Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 19

< 18 April	20 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete (G4) by Rossami. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Mewse[edit]

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

Recently closed as delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma Mewse, recreated from a subset of the sources used in the previous article, presumably the same rationale would still apply. May even qualify as CSD G4, I decided it was too borderline myself. I ask that if this is also deleted, that the article be salted. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy or otherwise as non-notable. I tagged as G4 speedy, I don't have access to the old article, but the reviewing admin will and can make the determination. Regardless, I felt it was reasonable to attempt. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel that it is not quite close enough to G4 to delete speedily (although I would not argue with anyone so doing), but I feel that at the moment, she does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Obviously, if in the future she charts on an official chart, or meets any of the other criteria for inclusion, then the article can be recreated - but at the moment, no PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I carefully reviewed both the deleted version and the newly created version and found nothing that addressed the concerns raised in the first deletion discussion. In my opinion, it met the "sufficiently identical and unimproved" clause in CSD criterion G4. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination and as in original deletion discussion linked by joe decker above . Mewse might become notable if her upcoming album is on a major. Unfortunately, if this becomes the case all other unreferenced or badly-referenced fanpoop (see original upload of this latest offering) will be added on its back.

From the previous deleted page, (which I copied suspecting it would creep back), I can see that this current Mewse page, at its original inception version by specially set-up for the purpose User:Ughughugh, was a virtual copy of the previous article originated by User:Mdanie2/Gemma Mewse who changed his/her moniker to User:Mdanie2 to upload this. It is interesting that the first upload of the current page was very quickly trimmed-down by User:Ughughugh, perhaps in realisation of inference that could be drawn. User:Ughughugh in his/hers original upload of the latest Mewse article adds in the edit summary: "See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leddra_Chapman" – Why? Checking through to the revision history of the Leddra Chapman article we see that a User:Leddrachapman, and IP 84.13.107.25, were specially created one edit set-ups to contest a PROD deletion with an edit summary that I believe is in similar style to the out-of-the-woodwork IP comments seen through joe decker’s Mewse link. I request a sockpuppet investigation of potential links between User:Mdanie2, User:Ughughugh, User:Leddrachapman, IP 84.13.107.25, and the IP addresses on the previous deletion discussion. Acabashi (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washtenaw Junior Football[edit]

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

Non-notable local youth football program. Raymie (t • c) 22:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's a local group, not something worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish thi notability of this local sports group. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, non admin closure. Szzuk (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Trust for Wales[edit]

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

Bringing this to AfD as nothing seems to be happening to it at CSD after 30 hours. I feel it is possibly notable, but not written properly as it appears promotional, and is poorly referenced (being polite...). I am not calling for deletion but hoping to get a consensus or a rescue. Peridon (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some tidying, added categories and a couple of external refs. A civic organisation like this is one for further improvement rather than deletion, in my opinion, and a Google Books search shows it popping up in various publications: not discussed in depth that I can see, but definitely part of the weave of society. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: 30 hours? We have 8 year old articles that still suck, but are on notable topics. AfD is not for cleanup!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is "Articles for Deletion" not articles needing cleanup. If the article is poorly referenced, add some references. If the article is written in a promotional tone, recast it using neutral point of view language. If the topic is notable, don't nominate it for deletion. Improve it instead. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody close this already!. Obvious good faith, but this isn't the place. Szzuk (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn as objective achieved... Peridon (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equicycling[edit]

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

Copying reason from proposed deletion "neologism and thinly-veiled spam" The page admits that it is a neologism Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But... its a synergistic balancing of 'recycling' and 'equilibrium' that creates a new paradigm for the 21st century, allowing both 'down-cycling' and 'up-cycling' post-consumer content for practical applications in the green products ecosphere. Yes, I work in marketing, too. Delete per WP:NEO. With fire. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism at best. Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damienn jones prefix:Wikipedia:FAQ[edit]

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

Contains tenuous assertion of notability, so arguably not CSD-A7. Difficult to parse text, but does not seem to satisfy WP:MUS. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn edit conflict... article was redirected during nomination process. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19

25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonfire (Third Eye Blind song)[edit]

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

I considered PRODing this, but it makes more claim of notability (receiving airplay) than I would be comfortable PRODing for. The song appears to fail WP:NSONGS. I failed to find multiple, independent, non-trivial, third party sources with a Google search. The song is also absent from Musicnotes. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to redirect this in 2009, but a completely clueless user undid the redirect just for shiggles. It's clear that this song fails all stripes of WP:NSONGS, as it never made a chart and no sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't we just redirect this now? I'm guessing that user isn't lurking around still. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the time since Ten Pound Hammer tried to redirect it, the song has gone and proven itself thoroughly non-notable...at the time the only reason for redirecting (in my opinion; I can't speak for Ten Pound Hammer) was the song was recent enough it wasn't yet clear how successful it would be. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its album article Ursa Major. That is the result consistent with WP:NSONGS. That way, readers who search for this item are redirected to a related article, which could include the information on the song. It is not a function of how recent the song is. Rlendog (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^{(T•C•[[User:Ks0st Posted./Guestbook|G]])} 15:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are others too, ~~I'm going to post them~~ Done. CycloneGU (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) by Jimfbleak. L'Hospital cannot be bundled here as suggested because it is not about their album but a disambig page about something else. Please open a new AfD for the album if the right title can be determined. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nipesh Adhikari[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria, no coverage found in either English or Nepali WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Likely autobiography, as article was created by User:Nipesha. Kinu ^t/_c 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Nipesh Adhikari album JaGa^talk 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC):[reply]

Strong Delete Should not be kept because it doesn't contain even a vague assertion of notability (it fails to clarify his sole claim of "releasing" the album, he probably sold it to his mates in the playground), and clearly an autobiography. Only reference given tells us nothing. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 20:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if his album, L'Hospital, isn't deleted A9 (I didn't find his article at the time), could someone bundle it here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Obvious delete per the above; borderline A7, doesn't give any real claim to notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mute Crimson[edit]

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

Main concerns: no indication of importance; no notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (video games); no reliable sources (WP:IRS). Mephistophelian (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for a weak keep and a strong against your deletionist vendetta on this page. This is a stub that needs to be expanded, not destroyed. Every article needs to start somewhere, and I would ask MrSaturn to expand on it himself to solve both of your problems.Dkkicks (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Mephistophelian (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—the trouble is that reliable sources on gaming, such as Gamespot, have entries with no content, reviews, imagery, comments, or links. Mephistophelian (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG not satisfied, cannot find non-trivial mention in WP:RS. Wikipedia:Notability (video games) is still a proposal, btw, failed once. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no attention has been given to this game by reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least for now. Notability not established. Hey, if it is later then maybe there will be some information to write about.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No valid reason for deleting this article has been provided and even one of the delete !voters concedes that the subject is notable. AJHingston's argument that the article should be deleted because it would be a burden on school management to improve and monitor it is wrong. Actually, people connected with the school are discouraged from editing the article. The argument that we don't have confirmation that it's a secondary school is also incorrect as it has been pointed out that gymnasiums are secondary schools by definition. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christelijk Gymnasium Utrecht[edit]

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

Procedural nomination based on request from representative of subject on article talk page reproduced below. No opinion held and will notify user of request. Jalexander--WMF 18:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the librarian of the Christelijk Gymnasium Utrecht and on behalf of the schoolleaders I will ask you to delete this page. We don't know who made it (probebly one of our pupils) but we think it's to brief and dated information. We also don't see the importance of a page from our school in an English Wikipedia. If it is necessary to have contact about this proposel you can contact me at my schoolmailadres j.lueks

cgu.nl. ~Sorry, forgot the tilders. Jlueks (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Jalexander--WMF 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Jalexander--WMF 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested. There is no doubt that the school would qualify under for an entry under notability guidelines, but in the absence of any pressing and independent case for inclusion it is simply an unwanted burden for the school management to improve and monitor it. --AJHingston (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Three things. 1. It easily passes WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG with very significant coverage, some national. [1][2] 2. Just because someone representing the topic (in this case, a librarian and not even an administrator) requests deletion of an article doesn't mean we need to abide by their request. 3. The requester's reasoning "We also don't see the importance of a page from our school in an English Wikipedia" is strange to say the least. If something is notable to speakers of one language, there is nothing discriminating about it to speakers of another. The article could use improvement though. --Oakshade (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that in practice only the staff of the school will be able to improve the article and maintain it. They evidently do not want to, and it is too easy to dismiss the fact that this is seen as an unwelcome chore. Since we cannot do it for them, is it reasonable to insist they do? --AJHingston (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "only the staff of the school" are able to improve an article of a certain school. I've improved many articles of topics that I have nothing to do with including schools. I'm sure most regular wikipedia editors can attest the same. --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a high school, thus meeting WP:HS/N. The article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not say it's a secondary school, and in a brief Google search I could not find out what grades it serves. It exists, but in the absence of confirmation that it is a secondary school, it does not meet WP:HS/N. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A gymnasium is a high/secondary school, so the confirmation in in the subject's name. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 April 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just-in-time lad[edit]

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

The article was already declined as a Speedy Delete, but was suggested to be sent here. The article is seemingly in violation of WP:OR. In addition, actually searching for any reference to this supposed archetype gives no results, making it likely that this also falls under WP:HOAX. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better than "inappropriate pages". You're making real progress. Keep on the same way. – George Serdechny 17:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an original term, and we're not TV Tropes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're here not to discuss the terms (for terms see WP:MOVE). Discuss the subject instead. – George Serdechny 20:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, let me clarify. This is an originally created term, and therefore constitutes Original research and analysis. No matter what term is used as a title for the article, it's been produced as an original synthesis to claim that these are stock archetypes. We would need to reference sources that talk about the stock character directly, which this article doesn't do, and as described above, don't seem to exist. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete as prohibited original research. The one cited text currently on the article does discuss the general concept of character archetypes (see page 49) but makes no mention of this particular alleged archetype. In fact, no example in the text comes anywhere close to this level of detail or specificity. Google turns up nothing on any of the alleged names except a few false positives, primarily re-quotes from a single piece of Lord-of-the-Rings fan-fiction. Rossami (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously lacking in sources. Possible hoax or OR. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Examination of the cited sources show no mention of "just-in-time lad" within their text. Additionally a search engine test finds no relevant sources other than the Wikipedia article. Delete as per WP:NOR unless reliable sources dealing with the article subject are produced to establish verifiability. --Allen3 ^talk 13:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? 16 900 000 results for only the google search are "no relevant sources other than the Wikipedia article"? Well, well, well. I do not accusing anybody of misrepresenting the facts, but... the facts said it's not true (check for accurate results). Best wishes. – George Serdechny 14:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that not only have you changed the search term, a cursory examination of the search results shows nothing related to the article content. RichardOSmith (talk)

Sure. And the references came to me while sleeping :) – George Serdechny 08:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out, none of the references cited in the article actually refer to the subject of the article at all. You use the references to prove that certain film making techniques are real, or that certain movie scenes exist, but no where do any of the references give any evidence that the term "Just-in time lad" existed before you created it in this article.Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the term. I've deleted it from the article. There is no single mention of "Just-in time lad" in the current edition of the article. I've allready stated that we do not discuss the terms. And you still do discuss the term instead of subject. You discuss the done thing, and I'm talking about possibilities. Sorry, but you are unable to see changes being made, as well as not able to propose any rationality. There will be no dialogue between us under such circustances, unless you will change your attitude to more reasonable. Currently we are going to get out of this AfD with featured article. Everybody, who have eyes and able to read, can judge by himself. – George Serdechny 19:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Origial research and a neologism. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has been rewritten during the AFD to replace uses of the titled term ("just-in-time lad") with a new option ("last-minute hero"). I don't see much in the way of reliable sources to suppose that either. Fundamentally, this appears to be original research asserting that the character who performs a deus ex machina constitutes a recognizable archetype in and of itself. And I'm just not seeing the sources to support that claim, regardless of what one might call it. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OR --Reference Desker (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jennerjahn[edit]

