - but we need a way to differentiate it from the other two Michael Feeneys see Feeney Thruxton (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have started 'wikification'. There are plenty of refs around and I agree that an MBE makes this an article worthy of rescue effort Thruxton (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced article, notable due to coverage and MBE. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:53, 29 October 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) 19:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LaFayette Center[edit]

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

Non-notable failed mall. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can see perhaps why it was nominated, but I searched and discovered that the mall used to be called LaFayette Place and much additional sourcing is available under that name that demonstrates notability. Looks like a well-followed sordid history of a bad development. E.g., [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. I'd like to take a shot at expanding the article and hope it is kept.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:57, 23 October 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, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Milowent which establish notability quite well.--Oakshade (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if the article can be developed more. Housewatcher (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Milowent (talk · contribs). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The provided sources establish notability Rirunmot (talk) 22:19, 29 October 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.