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

Minor political gadfly. Ran twice, defeated twice. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus it's an unreferenced BLP. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a losing candidate, he fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other plausible claim of notability is made. Google News shows only passing mentions of his losing candidacies. Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low-level political bod not holding significant political office. failing to pass WP:POLITICIAN Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brand blunder[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA, This article consists of nothing but an indiscriminate list of irrelevant trivia rather than what an article or should be, most of these are unsourced regardless if it is well known or not. Donnie Park (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. This is essentially a subsection of Snopes.com, referenced to and aparrently sourced from Snopes.com with a neologism for a title added for good measure. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article's name can be changed to a more usual term (see WP:MOVE). It's not a reason to delete. – George Serdechny 08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you renamed the page (and changed the lead), you would still have Snopes-lite with all the problems the nominator listed. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, see A short course in international marketing blunders or Brand failures, for example. The article just needs improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, like just I said they are well known, but then aren't they better off being consolidated into the foreign branding article rather than on this list, all this list is odd various trivia dumped in to Be compiled into this list. Like I said, this list is noting but riddled with trivia that really belonged elsewhere, but then, that list is no better either as it is a list of listcrufty trivias. Donnie Park (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CW is dead-on, his cites demonstrate that the topic is notable. This is certainly a list, and work will be required to turn it into a well-crafted list, but that's nothing that a little elbow-grease can't manage. With regard to Donnie Park's argument, first, "foreign branding" and "branding snafus" (by any name) are different topics, I don't see the sense in such a merge. (I do think a rename is warranted, I'm at a loss for a terrific name, but List of Notable Branding Failures is, if not a decent title, in the direction of a decent title from here.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Investigators adventure[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability, no sources found for book series or individual titles, nor for either of the authors. bonadea contributions talk 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can find no evidence that it's not just something made up one day.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable --Reference Desker (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fibi Love[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and the GNG; no nontrivial GNews/GBooks hits. Would-be model with no credits for notable employers/clients. PROD removed by IP who inserted advertising for similarly named porn performer/escort with no legit assertions of significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although now having a different IP (I do not want to have my name associated with adult stuff, for obvious reasons), it was me who changed the article adding links to this model's new website and a sedcard (easily to be found using google). This was definitely no advertising, I am in no way affiliated with this person or the website, and (obviously unlike Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) I did take a look at the contents of the links provided. As can be seen clearly, this website is not devoted to a “similarly named” person, it is devoted to the same person. Even if I accept that being of other ethnicity I might have problems to distinguish between two persons of her ethnicity, there are still too many obvious similarities between the girl depicted on the added website and the one in question to assume that they are different: eyes, eyebrows, nose, chin, “curves”, and above all a tattoo of a scorpion facing downwards on her back.

As far as “notability” is concerned, the fact that we are discussing her here and that there are people who obviously have lack of knowledge about her (and refuse to accept information available freely on the net to everyone) should be sufficient evidence for the need for the article. I cannot see any reason to question the significance of the media already mentioned in the article before my changes. I would not dare to comment on her fan base (judging from google results, it is probably reasonably large). Nevertheless I admit that meeting WP:ENT can be questioned (that is why I did not remove the notability notice, only the PROD which clearly stated that it should be removed in case of objections against deletion), and WP:PORNBIO is certainly not met (I would add: yet). I do not claim that my additions of primary sources prove any significance or that these sources can be considered reliable (although her real name from the sedcard can probably be trusted, why would anyone not using his/her birth name claim to have had yet another name?). 88.130.115.61 (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Credits are only a few non-notable magazine appearances. No secondary coverage except hiphopvideomodels.net, which does not meet WP:RS. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: few credits overall.--VictoriousGastain (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not reviewed or featured by independent media. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1996)[edit]

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

Contested nomination for PROD, accidentally re-nominated for PROD. No indication of notabiilty of this particular award, no indication of who got it or why, sovereigns give out all kinds of gimcracks. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (note, I was the original prodder). Article is part of a large group of rapidly created and then largely abandoned articles. A first batch of 25 (the most egregious ones) was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966). Mots of the remaining articles are similar to the one nominated here. They are basically empty, unsourced, and incorrectly titled, so deleting them and restarting from scratch (if anyone is inclined to actually write a real article on these) is a much better option than trying to save these. The award (in 1996) was actually called "The Queen’s Award for Export Achievement" [3]. The disambiguation of the article title is completely unnecessary. The articles for 1976-1979, 1981-1982, 1984-2000 and 2004 are all equally empty as this one, despite all being prodded in January 2011 for this reason. The article creator removed the prods but didn't improve the articles. Fram (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the background details, I didn't know about the short but turbulent history of this chain of articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. The article's practically blank. There's no information here beyond that the award exists and it was awarded by someone. At best, this can be merged, but I don't think even a merged article could meet guidelines. --Tathar (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imogen Gallagher[edit]

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

Contested PROD without any reason for keeping given. Non-notable wrestler in a non-notable wrestling organisation. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 17:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete a check of her "stage name" Imogen Jane reveals no new sources either. Gnan garra 15:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and as per nothing in gnews [4]. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Ultra X987 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Repa[edit]

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

This article is about a firearms designer/engineer which does not have coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I am able to find a press release from a company that hired him that declares he is a "renowned international expert", but of course that is not an independent source. I see his name mentioned in gun related forums like this, and gun-related web sites like this. But I cannot find any coverage in what we would consider reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had no luck finding reliable, secondary sources either. I did see a patent application, bug again, nothing that goes toward GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L'Chaim Society[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK This article appears to exist solely to write negative things about Rabbi Boteach. We lead with an out-of-context quote from Richard Dawkins about whether or not Boteach was associated formally with Oxford University, which seems to have nothing to do with anything, and then we launch into more negative stuff about the finances of the charity. No evidence given of independent notability. Propose merger with article on Rabbi Boteach. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- Wikipedia:Attack page; while a NPOV article appears possible, this isn't it, and a future article should not be burdened with this in it's history. Dru of Id (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An attack page against Shmuley Boteach who has been the victim of vindictive BLP violations. Our coverage of living people must be balanced, judicious and cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G10:Attack page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note on G10: with all due respect to the calls for speedy deletion above, I have declined the request. I feel it does not meet WP:CSD#G10, as some sources exist in the article. Also, not all of the material is negative. If any of the material in the article is blatantly negative and unsourced, please remove it before this AFD is closed. Jujutacular ^talk 01:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Gallery at Wyoming Antelope Club[edit]

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

Contested nominationf for PROD. No credible cited independent assertion of notability of this club. Shooting clubs are widespread and nothing in this article or quick Google "sniff test" indicates any special notability of this particular club; Google Books only shows up directory-style or tourist info pasing references. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Convincingly fails WP:CLUB. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Coady[edit]

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

As per the PROD: The subject has never played even one minute of a competitive first-team match for a fully professional club, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, as defined by the users of WP:FOOTY. Was recently PROD'd, the PROD was removed without solving the actual problem with the article. SudoGhost (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated in the prod, subject is a young footballer who has not yet appeared in a fully-professional league or at senior international level (youth caps don't afford notability), so fails the football-specific notability criteria. Doesn't seem to be enough non-trivial media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder. – Pee Jay 15:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diabolical Summoning[edit]

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

no individual notability shown for this album. lacks charting, awards, coverage. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the slightest suggestion of notability ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 12:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NALBUMS. No indication of notability. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disappointingly, this is not a 'how to' article. I am not finding any major published reviews for this album. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic comment Well, I just found out how dense I really am. I just sat here for about five minutes trying to figure out what WP:NOTHOWTO had to do with it. -_- Then it hit me, and I felt really stupid. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Kennel Club[edit]

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

Notability -- I can't find any detailed secondary coverage of it. It's listed on a few sites with zero elaboration. — anndelion ❋ 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy and completely vacant of third-party sources ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability has not been established, and I could find nothing online of this. 'Official' website is a subdomain of qpg.com (The QuikPages), not its own domain. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ❋ 13:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Sterling[edit]

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

This player has never played even one second of a competitive first-team match for a fully professional club. The content of the article makes a lot of guesswork regarding potential notability (potential fee rising to £5m, potentially the youngest player to play for Liverpool F.C.), but nothing concrete. The only truly notable thing he has done is score five goals in a game, but that was for Liverpool's youth team and therefore not particularly groundbreaking. Similarly, his transfer from QPR is hardly noteworthy, as youth players move to big clubs all the time, and often for ridiculous amounts of money. – Pee Jay 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Seems to meet ~~WP:NSOCCER~~ [sorry, daydreaming...] WP:GNG without difficulty. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 12:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How so? That policy says that a player must have either "represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics)" or "appeared in a fully-professional league". This young player has done neither -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was daydreaming and typed the wrong policy. See also the two previous deletion discussions for this article. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 13:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as much as it pains me to do this - a 16 year old footballer with no appearances?! I'm 22 with no appearances, can I have an article as well please? - this probably just scrapes WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG imo Francium12 18:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could say that about a great many young footballers who have gone on to achieve jack all in the professional game. – Pee Jay 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep your everyday uncited unreferenced youth player is a bit different to Sterling who is receiving coverage in local and national newspapers beyond the norm. Koncorde (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean I can create an article on the great Madin Mohammed? Seriously, routine tabloid sports journalism is not news. JS^{Rant Away} 11:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Youth team football, whether Under-21s or Under-7s, is not notable, regardless of the potential any players at that level may show. – Pee Jay 12:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMO, people who say "WP:GNG trumps WP:ATHLETE" are wrong. A footballer's notability is measured by what he/she achieves on the field, not by how many column-inches they get. So far, Sterling has yet to achieve notability as pretty much all his career has been at youth level, and the overwhelming consensus is that youth team appearances (international or otherwise) are not notable was far as Wikipedia goes. This article can easily be recreated if and when he makes his senior début at a professional level, but not before. —BETTIA— ^talk 14:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, people who say "WP:GNG trumps WP:ATHLETE" are wrong. I'm sorry to interfere, but your personal opinion is actually irrelevant. WP:ATHLETE says in clear text, black and white, that "subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline." What's ambiguous about that? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "may". —BETTIA— ^talk 14:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. What it means is that not meeting WP:ATHLETE does not automatically rule out a subject from having an article. So long as anything meets the WP:GNG, it is notable, regardless of any more specific guideline, full stop. In that sense, yes, GNG trumps ATHLETE. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 15:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that WP:ATHLETE trumps WP:GNG? I'd have said it was the other way around, but I still don't think this guy passes either. – Pee Jay 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it does as far as sportsmen/women are concerned, but that discussion isn't really for here. —BETTIA— ^talk 08:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. If the person gets significant coverage, that is an indication of notability, regardless of his achievements as an athlete. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Nothing exceptional about this guy. Another youngster who could either make the grade or not play professionally. Rhain Davis has received more coverage than Sterling and is not notable either. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting would simply be a waste of time. This young player is already attracting much attention due to his skill set. It is only a matter of time before he makes his professional debut and would then have this page restored anyway. As stated above, exceptionally talented sporting youngsters have had pages created about them before their professional debuts (Lebron James) before. Maza1987 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.81.254 (talk)
- Restoring a deleted article is not a big deal. Admins are able to restore an article to the exact state it was in before it was deleted. So "It would cause a hassle" is not a valid reason to keep this article. Oh, and neither is "He'll probably go on to have a decent career". – Pee Jay 21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the articles already demonstrate Sterling has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The coverage is in major national newspapers from England, Jamaica, the US and he is not simply mentioned in passing, the articles actually go into detail and are not trivial. The articles are also for different events, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. When a person meets the GNG, it becomes completely irrelevant as to whether they pass/fail the subject specific guidelines. As far as I can tell, the SNGs (of which NSPORTS is one) were created to show which articles typically meet the GNG. If a subject meets GNG and does violate a policy, there is no reason not to keep it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to remind people that the result of this AfD may set a dangerous precedent. If we start letting people create articles for footballers who have never played a game just because they got a couple of column inches in the media, we will be opening ourselves up to a tidal wave of previously non-notable football biographies. Is that something we really want? – Pee Jay 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Francium12 03:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think there are a "tidal wave" of junior players that meet GNG, but fail to meet NFOOTY. Also, to pass GNG, more than "a couple of column inches" is needed; significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are independent and not local news) is needed, which should be easily enough to keep out the non-notable cruft and include only the notable youth players. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This athlete is now non-notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. To keep is to ignore the principles of WP:SPECULATION. Keeping the article would set a perilous precedent, and would instigate a slippery slope for future deletion discussions. If this person achieves notability in future by virtue of his accomplishments, then this article can be recreated at that later date. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can he be "now non-notable"? Notability is permanent. Once notable, always notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 07:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably the editor means that, in his opinion, at this point in his career Sterling has never been notable....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passess WP:GNG. Still. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ - amended to Delete, see below. Topics which pass the general notability guideline are "usually worthy of notice" (emphasis mine). The guideline itself contemplates that idea that a topic may be technically capable of fulfilling the criteria while still falling short of the standards for inclusion. I make no determination whether that is the case here or not. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but usually because the articles violates a policy, such as WP:NOT or WP:BLP. I would hazard a guess at saying that the times when subjects have passed GNG and not violated a policy, yet still been deleted, would be perishingly rare. Jenks24 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, I do think this article falls afoul of WP:NOT. Specifically, WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, the subject has received considerable media attention. But he has not received considerable media attention for anything that, itself, meets the expectations of notability. There's a lot of talk that he might have become the youngest Liverpool player (but wasn't), or that he might become a future star if he plays in a professional league (but he hasn't). That, to my mind, is what the "presumption" section of the GNG is about; sure, there have been a lot of words put to print about this player, but what has he done? Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, which does in fact trump WP:ATHLETE and any other subsidiary policy. matt91486 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just delete it for goodness sake, fails WP:ATHLETE clearly and fails WP:GNG, where is all the coverage. The only coverage on him is becoming the youngest Liverpool player, (which didn't happen) and scoring 5 goals in a reserve game or whatever it was, hardly notable that is it.–LiamTaylor– 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, as lack of notability argument is not convincing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To all those who are saying we should keep this article based on WP:GNG, on what aspect of Sterling's career are you basing this assertion? The only thing I can possibly see that would support this is his transfer from QPR to Liverpool, and even then he's not the only youngster to have joined a big club for stupid amounts of money. Furthermore, WP:GNG only says that an individual may be notable if he/she has received significant coverage in third-party sources. Surely this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT? – Pee Jay 09:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still a footballer who hasn't made it. Fails WP:NSPORTS specific guideline as he hasn't played in a professional league, only youth appearances, no senior international appearance (I don't think anyone argues that point). But I don't buy the GNG argument because he has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per WP:BIO. To my mind there is nothing but routine coverage and tabloid sports journalism by sports journo's hoping to uncover the next Rooney. Most of it is speculative and trivial; yes, he could have been the youngest Liverpool player...but he didn't play --ClubOranje^T 11:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me see if I follow your argument: I don't buy the GNG argument because he has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per WP:BIO. Now, this is interesting, because you don't seem to realise that WP:GNG and WP:BIO are alternatives. The quote you used comes from WP:BIO, and I agree that Raheem probably doesn't meet that standard. However, the line above that sentence in WP:BIO reads, "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
So remind me again in what way this person doesn't meet the GNG? ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 13:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind there is nothing but routine coverage and tabloid sports journalism by sports journo's hoping to uncover the next Rooney. Most of it is speculative and trivial; yes, he could have been the youngest Liverpool player...but he didn't play. I believe WP to be an encyclopedia, not a readers digest type summary of newspaper sports section. The kid has done nothing worthy of note.--ClubOranje^T 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is germane to my point above but whatever. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 21:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - footballer fails WP:FOOTYN. Also fails WP:GNG, sources provided are fairly WP:ROUTINE and fail WP:NOTNEWS of which an event that didn't even happen. --Jimbo^[online] 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple sources given (from multiple countries yet) with articles that are about specifically this person. Those are hardly routine. As such, regardless of his accomplishments or lack thereof on the field, he easily meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way? The two different countries from which the references come are Jamaica (his country of birth) and the UK (the country in which he works). Furthermore, the fact that he gets mentioned in Jamaica is further diluted by the fact that he hasn't lived there since he was (at most) 9 years old. So tell me again, what exactly has Raheem Sterling done in his career that satisfies WP:GNG. – PeeJay 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a note that there was a reference from the Los Angeles Times in the article at the start of this AfD, but it was removed because it was a dead link. Jenks24 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is covered in significant detail by reliable sources and thus meets WP:GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly fails the "not fit for purpose" WP:NSOCCER, however clearly meets WP:GNG. For those above who doubt the sources exist have a read of : Boy wonder Sterling has cast a spell on Dalglish at Liverpool (dailymail.co.uk) or Raheem Sterling in line to become Liverpool's youngest player (independent.co.uk) or Gunners to sign English wonderkid givemefootball.com the fist two clearly independent of the sport. In answer to those who believe that WP:ATHLETE trumps WP:GNG - read WP:CONLIMITED, the community wide consensus is that if you pass WP:GNG then you (with some exceptions) qualify for an article, a smaller group can not override that to suit there aims. Mtking (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has the subject of this article achieved anything of note on the field of play? No. Has the subject achieved anything of note off the field (in football or in any other area)? No. Despite this, does the fact that a few journalists have written about him automatically make him notable anyway? No. The general notability guideline states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list... "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine) I believe that, at this point in time, Raheem Sterling falls into this category of exceptions. —BETTIA— ^talk 11:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was consensus to keep in some form, but whether through keeping under this title or merging to another article is a matter for further discussion elsewhere. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Asian Indoor Games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2011 Asian Indoor Games

2011 Asian Indoor Games (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)

Delete Since these games were never held and the Asian Indoor Games no longer exist, I don't see how this subject can be notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep If the concept of the Indoor Games tournament is notable, then this 'phantom' final event is sure to be. There must be plenty of news coverage of its cancellation. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asian Indoor Games, there's not enough material to warrant its own article (particularly since it's a cancelled event) and plenty of room to mention it in the parent article.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a Merge This event was moved to 2013, as the 2013 Asian Indoor-Martial Arts Games, because of crowding of the OCA's schedule. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Asian Indoor Games. If there was info on the process of awarding the games, then it would be a keep, as it is, merging it might be good. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, per above, if there was information about reasons for rescheduling it would be a keep, as it is I see no harm in merging a mention and redirecting to retain edit history. Bob talk 22:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Asian Indoor Games. Neither article is very long, so a merger is very possible. I don't feel comfortable with keeping the article as it is now, but it certainly passes WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability so it should stay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anish 1[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The only link is to a local newspaper which mentions the person, but it's a first person interview, and there doesn't seem to be anything in this article which indicates how he meets WP:BAND Corvus cornix_talk 04:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any notability threshold. No references. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 12:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one is well below the radar Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no evidence of notability (WP:CSD#A7); pure self-promotion (WP:CSD#G11). -- Rrburke (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Area51 (band)[edit]

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

No proof of notability, fails WP:Music, sources cant pass WP:RS Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. GNews nothing - Googling reveals same copy and paste text over a few promotional sites, and self-referencing interviews. There is a review of album Daemonicus here but if we are to take this web site seriously, the album is listed as being "independent", not on a major label. Another album Ankh here gives a record company that does not own to being part of a major. A third album Goddess here gives the same non-major label. EP Limited Brazilian Tour Edition is a google no-show. Demo CD here is listed as self-produced. We are then left with the links and text. The links are all promotional or self-promotional. The one inline cite appears dead from my end but seems to be another self-referencing interview. The fanpoop style text then, is totally unsupported. Acabashi (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. There is no mention of a label on the page, if I'm correct. Also, the above argument is pretty convincing. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third-party sources ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 12:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crieff Hydro[edit]

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

Article is very dubiously written and while it does show traces of notability it is unreferenced. It did come to my mind to request speedy deletion under the unnotability clause but I would rather gain the consensus of the community. maucho eagle 01:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite all right. I haven't got round to putting references into it yet. Perhaps the wrier of this unfriendly comment doesn't realise that it takes time to develop an article so s/he goes round deleting things. It is not a helpful way to develop the 'pedia.

The Hydro is a large and inportant building and a hotel with a long history. I don't know what is dubious about the writing. It is grammatical and spelled correctly, for two. It gives some insight on the development of the water-cure in Britain in the C19. It is much more informative that the endless entries we have on the smallest hamlets in Poland, where there's little more than a grid refernce and a popoulwtion If theis is your standard of contribution to the Wikipedia, why don't you get something better to do rather than carping?

Charles Norrie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.159.136 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak delete~~ It's big and old, and I'm told it's a great place to stay. Searching for references in the usual places (Google Books) yields pages of hits but I'm having trouble finding anything but trivial coverage. It's mentioned in tourist guides in the usual fashion, going back to Victorian guides, but I can't find anything that goes beyond a few brief sentences. To the contributing editor: articles about companies/organisations such as this need to demonstrate notability as per the guidelines listed in WP:CORP or more generally in WP:GNG. Essentially there needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. AFD nominations don't tend to be placed on the basis of the quality of prose in the article. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RCAHMS have an entry on the Canmore database: here It lists some publications that could be referenced:

Anon (1870) The beauties of Upper Strathearn, Crieff; Edinburgh

Christie, G (1967) Crieff Hydro, Edinburgh

Ferguson, M (1870) A tour through the highlands of Perthshire, Glasgow

Marshall, W (1881) Historic scenes in Perthshire, Edinburgh

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other Hydro establishment in Briatin today at Peebles in the Borders. It has a wikipedia entry. Surely a venerable institution that has been soing for over 100 years is worthy of inclusion? It is notable in that its an example of a sort of treatment/medical/resort centre that is rare today. I have put together a coherent story from lots of different sources - from the Austrian water cure to Edinbugh medicine to its success as a business and the critic here just sits and car Futhermore, the delete notice suggests a merger. But with what? Claerly not woth the Peebles Hoel Hydropathic which though formed in the same wave of nature-cure in the C19 is in a different town and county in Scotland were separate organisations with entirely differnt philosophies. Temperance was important at Crieff, and the Church of Scotland. Not so at Peebles. Peebles was prepared to give the sum of £1000 to the town's golf course, if they looked more favourably on Sunday Golf - an abomination in Sabbatarian Scotland. Crieff did not. The sorts of treatments avaialble were different. Far more extensive at Crieff, the emphais on plain living and water at Crieff. It would be like merginng the articles on Woolworths and British Home stores into a single entry on Chain Stores in the UK as they are both chain stores - madly innappropriate. I think my deletionist should consider his position as an editor of the Wikipedia ass/he simply does not understand the concept of the 'Pedia. -- Charles Perhaps the creator of the speedy deletion notice should care to read this entryt on New Pages in Help "articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision". Artiles are never submitted to Wikipedia in a final stand alone form, and many authors may make many editors before they are happy. Speedy Deleter,s approach is discourteous and s/he should consider his contributions to the 'Pedia in this light. The 'Pedia offers a low barrier to entry for a reason - the 'Pedia would not have been built if unthinking behaviour like that of speedy deletor had prevailed from the start. - Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.159.136 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crieff Hydro holds great historic importance for Scotland and has been an iconic presence in Scotland for hundreds of years. Initially for it's healing therapies, then for it's religious stance, and now as the largest hotel and family resort in Scotland. I feel the only concern with this entry is that a great volume of the Hydro's history has been omitted - facts which can be found in the publication 'The Hydro of Yesteryear'. This is a very valid and worthy entry with regards to Scotlan's history and the Hydro's importance to the present economic climate of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Tic-Tac (talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There seems to be a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources which should be investigated before this topic is deleted, and I am not convinced that the nominator has done so. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 12:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable. It acquired a reputation over the years, and is of historical interest. Most references to it will not be found on the internet, but that isn't relevant here. --AJHingston (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more references including the Gazetteer for Scotland article which should be enough to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some inaccuracies though; if it still has no bars, I can't think how I came by the whisky I recall drinking at ceilidh nights there... But that's personal testimony! AllyD (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable - see British spas from 1815 to the present, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A10. postdlf (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Quarters State Historic State[edit]

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

It's actually a typo. The article should be named Winter Quarters State Historic Site not State. The site article already exists and has all the same information.

Delete It appears that the same person created both the correct and incorrect versions under the name "Winter Quarters State Historic State", and only created the second one after the first one was moved to the correct title. Strange, but it's unnecessary duplication and should be deleted. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an unlikely search term for the correct wording.--Oakshade (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Currie (actor)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the guidelines for notability listed either at WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Most roles listed at IMDB are "uncredited". Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The given sources are not reliable as they could be self published (IMDB.com, uk.castingcallpro.com). Per WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SELFPUBLISH. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Miminal career.[5] No coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about London[edit]

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

A pretty indiscriminate list, one that will never be finished and really should be a category, not a list. 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not every song on the list has an article. We can put the articles on the list into a category, but we would have to write ones for the remaining songs. –BuickCentury Driver 10:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't notable for articles, why should they be on this list? That's the very definition of "indiscriminate". 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 10:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to discount a song as not notable just because it doesn't have its own article. Nobody had the time to write about them, that's all. –BuickCentury Driver 11:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the songs are notable, shouldn't they at least have a source supporting their inclusion in the list? Virtually none of these items have a source. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It doesn't seem to me to be indiscriminate. "List of songs which include words which contain none of the letters from 'catfish'" would be indiscriminate. This seems to be thematic and not unreasonable given WP:LISTPURP. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 12:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a good enough list for WP. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion criteria seems obvious, not an infinite list, not an obscure subject, a decent source of in-links, nicely done. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the issues are cleanup (of entries where neither the song nor the artist has an article) and verifiability, but the inclusion criterion is clear and, as mentioned, not unreasonable.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined inclusion criteria for the list. Nominator should read WP:CLN to see that a category doesn't replace a list, and vice-versa. Lugnuts (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while it's a very informative list for those, who never been to London, but want to know more about its culture and life. It only needs further expand and short descriptions for its entries (e.g., what locations and people have been mentioned). – George Serdechny 08:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I used this list of songs to help plan a music session celebrating St George's Day at a centre for adults with learning difficulties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.68.215 (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 24.136.102.226 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Simulation Technology[edit]

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

Unsourced article on non-notable company. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable spam ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 12:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business develops and markets software tools for the numerical simulation of electromagnetic fields, which at least sounds more interesting and important than "project management", and even more of a niche field. Article currently reads like spam: the leading edge tool for the fast and accurate simulation of high frequency devices... a highly specialized product for the fully consistent simulation of free moving charged particles... a versatile tool... a powerful 3D electromagnetic simulation tool... Was hoping that at least some of the Scholar hits would actually be about this business, but almost all of them seem to be occurrences of the phrase "computer simulation technology", and the couple relevant ones seem to be self-generated "about us" sheets prepared for conferences they attended. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—As the first company to publically market an FDTD software package, I think they are notable.[6] There appear to be enough independent secondary sources available to satisfy the GNG.—RJH (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question So many results to sort through, I added (CST) and narrowed it down to 15 results about this company. [7] Are any of those results reliable sources? Or just regurgitated press releases? Dream Focus 17:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of those hits, none really look like independent sources or non-routine announcements of product lines and deals to me. All look like press release material: Computer Simulation Technology (CST) has announced the winners of the CST University Publication Award... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST and APLAC Solutions Corp have signed an agreement enabling the further expansion and interoperability of links... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST has announced the continued success of its software products... Agilent Technologies Inc and Computer Simulation TechnologyCST announced two major advances... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST and Acceleware CorpTSX VENTURE AXE are pleased to announce the latest generation of... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST a world leader in the computer simulation of radiated emissions and susceptibility announces major workflow improvements ... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST was showcasing its CST Microwave StudioR service release 4.3 which includes a number of improvements... Computer Simulation TechnologyCST Darmstadt announces a series of customer centric workshops... The only one that looked like it had anh promise is this one, and I'm not sure that one is enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:SPAM. Even if this outfit was notable, and it seems there is a large doubt, the article is hopeless, and better off starting from scratch Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPAM is a cleanup criteria; not a deletion criteria. There are a considerable number of independent references available, if you know where to look. As an example, a search in Google scholar for their "CST EM STUDIO" package returns 100 results.—RJH (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of substantive coverage of this company (as distinguished from general use of the phrase "computer simulation technology"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it's unfortunate that the 216,000 ghits (6,490 scholar ghits) for the market leading "CST Microwave Studio" product doesn't include some coverage of the company. Ah well.—RJH (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I almost closed this "no consensus" but the "delete" !voters make a slightly stronger argument. That and the copyright issues push this to the "delete" side. If someone has sources that demonstrate notability and document the claims made in the article then the best thing to do is start a new article from scratch in userspace. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bryna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Singer of minor note - no charted music Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her "Make a Wish" song was for a notable charity organizaton Make a Wish Foundation. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a simple claim doesn't make her notable, did it chart? is that song notable in itself? If that is her claim to Wikipedia:notability then a redirect to that location would suffice. Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A jingle or song used by a notable organization does not establish notability of a musician. This sounds like an attempt to establish notability through inheritance of the notable organization. Take a look at it from another perspective. What if a jingle or song was used by grandpa's clock shop? Would the musician or song be notable in this situation? Of course not. Neither is the musician or song notable when used by a notable organization. Cind.amuse 07:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is ghastly gushy and spammy, but she does appear to meet WP:MUSIC through touring (as an opening act, not a main draw) and meets the GNG through accumulated coverage (eg, [8] [9] [10]. Compared to Lisa Lavie, who's unfortunately youtube-notable, she's a superstar. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Patriot Ledger source is basically a "local chick does good come hear her sing" promo. The lowellsun.com archives do not offer a full copy of the newspaper article, so it's not clear what content it may support in the Laura Bryna article. The New York Magazine source is a four question interview essentially about Bryna's fashion choices. Nothing in the NYMag article supports notability. While determination of viability is subjective, the Patriot Ledger article may pass. Yet overall, this coverage does not meet the general notability guidelines, as significant. The subject may be notable through touring, but in order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert an individual's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. At this point, the documentation simply isn't there. Cind.amuse 07:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Video of hers has been shown on European TV (3sat, for the German speaking countries). Country Roads is the only show devoted to country music on all free-to-air stations in Europe, and she made it to that 90min show broadcast at most 12 times a year! 132.195.109.67 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)— 132.195.109.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert an individual's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. Cind.amuse 07:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note - if this promotional not notable article is kept - I am going to hack all the not notable uncited promo content out of it until it will barely exist anyways. She never had a hit of any description, the GNG, our lowest possible guideline to notability, if you are almost passing the WP:GNG you are not notable at all - the GNG is three citations with your name in it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete hardly notable per WP:MUSIC – most of the Ghits are for commercial sites; the article is a shameful copyright violation to boot. I'm amazed such spam found its way onto allmusic too! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once you remove the copyright violation, there's nothing much worthy of saving. Notability is not established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As far as the music, neither the album or any singles charted. I think the tour and the appearance on Country Roads would be notable, but at this point, it doesn't appear verifiable. All in all, in order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert an individual's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. Cind.amuse 07:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jurij Moškon[edit]

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

Created originally as a self-bio by JurijM, this person seems not to meet the criteria for notability under either WP:BIOGRAPHY or WP:ARTIST. No references support inclusion, and tags requesting refs have been in place since 2009/2010. Taken to an AFD discussion as this one was previousy nominated under speedy Trident13 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if he were notable, which I very much doubt, this sort of vanity bio (poorly written; broken English) should be purged from Wikipedia on sight Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if everything in the article is true, it does not add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's A Hard Knox Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's A Hard Knox Life

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

Television series that has not been made. No references can be found. Peter E. James (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious hoax/vanity piece Porturology (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't know about hoax or vanity, but I do know about WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTE. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 12:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to merge or not is an editorial decision; please continue this discussion on the article talk page. - filelake shoe 19:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speak My Mind[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only source about the mixtape itself is an Allmusic tracklisting. The Allmusic entry does not even have a simple star review or a list of credits. The album did not chart, and there are hardly any reliable sources to write with. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Week keep: I have worked on this article quite a bit but it is only a digital album/mix tape. I can't see this article ever becoming a good article like what the Beyoncé wikiproject is attempting to do with all her articles. I don't think we'll ever have any major sources for the album other than what tracks are on it. I don't really want it deleted but I can't say I care too much. RatiziAngelou^contribs 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the article is "ABC song was on Speak My Mind. It was originally recorded for XYZ." Is this really worth keeping? Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I would really like to keep the page as it is the only mixtape Knowles has had, but I really can not find anything else to help the page stay... Perhaps a "hold on" and make the page noticable to everyone on the WikiProject? Than after a week, if the page hasn't expanded, than it is time for deletion? Theuhohreo (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was redirected four years ago, and was recreated. It has been sitting stagnant for a long time, and all we have here now is a tracklisting, and a few paragraphs of prose outlining the tracklisting. I believe there have been multiple efforts to expand the page, but in vain. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I tried using all of my resources to find information on this page and it is borderline impossible! If the "information" in this article is not enough to keep it an article, than it is inevitable that the page be deleted/redirected. Although I would vote for a redirect, as noted by Ratizi below me :] Theuhohreo (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note this album is already in her discography page with the track list outlined. We could opt to merge with her discography but we wouldn't really have to do anything. It already presents all needed information there. RatiziAngelou^contribs 20:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. It contains twelve sources (more that any other stub-class album I've seen) so it may pass some points of WP:GNG, but a merge sounds better per Ratizi. If someone wants to expand it further would be better. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like someone one to expand it because I honestly don't even know how to search for reviews for this album. RatiziAngelou^contribs 01:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to research review for the album, and their is completely nothing (excluding blog sites clearly)... The information on the article is probably the most information one could find, unfortunately :/ Theuhohreo (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well what exactly constitutes what must be in an album article that is completely and utterly necessary or else it means it's article must be deleted? What is this article lacking that by anyone and everyone's standards say it must have? RatiziAngelou^contribs 02:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:GNG. Apart from a tracklisting, there are no sources included about the mixtape itself. The prose only mentions what songs are on the tape, whether they are new and what albums they were on previously. This is a waste of readers' time. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonella Bizzoca[edit]

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

About 14 publications over the past 13 years. At her place of employment, University of Bari, she is listed as "Technical Staff" (Personale Tecnico) and is not a Professor. Bgwhite (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gscholar citations are not out of the ordinary for the field, no other basis for notability. Ray^Talk 02:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing basis for notability here, searched and found nothing additional.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark[edit]

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

This ten-year old child is the grandson of a deposed monarch, born 25 years after Greece became a republic. Apparently he has never done anything of note other than leave his mother's womb.

In contrast to his younger brother Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark, for this child we don't even have unsourced information on which school he is attending. We have nothing other than his name, "titles" and date of birth. The fact is obscured by a lot of impressive templates, though.

This is an almost completely unsourced BLP article, and it will obviously stay that way unless this child at some point joins a top football team, stabs a journalist, runs for a public office, or does anything else interesting. Meanwhile we could add his birth weight (4 kg) to the article to disguise this problem.

Seriously, we don't have a policy to include all descendants of royals, and from an organisational point of view it just makes no sense. Even the websites that specialise on that stuff don't have a separate page for every member of a family. They have huge pages with the entire family tree, and one person is one line.

An encyclopedia is supposed to condense the available information. Here we are inflating it. Hans Adler 06:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not inherently notable and notability is not inherited. I agree that this is a difficult area. Clearly parentage is relevant when discussing hereditary positions, and this family's claim to the Greek throne is not completely extinguished given that it is not impossible that political circumstances might arise in which the monarchy were invited to return however remote that now seems. And notability of children should not be judged simply by how many ghits they generate or column inches they occupy in print, since some parents go to great lengths to protect their privacy precisely because of the pressures they will face in adulthood, whilst a minor celeb mother might be willing to exploit her child for all she can get. Even saying all that, I agree with the nominator that this person does not stand in direct line as possible claimant, and is unlikely to have much adult notability other than in the context of his parentage, which makes sense only in the context of a wider article on that topic. --AJHingston (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough for own article. - dwc lr (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ex-royals' grandchildren aren't inherently notable the way a reigning monarch's grandchildren might be. --Coemgenus 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As for the other kid, not notable enough for his own article. And thanks for making the nom entertaining, Hans! ;) Nightw 09:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his father, Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. Maybe ten years from now, the kid will be the kind of socialite who gets profiled in Vanity Fair, and then the article about him can be re-created. Or maybe he won't be, and the article won't be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Baseball Watcher 22:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Peters (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician, unsourced since 2007; no significant news coverage found, just routine mentions in local reporting about county business MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a sitting elected official of Sacramento County, California and PRESIDENT OF THE SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. Sourcing is non-existent, and therein lies the problem, but that is repairable through the normal editing process. Sacramento is the capital of California, a fairly large state last I checked, and this is a public figure who has been and will be in the news. Obvious Keep, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CITY of Sacramento is the capital of California. However, that may not confer notability on the county; notability is not inherited. I am willing to withdraw the nomination if shown significant coverage, but I don't feel that a county supervisor is automatically notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator: I would have no objection to a redirect to Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, and in fact that might be more appropriate than outright deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, besides the fact that the official is currently in office, it would make sense to keep as most other current supervisors have their own articles. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is still unsourced. Those of you who are !voting "keep" should consider adding at least one Reliable Source to the article. I don't think any administrator is going to want to close this as "keep" if it means putting it right back where I found it - in the backlog of unsourced BLP's! --MelanieN (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. The article will need to be properly sourced if it wants to be kept. I'll see if I can find some. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 01:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been cited with a reliable source stating she is in fact a Sacramento County Board Supervisor of District 3. It could use more references, but at least it now has a reliable source. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? I'd just like to add that, out of five supervisors, 1 doesn't have an article (Phil Sema), and two are undergoing AfD (this on and [11] Roberta MacGlashn. I think that we should unify this since they have approximately the same notability, i.e. keep all or delete all. IMO, merge them all into the main article and redirect the individual names there because the main article is a stub itself anyway. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Melanie N.'s request above, I've added a third-party source about an award which Peters received. I'm amenable to the idea that all of these bios need to be merged to the article Sacramento County Board of Supervisors with redirects, suggested by Ziqq2144 above, as long as somebody actually does it. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the result of the discussion, I will do the merge. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would like to see each have their own article. Though I am not completely closed-minded to a merger of all the supervisors. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be notable on the local level, which is enough for WP:Notability (as previously argued in Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)). We have quite a few articles on small town mayors and whatnot, as well as county supervisors as mentioned above. The references need to be improved though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Khan-Mayberry[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria as an academic. Majority of sources provided are primary (i.e., NASA biographies, links to authored works) or dead links. No significant coverage in reliable sources found to indicate notability per WP:GNG. Contested WP:PROD. Kinu ^t/_c 06:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews reveals no significant indepth coverage. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Khan-Mayberry does meet notability criteria as an academic. The nomination for deletion is an attack on female NASA scientists with south Asian heritage. Note that Wiki also deleted Dr. Sharmila Bhattacharya, noted NASA scientist. Dr. Khan-Mayberry's references could be improved, but this is no cause for deletion. Several wiki pages under the category of NASA personnel do not meet wiki standards and have been flagged since 2009 or earlier with no nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxicologyfan (talk • contribs) — Toxicologyfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Article on Sharmila Bhattacharya (NASA Ames) seems to be alive and well. Agricola44 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arguing in general terms for better representation of women on WP is certainly worthwhile (and I totally agree that we merit more focus here). However, this discussion is only about Khan-Mayberry, not Dr. Sharmila Bhattacharya, WP biases, other pages that should be deleted, etc. And, I'm afraid the case here is very clear for "delete". WoS shows only 4 publications, only one of which has been referenced at all (5 times). The majority of academics get their pass w.r.t. WP:PROF #1, for which we conventionally require several hundred references. Lots of WP:OR here and some assertions that could demonstrate notability are entirely unreferenced, e.g. "She has been recognized internationally...". For reference, art was created by WP:SPA account Spacequest and has largely been maintained by 2 other SPAs Spacetravels and Toxicologyfan, so may be simply a vanity page. Friendly advice to further commentators. Please leave out accusations about "attacks" and the like – there's no place for that here. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete on basis of clear analysis of Agricola44. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid deletion rationale, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ubuntu releases[edit]

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

This article needs to be split up into separate articles! Windows and Mac OS Pages do it! - Ubuntu061896 (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete it!~~ This confuses users and doesn't give a large amount of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu061896 (talk • contribs)
Struck possible double !vote by nominator. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Not a valid reason for deletion Chzz ► 05:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is neither Windows nor Mac OS. The releases come closer together. Ubuntu releases every six months while Windows and Mac OS release when they're ready, usually every two years. The articles for the individual commercial releases have a lot of content while the Ubuntu releases only have a paragraph or two for each release and would make articles that are too short. Recent releases are slightly longer though, but are still too short. Keep. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article as it is now isn't overly long. Most of the versions listed aren't in need of their own articles. ScottSteiner ✍ 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a fine article, and one that provides sufficient information about the release schedule. I would propose that the article in its entiret be kept.Rajpaj (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Article is conveying information inefficiently and confusingly.Ubuntu061896 (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are the nominator; your nomination is your !vote. Please do not double !vote. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If an article is "inefficient" and "confusing," that is cause for somebody to step in and edit it to make it better. Go for it! Carrite (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least Make the article be named ubuntu releases and remove future releases.Ubuntu061896 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a discusison about the potential for deleting the article, not for a move. If you want to discuss a move, please do that in the appropriate location. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no legitimate rationale for deletion given. If the nominator wants to split up the article, what's the usefulness in deleting it first? This appears to be a content presentation issue that needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, not a rationale to bring this to AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced, nicely organized and not overly long. We can consider splitting in the future if need be, though I can see pulling most of the screen shots at some point. Seaphoto^Talk 06:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First a desire to split an article does not justify deleting it, if it were to be split than it should be split, not deleted. Second, it does not need splitting into individual release articles. Most are just one paragraph long, too short for a stand alone article each and, because most are old releases that are no longer supported or in use, it is unlikely that they will grow in size. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "It's too long!" is a reason to improve it, not delete it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no reason for deletion given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is most important that one can get an overview of the development from release to release. The Ubuntu work method is continuous work, not separate entities. Windows Vista is vastly different from XP, for example, but two Ubuntu releases following each other with only half a year in between are mostly similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.187.88 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Improper deletion rationale. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No good reason to delete this useful article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close nominator is not making a deletion request {{split}} is a different process. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under G3 - blatant hoax per [12] (Luckily for Red Wings fan tonight, no edits made on this page were enough to tempt some of the Hockey Gods who sometimes monitor Wikipedia hockey articles.... Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Juego De Tres De Los Siete[edit]

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

Contested prod. Holiday with no assertion of notability. Don't be fooled by the Spanish name, this holiday is celebrated in Canada and Scandinavia, according to the article. Looks made up in one day to me. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Civilizations_in_Babylon_5#Drazi_Military. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sky serpent heavy fighter[edit]

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

No assertion of notability within the larger topic of the series let alone an encyclopedia. No sources. At best should be on a list page. Azhuras (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (preserving redirect) to a list of ships in Babylon 5. Picking a few ships at random in the Ships section of Template:B5, there are probably several other candidates for a merge to a list. After the merge, however, I would keep the title as a redirect, so users looking for the ship could more easily find the list. —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Civilizations_in_Babylon_5#Drazi_Military. Not notable enough to go to main Babylon 5 article, no List of Babylon 5 spacecraft article exists. MKFI (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see the usefulness of a redirect. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the "usefulness" of a redirect would come from that fact that seemingly dozens of legitimate article link to this one, so if it's material is going to a list page, those articles could link to that list page. Mathewignash (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all links come from {{B5}} template. Still, Drazi ships were featured quite often in the series so the article is quite viable search term. I believe a redirect atleast should be retained. MKFI (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a redirect at POV gun, so I don't see why this would be a useless redirect. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge preserving the redirect, and the history. Cool Hand Luke 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, preserving the redirect and history. The topic of the article does not seem to be notable in and of its own right; a small statement in the Babylon 5 article should be enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted due to recommendation by sole author (G7). Melchoir (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divitian language[edit]

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

Probable hoax. Prodded by me and deprodded by the author. The source cited is a webpage that was created just today. Google turns up no hits for "Divitian language", "Thyrdyrryrsk", or "Thederesk". Melchoir (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! The pervious site was hacked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu061896 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what was the previous site? Melchoir (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sladverden.dyndns.org/div/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu061896 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 19 April 2011

sharerspot.dyndns.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu061896 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 19 April 2011

The Internet Archive Wayback Machine doesn't show anything at those addresses: http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://sladverden.dyndns.org http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://sharerspot.dyndns.org Melchoir (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dyndns sites are usually not used when crawling due to dyn policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu061896 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how did you find them in the first place? Melchoir (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Through a colleague's research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu061896 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has this research been published? Melchoir (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not online but in a book that is currently in the university of reno nevada library.Ubuntu061896 (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author, date, title, ISBN, page number? Melchoir (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article! It's such a waste of time! I will post it when I have the information necessaryUbuntu061896 (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilf K. Backhaus[edit]

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

Seems a bit light on notability. His main claim to fame is apparently co-designing a role-playing game I never heard of. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N I couldnt find anything really other than Chivalry and Sorcery which doesn't appear to meet WP:Creative fails academic notability as virtually uncited and all I found a funeral announcement that doesn't seem to add any extra leads for notability [13]Tetron76 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: There are enough 3rd party reliable sources to prove notability. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 21:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhett and Link[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)

At first glance, this article seems to be well sourced. However:

1. 1, #2, #9, #11, #19, #30, #31 and #40 are primary sources.
2. 4, #25 and #27, #38, #39 are all YouTube links from their channel.
3. 6 and #8 don't even dedicate a full sentence.
4. 3, #7, #12, #13, #15, #21, #33 are dead links.
5. 10 is a press release with only a one-sentence mention.
6. 14, #17, #22, #23, #29, #32, #34, #35, #36 make no mention of the subject.
7. 16 redirects to a Facebook page.
8. 18 is a trivial mention.
9. 20 makes only a tangential mention in relation to another, non-notable YouTuber.
10. 24 is a one-sentence mention.
11. 26 makes mention of an "untitled Rhett & Link" project.
12. 28 is incidental coverage for one of their shows.
13. 37 is decent.

The article is overall very spammy with many third-party links inserted in the text. While the article overall says a lot, it doesn't suggest that they meet WP:WEB; they've won several awards, but they are all very non-notable one-offs like "Contest of Awesome", "Time's Top 10 List of Everything", "TurboTax TaxRap Contest" and "Adweek's Buzz Awards". Not a single one of their award wins meets any criterion of WP:N. As I pointed out, the sourcing is abysmal and mostly self-referential, or incidental one-off coverage that doesn't meet the "non-trivial" criterion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe this article needs to be changed and not deleted.Ubuntu061896 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed how? I couldn't find any reliable sources to build it up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I knew I recognized these guys from an NPR story, here it is : [14]. I'm sure a lot of the current links in the article are crap, as is typical of youtuber articles whether notable or not. Otherwise, I know I've seen coverage of them in ad-industry pubs, e.g., [15].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the article may be poorly referenced and poorly written in places, there is no doubt that the article should be edited rather than deleted. Rhett and Link are established entertainment personalities with significant media coverage. This is really a matter of cleaning up the article, increasing its integrity rather than deleting it. Furthermore, TenPoundHammer's assessment that the awards are non-notable seems to be extremely subjective. --BenRoss48 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely keep. Rhett & Link are iconic YouTube "celebrities". They need a Wiki page as much as any other celebrity out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.65.135 (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously keep, Rhett and Link are celebrities, musicians, filmmakers, and overall talented guys. And with their upcoming TV show, it's painfully obvious whomever nominated this for deletion doesn't recognize/understand new media. If people like Mystery Guitar Man and Ray William Johnson have wiki entries, then Rhett and Link are a billion times more deserving. Heck, everyone's more deserving of a wiki article compared to Snooki. Any links within the article that don't meet required standards can easily be fixed. It just needs some care from a talented wiki editor. (No, not me.) ... anyway, that's my two-cents. LN3000 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that some significant editing may be necessary, but I don't feel that the reasons given are cause for deletion. Even if the article isn't the best, it is still providing information that people could very well be looking for, as they are YouTube celebrities, no matter how much stock you put in such a thing --crazipaperclip 06:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC
Keep: Definitely Keep Rhett and Link deserve a Wiki page. They are the kings of YouTube and have incredible amounts of media attention, this article simply needs editing not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncorfee (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources may not be fireproof, but that doesn't mean that Rhett&Link don't deserve a wiki page. They have a large fanbase and are pretty well-known in the internet video community, like Freddie Wong and GoRemy. Keep this article, and let fans do some work on the references (drop the 404's if they can't be found). --Daniel Danopia (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The quality of this article is probably in direct correlation to the age of their fan base. The article is in obvious need attention and maintenance. Cleaning out anything that does not lead to a primary source seems a more reasonable action than straight deletion. We can probably improve the article with links that the younger fan base might not even know of like the appearance on CNN, the Jay Lenno clip, the Last Call with Carson Daly segment, et al. Brianlayman (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is definitely an article on the keep list. Firstly, these individuals are definitely international notable web, specifically YouTube, entertainment figures. With the recent announcement on IFC (The Independent Film Channel LLC) of an upcoming TV production revolving around their film creation. Their fame and notability will continue to grow and this wikipedia article supports their history. Regarding this article content, sources, and a few of the statement, I can understand and warrant that changes need to be made, all of which can be done. But all that said, there is absolutely no reason a deletion or even this discussion should occur. I hope to see a speedy keep and in the near future some minor link/source fixes. Nicholas McQuillin 07:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickam (talk • contribs)
Keep: Not that my vote means anything, but I did some clean up on this article after seeing it was tagged. It had just too much self-promotion and it was poorly organized. There were several notable sources missing as well. I think it addresses a few of the concerns you all have raised.66.151.52.100 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some of the references seem a bit dubious, but there is enough out there to justify a Wikipedia presence, based on notability. The article will evolve and benefit from regular in-house editing. Evalpor (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In house editing from whom? The same fanboys who are splooging all over the page with unreliable sources and fancruft? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TenPoundHammer, that is incredibly unfair and just gross. I added in profiles about the two from Wired, AdAge and Time. Their appearances as featured guests on THREE major late night talk shows, including The Tonight Show. I found solid coverage in several media publications and websites that cover the space from Deadline.com to TubeFilter. AND I got rid of most of if not all of the stuff that was borderline self-promotional as well as the bad links you mentioned in your post. The videos have been seen 90 million times and they have nearly 1M million subscribers. 66.151.52.100 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Really? This page is up for deletion? There are thousands of other pages that I can think of on Wikipedia that should get the ax before this one. The arguments against the sources border on petty at times, and all the information is reliable, whether or not you deem it "worthy." Rhett and Link are also still currently out in the world furthering their careers which daily bolsters the arsenal of credible information that can be added to this page. Definitely keep. --- Ulquiorra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.134.76 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most Youtubers (unless they reach fame through viral videos) are rarely mentioned, so sources are going to be hard to come by. I really don't see any need to delete it - perhaps add some more reliable sources. I think nominating this article for deletion is just being pedantic based on the points made. Also, just because you are incapable of finding reliable sources, doesn't mean people who are more knowledgeable on the duo can't. Obvious keep. Doomphil (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please make the final decision on this? 66.151.52.100 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G7 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert P. Imbelli[edit]

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

From another editor's PROD: No independent sources or indication that he passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG Eeekster (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not pass Criteria#1 in WP:PROF. Search shows an abundance of writing by this theologian, but nothing by way of reliable third party sources. Most links are to the prolific book reviews and articles by this author.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original PROD (and thanks to Eekster for nominating it, I'd been meaning to AfD it myself for a few days now). Jenks24 (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete having now worked out who tagged it G7... (Shouldn't eat Triple Chocolate ice-cream while editing.) Peridon (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foldback Records[edit]

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

Unremarkable record label, only appears to have released 6 albums according to its website.Fails WP:GNG. doomgaze (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Wampus Multimedia. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Domingo Molina Gómez[edit]

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

I know that when you see the "President of Argentina" you would immediately vote "keep", so read here before doing so: he was not a president. When Perón seemed to have resigned (for the mail mentioned), a military Junta discussed the situation. He confirmed his resignation the following day, and the junta appointed Eduardo Lonardi as president. Molina Gómez was a member of this Junta, but it was not meant to be a government Junta, but just a Junta with a specific goal, define the new president. Molina Gómez did not do anything noteworthy, besides being part of this. Yes, history books may mention him, when describing this event, but that's just a merely trivial mention. Any comprehensive history book will mention many notable people, and loads of peoples that interact with them at a given moment and then "fade away" from the ongoing events. Cambalachero (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was assistant director of the national police, if "Partidos y poder en la Argentina moderna" by Ciria is to be believed. (Google books link [16]). The title would be equivalent to Deputy Director of the FBI, which is considered a position notable enough that its holder passes WP:GNG. He was also a general; if he commanded anything greater than a regiment, he would be considered notable per Wikipedia precedent as summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. So why is he non-notable specifically because of a content dispute over whether he was actually president, de facto president, or not president at all? --NellieBly (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He was not president, period. The official Gallery of Presidents or the book "El Final" by Pablo Mendelevich, wich details all presidents from Rivadavia to Cristina Kirchner (to citea pair of examples), do not include him. The question may be whenever after removing the "presidential" claims we would still have a notable article: I think we would not. Cambalachero (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep- Commanded a division in combat Part IV; looking for WP:RS. Dru of Id (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Hate games. Dru of Id (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of good references to him as head of the Army or as junta leader. Arguments of whether he was "president" should not spill over into a deletion debate as a way to disrupt Wikipedia. If you arguing on the talk page and reverting, taking the article to AFD as revenge is not cool. He is also in five other wikis in other languages. I think "junta leader" is fine, since he doesn't appear in the official president list with a number. ---Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me that his high army rank and role in the famous coup would make him notable anyway, whether or not he was ever "President", given the existence of sources to confirm this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. You know what? It's possible that an article about him wouldn't exist had it not been stated (in numerous reliable sources) that he was de facto president. But that is NOT the point. There are thousands of extremely notable individuals out there who should have articles on Wikipedia but don't, because nobody has bothered to write one. The question is not whether the claim got him an article: the question is whether he passes WP:GNG. That is what AFD is here to determine. He does. He was a coup leader. He was head of a national army. He was the deputy chief of an extremely notorious national police force. People who hold positions like this are notable. --NellieBly (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The three books in the search are 1- U.S. but it's source is Wikipedia 2- German, Regents 4258 pages, and 3- Indonesian, line with numbered Presidency; apologies to NellieBly, he did not lead a coup - he was selected head of a leaderless group; the individual is covered 50 years later in references to varying degree on three other continents - easily meets WP:GNG, regardless of individual and source disagreements of title and position. Dru of Id (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can still challenge those sources and explain why he was not president, but if it is agreed that he would be notable anyway, I may withdraw this nomination and explain that at the talk page. I'm sorry if the nomination was incorrect, I worked with the assumption that military ranks would not give notability just by themselves, and that this minor historical role would be too trivial to justify individual notability; but if I was mistaken, I would not keep on with the mistake. Cambalachero (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be more like the Acting President of the United States than a de facto president, since he doesn't appear in the official lists of Argentine presidents. I think the wording I chose which is a direct quote from the Associated Press sums up his role. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As NellieBly's first comment states, he has held different notable roles. Even if he wasn't the president, his other titles make him notable. Dream Focus 08:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, basically any commander in chief of an army in recent decades is surely notable. This might not be true for small countries (I doubt that there's much coverage for the head of Tuvalu's military), but Argentina is not at all a small country. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor roles in major events can still have a high level of notability. In this case I'd err on the side of caution myself, because a prominent member of a military Junta, ruling or not, probably meets the threshold for inclusion. I think there is a good case for err on the side of caution here because of the potential systemic bias issue, someone who participates in a notable political crisis should be judged on national not international importance, he would be obviously notable if this were the US or Russia we were talking about (we have articles on soviet party chairmen that lasted a short while after all) so it shouldn't be non-notable just because it happened in Argentina. I also favor a low bar for the inclusion of notable historical and political personalities, because we've put even lower bars elsewhere. If a porn star is notable on the basis of one country-level award surely a man who, at least on paper and at least for a very brief period of time was titular head of state should be. HominidMachinae (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if my last message wasn't explicit enough, I recognize the unanimous consensus to keep this article, and won't contest it. This discussion can be closed with a "keep" result anytime Cambalachero (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he was an army commander he was presumably a general. And any general officer is considered to be notable. See WP:SOLDIER, which is not official but is a good guide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice to any further discussion leading to a consensus to merge this information elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Game[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. (Author contested prod.) OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this would comfortably pass notability I did the most cursory of search not much on google news [17] but several websites like:

[18] it is more of an event than a game.Tetron76 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent sourcing to show notability. The sources given by Tetron76, when translated, also look to be advertisements, press releases, and non independent. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made my response quickly and added the first link from google news which as pointed out would fail notability requirements.

The second source I gave above [19] comes from the official NASDAQ OMX Group as proven to be genuine from the link on [20]. This sources might well be considered not independent but its size and legitimacy strongly suggest "presumed sources" in Baltic language newspapers.

Several other sources I found come from Stockholm School of Economics in Riga which is not independent but did win an award in part for this event [21] but since the award came from NASDAQ OMX Baltic this is one big circle.

I think the following two sources are independent and count as RS to establish WP:GNG:

From The financial [22]

The second I am not 100% sure about meeting the requirement is from balticbusinessnews.com [23] by Marge Tubalkain-Trell who has had articles in the The Baltic Times [24]

At worst this is a case of not just yetTetron76 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chas (newspaper) has coverage at [25] and if you want a translation [26]

Certainly one of the most challenging, but very exciting activity is the investment game (Investment Game). Certainly one of the most challenging, but very exciting activity is the investment game (Investment Game). This kind of simulation of stock transactions, which takes place annually and collects a large number of participants from all over Latvia. This kind of simulation of stock transactions, which takes place annually and collects a large number of participants from all over Latvia. Main feature of this game is that it runs in real time, with shares of real companies (about 300 firms from the Baltic States, Russia, Finland and Sweden) and with no less than the real exchange rate, which is updated every 15 minutes. Main feature of this game is that it runs in real time, with shares of real companies (about 300 firms from the Baltic States, Russia, Finland and Sweden) and with no less than the real exchange rate, which is updated every 15 minutes. The only thing in this game is virtual, so it's money, ie, your 100,000 Euros, which you virtually buy their shares. The only thing in this game is virtual, so it's money, ie, your 100,000 Euros, which you virtually buy their shares. Imagine, what should the broker to make a profit, and you will understand the essence of the investment game. Imagine, what should the broker to make a profit, and you will understand the essence of the investment game. The game is as close to reality, and its purpose - to find the most successful "brokers" who will receive cash and prizes. The game is as close to reality, and its purpose - to find the most successful "brokers" who will receive cash and prizes. Plus everything you learn to follow the stock market, analyze the situation in companies, in general, all these things, without which it can hardly be a very good economist. Plus everything you learn to follow the stock market, analyze the situation in companies, in general, all these things, without which it can hardly be a very good economist.

It is unlikely that you have the opportunity to play this season since it opened on Nov. 10, but you have time to prepare for the next! It is unlikely that you have the opportunity to play this season since it opened on Nov. 10, but you have time to prepare for the next! Participation in the game is free for all. Participation in the game is free for all. And if you're in SSE Riga, then do not miss the annual party, dedicated to launch Investment Game! Now you understand how the Swedish raises these economists? And if you're in SSE Riga, then do not miss the annual party, dedicated to launch Investment Game! Now you understand how the Swedish raises these economists?

Notable coverage has been found. Dream Focus 11:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now sufficient reliable sources to keep this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, per WP:MERGE criterion 'context'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it would also be reasonable to merge the content as suggested above—editors can do that now or some time in the future. Cool Hand Luke 14:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebGLU[edit]

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

non notable software WuhWuzDat 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2011 (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, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article, this product was the first publicly available development framework for use with WebGL and JavaScript, and I don't see this as having a significant effect on anything outside the programming department, if there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable 3rd party coverage sufficient to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBC6446[edit]

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

Unremarkable single-board computer with no evidence of notability. The article has no references. It has three external links, and of these, two are to Empower Technologies (the computer's manufacturer) and the other is to Texas Instruments (the supplier of the processor used). Using "SBC6446 -Wiki -Wikipedia" as the query, Google Web found 3,500 results. There are actually only 249 "relevant" results — on the 25th page (10 results per page), Google omitted the rest since they were too similar to those shown. None of the 249 results were reliable sources. Searching for SBC6446 on Google News, Books, and Scholars returns nothing except for two books that redistribute content from Wikipedia. Rilak (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2011 (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) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just advertising a product. No indication that this product is anotable development in any way; every computer since ENIAC has been called "powerful". --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - filelake shoe 19:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Newell[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Unremarkable actress, fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. doomgaze (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is just a stub at the moment, so everything there is referenced by the linked IMDb entry. Although not particularly famous as an actress, plenty of pages from various productions link to her and it they will look a lot worse with redlinks. According to her agent biography, she has been in plenty of things and is also a published novelist. I don't see any reason to delete it - there is enough notablity here, although I may look into adding a few more references. Bob talk 22:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few additional references. Bob talk 23:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2011 (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) 00:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ENT through multiple recurring roles in TV series as well as very lengthy list of nontrivial acting credits. Needs expansion, but no problematic content requiring immediate action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integrative Rehabilitation[edit]

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

The sources do not support the term "Integrative Rehabilitation" or the previous terms attempted of "e-Rehabilitation" and "i-Rehabilitation". This article has previously been redirected, userfied and recreated. This appears to be an original neologism for a religious/spiritual concept which may be confused with concepts such as telerehabilitation. The article actively confuses broad concepts such as "culture" with religious promotional concepts used by Scientology, MGRM ("May God Rehabilitate Mankind") and Dayal Bagh. The article is an open-ended user essay based on an incoherent collection of sources and so fails WP:OR, WP:IINFO and WP:NPOV.

Refer to existing discussions at Talk:E-rehabilitation and User_talk:Fæ#Regarding_"E-Rehabilitation". Fæ (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a term that is used to describe one of the modern approaches to understanding the term “Rehabilitation” – which necessarily does not imply a clinical or a medical situation requiring post-treatment or post-recovery rehabilitative measures. Instead, it emphasises upon an individual-to-society approach - relying on recognising the individuality of each person as a sum total of his/her genetic legacy and their own individual exposures and experiences over time, which are retained by them as memories which in-turn shape their eventual personalities. Thus, it recognizes each person to be a combination of “Nature” and “Nurture” – which maintains a by-default complementary relationship with its surroundings. "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." - David Hume - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please see the discussion page for this afd also--Jn.mdel (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dear Sirs, I have updated the article furthermore and am reiterating hereunder multiple reasons why this article needs to be retained and hence answering all the concerns point-wise:

1. The concern – “the sources do not support the term "Integrative Rehabilitation" or the previous terms attempted of "e-Rehabilitation" and "i-Rehabilitation"” – has been more than adequately addressed in the article discussion page – wherein even the administrator who has nominated this article would concede that at no point was the article even intending to be similar to “telerehabilitation” – and only the earlier title of this article was “e-rehabilitation” which meant “encompassing rehabilitation” – and which was pointed out to be a “neologism” – hence, corrected to “Integrative Rehabilitation” (infact “i-rehabilitation” was only discussed and not even used as a title at any point of time).

And the fact that “integrative rehabilitation” is being extensively used in the sources quoted till-date is quite evident from the current updated article content and the cited examples – all of which expressly state in their publications / websites about commitment to encompassing and integrated development and/or rehabilitation and/or evolution of common masses – and not just MEDICAL or CLINICAL cases, to harness the human potential to its optimal levels – some call it “complete personality”, others are calling it “auditing”, the 3rd talks of “superman of tomorrow” while ICF framework talks of “capacity vis-à-vis performance”

2. The next concern – “The article actively confuses broad concepts such as "culture" with religious promotional concepts used by Scientology, MGRM ("May God Rehabilitate Mankind") and Dayal Bagh” – please refer to the tables and images added in the article content now which clearly convey how “integrative rehabilitation sciences” not only encompass cultural and social anthropology, but also, areas of economics, political science, sociology, architecture (for built environments) and still more.

As regards religious promotional concepts – specifically from Scientology, this again has already been discussed on the article talkpage that the example has been cited only because of a similar concept already existing within it – and that at any time this example could be suitably modified by present / future users based on their sensibilities – but why I personally feel it necessary is because it demonstrates examples of interpretations and applications – by religious as well as non-religious and even corporate entities also – how much more inclusive and neutral a viewpoint could the article adopt? You have to see the respective websites to realise how scientific and intellectual are the activities being pursued by some of these agencies and their till-date achievements – sometimes even in collaboration with renowned educational and research institutions across the world

3. “the text appearing to be an original essay rather than an encyclopaedia entry and the weak relationship to the sources quoted” – I beg to differ because if you compare the first version of the article to the present one, you would yourself realise how many verbatim quotes have been added to it presently – simply to minimise the in-between linking texts which offcourse has to be compiled by someone like you and me to make the whole article readable and easily understandable. And even this linking text you would realise utilises much of the terms already in use in the cited examples publications / websites. Thus I fail to understand where, if at all any “originality” is left in the text and that how the relationships with the sources are not visible still. The range of sources from decades or even century old organisations to UNESCO-recognised body to a world body like WHO – all talking of the same human potential (or call it “human unity”) – I am sure the future generations would wish to know in times to come of the evolution of the applied examples for these otherwise generally theoretical concepts

4. The “Delete” argument put forth by another user – stressing on whether the same contains any experimental reasoning and/or quantifiable number, etc. – I wish to only state that both, the article’s verbatim quotes and the WHO website clearly state how this aspect of rehabilitation has been in existence for ages and how the same acquires utmost importance in present times – owing to even the economic and policy considerations of a state for extending / adopting such an integrative rehabilitation framework. Infact, if one were to visit the relevant WHO website pages, we would find that the work towards finalisation of various checklists, questionnaires for assessments alongwith other related administering guidelines including scoring under the framework are still in process of being shared in the public domain even as-on-date. And this is considering that the original ICF framework was ratified by all the 191 WHO member states in 2001 – and now in 2011 we have slowly but surely reached this stage – all I am trying to say is that everything takes time but it does not mean we do not make a start for this article

5. And finally the last point – “The article is an open-ended user essay based on an incoherent collection of sources” – I am sure I have by now conveyed amply clearly the coherence of the article topic vis-à-vis the cited sources and examples – while the article presently being “open-ended” is because I am still trying to justify its survival, despite me having already submitted to the administrator in the article talkpage that further search in fields of Rehabilitation Psychology and Rehabilitation Philosophy, besides the WHO ICF framework itself is already underway – and hence the article would be suitably updated not only by me but by other users as well over a period of time – as is the case with the entire WIKIPEDIA.

I hope the above points resolve this matter – and that the flag for deletion would be removed from the article page now. Please consider that even good governance talks of all-encompassing, holistic approach to address the needs of the states’s subjects – but then anything which is all encompassing or integrated / holistic in approach pertaining to humans cannot be labelled as “spiritual” – that is the reason I have been trying to make the distinction to the administrator that this article does not fall under the purview of “Spirituality”.

No doubt we have already gained a lot for the article content through the elaborate discussions undertaken till now at the article discussion page and this afd discussion – but I hope to keep gaining furthermore from your expertise and contributions towards this article – as you would have done for so many others in the past too.

Regards, Jn.mdel --Jn.mdel (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Jn.mdel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:MADEUP. The references do not support the essay as a whole, or the use of the term "integrative rehabilitation". Searching the usual scientific databases, it is clear that while this term has been used once in a conference paper by a Lithuanian research group, it was not intended in the way used in this Wikipedia article. In any case, the term has not received any mainstream acceptance and is not notable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment. Dear sirs / administrators, Integrative rehabilitation sciences is part of WHO’s ICF framework – better known as ICF in short.

If one were to search even now on just one single scientific database – like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed - with criteria in advanced search being set to search “ICF” in “Title” field – it yielded me 524 results of which except the few earliest articles which consider ICF as intravascular coagulation-fibrinolysis (ICF) syndrome, remaining all are pertaining to the “ICF” framework – but essentially what I am trying to impress upon is that ICF is a framework which is being adapted and adopted for usages in a wide variety of rehabilitation requirements – ranging from using ICF to describe functioning of patients with Parkinson’s disease (article’s PMID 21427589) to ICF for describing functioning of traumatized refugees (article’s PMID 21422601) to ICF for occupational therapy perspective in adult care (article’s PMID 21391774) and even vocational rehabilitation based on ICF (article’s PMID 21328061) – and similarly 500+ more articles.

Thus, this term’s “mainstream acceptance” is only limited by the fact that WHO has put into place this framework internationally only as recently as in 2001 – and for which work is still on, as mentioned in my earlier note above. However, the essence of this framework has always been in existence – I am sure no one disputes that.

What I am unable to understand is that why cannot we approach this article as we would for any other article – which hopes to build upon through community participation over a period of time – rather than hoping to achieve a finished article before the afd discussion ends – which is what I appear to be doing single-handedly through the more than elaborate notes already mentioned – both above as well as in the article talkpage.

I had infact earlier even thought of inviting users of cited examples as well as others to review and contribute / modify etc. to the article – but then realised that this might be misconstrued as “canvassing” to prevent deletion, and hence restrained myself – hoping that now the article having gone through a “proposed deletion”, followed by an “article for deletion” nomination and then again a “re-listing” – maybe it would now finally be retained as a normal article so that I could then invite the prospective community to participate – but then again this 2nd re-listing happens and now again I am trying to do fire-fighting job against another perspective.

I only hope reason is seen for retaining the article after reviewing the above notes and the article talkpage – so that the article further grows and reasoned fine-tuning is achieved over time from many more users, and not just me.

Regards, Jn.mdel --Jn.mdel (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If WHO's papers do not consistently use the term "Integrative Rehabilitation" then the sources do not verify that this is a term used in form defined by the article. As for International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, it already exists. PS, your keep opinion is only counted once, later comments are better titled as comment. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay about a non-notable term. That's the bottom line. With apologies to the creator, who obviously has worked hard on it, this is an uninformative accumulation of social science gibberish: ...integrated rehabilitation or an all-encompassing approach to human development - in its varied forms and names has always existed within mankind throughout the ages in what we commonly know as “culture” – which gets established by customs, law, education or inclinations and stems from the essential moral principles which we all accept. Uhhh, what?!?! There are waves of similar prose, all of which explains nothing to this layman. What is it we are talking about with this piece? I am baffled. EVEN IF third-party sources are somehow provided establishing the notability of the concept, there needs to be a savage machete wielded against this piece, as it is not written in a coherent manner. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sirs, I apologise for making the 2nd “keep” mention – I too was not sure of that. However, I still wish to submit that please do not let the limitations of my writing style be one of the reasons for this article’s deletion – I greatly welcome and anticipate that some of the reviewers / editors / administrators could help me with the article by making edit contributions to improvise it.

Yes, ICF refers to “International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health”, however, that is the overall framework, whereas this article wants to put forth the non-clinical or non-medical applications – on lines of the “Integrative rehabilitation sciences” component of this overall framework (which has broadly 5 components in all – as also mentioned in the cited papers).

Lastly, the continuity in all the till-date cited examples has been tried to be maintained because one organization, MGRM is talking of a “complete personality”, while dayalbagh educational trust talks of a “complete man”, still further the quotes added in the article from rehabilitation literature talk of a “total man” whereas auroville is talking of “human unity” and “Supermind” or “Supramental” and lastly, scientology talks of “immortal spiritual being”.

I hope you all take a balanced final decision.

Regards, Jn.mdel --Jn.mdel (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — Jn.mdel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment regarding long winded rebuttals see WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 11 gnews hits says it all [27]. not a widely reported concept. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not an overwhelming case, but the consensus is to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Reilly (judge)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. His work as a provincial court judge does not make him inherently notable, nor does the publication of a single book either. He is a candidate for the current Canadian federal election, and I strongly suspect that this was created (on April 2) to promote him, though, I must admit it is not written in overly promotional terms. Ravendrop 06:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I pondered nominating this one for a while, too, but decided against it because WP:POLITICIAN does allow for judges to be considered notable. There should almost certainly be some discussion of whether that criterion should be tightened up somewhat, and I agree that chances are it was created when it was because of his electoral candidacy and likely wouldn't exist otherwise, but as it stands this is a bit of an edge case where a policy that's likely a bit too lax does allow for him. Bearcat (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that a provincial court judge is not a provincial-wide appointment, it is merely a very local and minor appointment. If he were an Alberta Supreme Court judge (a provincial-wide appointment) then he'd have a claim to notability. Also as an aside, there has been numerous discussions on a specific notability for judges (I've lost track of where the latest one is at - an older failed proposal is at WP:JUDGE), but most general consensus is that judges are notable only if they preside over a court that can issue binding precedent (such as a supreme court or court of appeals in this case), and again, the subject fails here, as a Provincial Court judge does not issue binding precedent. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction for an essay (I think it is at least) about the approximate equal position in the states. Ravendrop 07:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, believe me, I agree with you wholeheartedly — that's why I'm suggesting that WP:POLITICIAN needs to be tightened up. There was a similar case last year over Lori Douglas, an obscure family court judge in Manitoba who got herself into the news for prurient reasons, but the discussion ultimately closed at keeping her because she was a judge. There should be a tighter notability requirement for judges, I agree — but that needs to be spelled out more explicitly at WP:POLITICIAN than it currently is, because as written that guideline is still frequently interpreted to mean any judge at all. Bearcat (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but. Lori Douglas is a judge on the Superior (officially called Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba), which is, more or less, provincial wide (depending on the province), and even then isn't a court of binding precedent as appeals can still be made to the Provincial court of appeals. This guy is a step below that on the Provincial Court. That AfD should not be a precedent for this one, because their positions are not the same. In elected political terms its like being a city councillor of a minor community (say Banff or Strathmore). Ravendrop 07:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm satisfied that POLITICIAN doesn't rescue Reilly, per Ravendrop's comments, but I'm not sure on the GNG question. There seem to be an awful lot of ghits to reach that conclusion lightly.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fairly common name. I did have a lengthy look through many of those, but most were about different people, and those I did find on him only mentioned him in passing as presiding judge, or giving some opinion. Nothing was in-depth about him to satisfy WP:GNG. Have you found anything? I'm always more than happy to change my !vote if sources can be provided to prove he passes GNG. Ravendrop 20:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes has been made to the article, giving some background on Reilly's history as a judge as well as more recent events. Refs added. Not sure if that helps make the case for notability; hopefully it still maintains NPOV as well. Let me know. CFV2 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He seems to meet the general notability guideline based on this which starts with "The longest-serving provincial court judge in Alberta...". The whole article is devoted to him. It's not a passing mention. The fact he is a candidate is a really side issue, which we should largely ignore (for the purposes of the AFD). --Rob (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets general notability per above and the references currently on the page, sufficient publicc importance and verifiable coverage, Sadads (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Rho Chi[edit]

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is missing and evidenced by the July 2007 request for sourcing, we still don't have any sourcing. Perhaps the pro-forma supporters will resolve the issue... Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major organization with many highly notable alumni--not in the least borderline. The criterion is unsourceable, and those wishing to delete should explain how they determined that. Even if it were, as I argued above, borderline articles should not be deleted on the basis of this reckless mass nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A century-old organization, many references at GBooks[28] and GNews[29]; the Alpha Rho Chi Medal discussed in the article is mentioned in many architecture bios, testifying to its notability as well.[30][31][32] The chapter house at USC was named a Los Angeles cultural monument in 1994.[33] --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the organization is so referenced, please feel empowered to insert said references into the article. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This being completely optional and aside from the process here, of course. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, the point of AfD is to both determine if the article is notable and to improve it if there's defecincies. If nobody goes back and improves the articles with the information that has been uncovered, the entirety of the keep viewpoints boil down to a "I want it kept because I like it" opinion, completly unsupported by policies. Please dispense with the low grade attacks and folow policy. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I beg to differ. This is not the Article Improvement Workshop, it is a place where a determination is made whether an article topic is inclusion-worthy or deletable. While sometimes great improvements are made in the course of a topic's defense (I like to think I've made a couple), the basic function of AfD is the decision of life or death for a given topic. Carrite (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that the nominator of this piece has been banned indefinitely from making further nominations at AfD, either manually or by use of automated tools — as this nomination was. He is welcomed, on the other hand, to make an appearance here to tell us exactly why this long-established organization is "not-notable," which he neglected to do in the nomination. Carrite (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxilixos; I see no reason why it should be considered a non-notable organization. Meets WP:N. --24.26.42.89 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Cama-Sotz[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage at independent reliable sites to show that this project/artist meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. It appears to be mainly for promotion (the creator and the main contributor to the article is the subject himself) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of attempts at improving the article's content and finding and linking references, but the user who is the subject of the page kept reverting my changes. I give up. Dryfter (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doka Records[edit]

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

fails WP:N, sources give only a passing mention of this label Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in google news or google books. I went to its website and it only has a notice that says "under construction." From its twitter page, the label appears to have just started. Lacks notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Presumably, the Italian articles will be added to the article shortly. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAfrica[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Declined Prod. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too young, too soon, can't verify in reliable sources that it is a notable website yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, see below. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: May become notable, but isn't at the moment. Joe Chill (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not at all clear how this might meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, so that isn't an option. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really good coverage in Italy. Huge. Multiple sources from the Italian news agencies La Repubblica, Il Sole 24 Ore and Corriere del Mezzogiorno, Nigrizia, AffarItaliani.it, and the English-language-but-trivial-coverage mediabistro.com (Designism 3.0 Showcases ‘Simple Ideas That Help People) I made translations of two sources at random; The La Repubblica article is devoted entirely to the project, and the Africultures article is more indepth about the nuts and bolts of the project than even our Project page here is. Seconde partie d'un entretien avec Iolanda Pensa, directrice scientifique du projet WikiAfrica, Africultures Anarchangel (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article page is now automatically being forwarded to the project page. Thanks. Riannedac (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - filelake shoe 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, isn't this moot now that it's a redirect? If not, then delete, although I don't really mind the cross-namespace redirect. Cool Hand Luke 14:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I restored the page. A page shouldn't be redirected in the middle of an AFD. That said, redirecting it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa is likely the best solution, and I'm guessing the closing admin may do just that. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commment. WikiProject Africa may not necessarily be related to WikiAfrica. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment WikiAfrica focuses on getting external Africa-based, cultural organisations, museums and archives, as well as bloggers and journalists, to contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia. WikiProject Africa mainly wants to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Africa. Riannedac (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Italian sources for now, with English sources to follow. WP:NOENG allows us to use foreign language sources, although English language sources are preferred. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gulzaeb Beg Ali[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Seems to fail our guidelines to models, unsourced BLP, suspected vanity COI.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Modeling accomplishments are nothing special in the least. I can't say much about the TV presenting stuff but to an uninformed reader it doesn't look very impressive. Only one hit in google news, general google brings up a bit more (for example, [34] and [35]) but really not enough to meet WP:N. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Aplin[edit]

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

Non-notable academic and author, vanity self-bio. Miracle Pen (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fall short of WP:PROFESSOR and as an author. Notability comes up short. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral After seeing addition cites, will withdraw delete rationale. The cites herein aren't strong enough to warrant a 'keep' !vote, but enough to stay neutral. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Winning an award from the Guardian for the year's best book in a subject area is a much more notable achievement than winning one of those specialty porn awards that, by unfortunate consensus, virtually guarantee notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While I share the nominator's concern concerning WP:AUTOBIO, I agree with Hullaballoo that the award here is sufficient grounds for notability. WP:AUTHOR considers it sufficient if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", and a Guardian award, coupled with other independent reviews [36][37] seems to pass that mark. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If HW agrees subject is notable, the venn diagram portion of those who would find otherwise is quite small, so there won't be a consensus to delete it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Mathilde Ducatillon-Sauthier[edit]

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

WP:V, WP:N Can't find reliable, secondary sources that mention the existence of or demonstrate the notability of this artist. I do like the artists work, but that isn't a notability criteria. The DE/ES/FR Wikientries are simply translations (or this is a translation of one of them, or whichever.) joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am also unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 00:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Fonarow[edit]

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

She is a published author and writes a column in The Guardian, but coverage of the author herself seems pretty sparse. Does not seem to be a particularly notable author/columnist. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems like having a regular column in a major newspaper is enough to establish notability, though I have to admit I can't find anything in our policies to back that up.—Chowbok ☠ 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2011 (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) 00:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. she has a book from a major university press, which was reviewed in the NYTimes [38], which makes a good case for notability. Lots of GScholar hits, too, indicating a level of prominence in her field. Together there seems to be enough to satisfy the GNG even if the SNGs might be borderline cases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus that article needs improvement, not deletion. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 18:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of games from Whose Line Is It Anyway?[edit]

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

Unsourced since March 2008, completely unsourceable. Blatant OR, synthesis, fancruft. This would be akin to an article listing all the puzzle categories on Wheel of Fortune. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list is sourceable, since the programmes have been broadcast and accuracy can be determined by citing them, potentially. A third-party confirmation is no more needed than it is for the contents of a novel or play (plot synopsis). I don't see any OR in the article, since it is a simple list with no opinions expressed--it's entirely factually-based. The list of games has far more uses than the categories of wheel of fortune, as improvision of this kind is practiced in just about every college in the western world, not to mention professional improvised comedy troupes. Valuable and useful information, factually-based description as far as I can see. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with DionysosProteus. This list is accurate and can simply use the TV shows as its cited source. They are available on YouTube and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.39.228 (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a difference between unsourced and unsourceable. If it's unsourced, fix it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Vietnam Endeavors[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. gets passing mentions in gnews but it seems to only attracted attention of 2 American regional newspapers [39]. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Agreed that it seems there's too little media coverage to warrant a full article, despite the organization having existed for ten years and seemingly having done some good work in Vietnam. As per link above, the primary source for this organization is the Toledo Blade, with several other local papers such as the Monroe Evening News (behind paywall) and Southgate News Herald picking up the story, giving little more than passing mention as part of pieces on individual Vietnam War vets who have done work with the org. I did find one other mention in the U.S. Congressional Record ([40]), but again, it's a passing mention as part of a tribute to one of the co-founders(?). Perhaps the info in this article could be integrated into a biographical article on the founder (pending evaluation of notability, of course)? --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hershleder[edit]

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

Here we have the long-unreferenced BLP of a Tisch-educated filmmaker. The article lists a number of accomplishments: He's directed title sequences for two notable TV programs, a CMA-nominated music video, music videos for a few other notable artists, and a feature film that was screened at the Tribeca Film Festival. While all of this is interesting, even impressive, it does not seem to confer notability in the Wikipedia sense; Hershleder appears to fail the general notability guideline, as I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, as well as the specific criteria at WP:CREATIVE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Try running a Google search: [41]. The article could use a lot of work, but it can be saved. Qalana (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not with those results, it can't. Every single one of those hits is a trivial mention and nothing more. Some of those aren't even part of an article's prose. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is flawed reasoning. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2011 (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) 00:41, 12 April 2011 (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, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. gnews reveals no indepth coverage [42]. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's the director of Ash Tuesday, which is the subject of multiple independent reviews ([43], [44], [45]). I think it fails WP:CREATIVE only if Ash Tuesday is not notable itself. Nimuaq (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The full criterion you're referring to is actually: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," emphasis mine. Given the scant reviews for this film, Hershleder definitely does not actually meet the criterion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know whether this article can been saved, but it hasn't been saved and it's an unreferenced BLP. The references seem to be passing anyhow. Cool Hand Luke 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns trivial results. Whether or not the subject passes WP:CREATIVE has little relevance when the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and when the article, an unsourced BLP, fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Iversen[edit]

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

Recently created BLP, poorly referenced, does not establish notability, created by a mostly vandalism account, prod was contested. 117Avenue (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2011 (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) 00:41, 12 April 2011 (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, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some coverage, perhaps substantial, in a paywalled LA Times article, but one in-depth artice (if it is) does not WP:BASIC/WP:GNG make. Two, maybe; one, no. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 5. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by how this was done, I figured relisting meant the previous AFD would be re-opened and continued for another week. Will the remarks there be taken into consideration when this is closed since the determination at DRV was that that closing was flawed, or do we have to start from scratch? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literally relisting an AfD is done only in cases if the DRV concludes that a close was improper because it occurred too early. The remarks there will be considered, but the arguments here will have more weight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for clarifying. Despite my several years of experience here I actually know very little about the DRV process. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no sources have been added since the last AfD so I stick to my vote. No coverage in reliable sources fails WP:GNG. Does not fulfil any of the criteria of WP:BAND. doomgaze (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2011 (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, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having two guest vocalists (Craig Owens & Jonny Craig) on an album does not satisfy wp:music#6 as they are not part of the band. They have not had 2 albums on an important label so don't satisfy wp:music#5. Band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suntory Fine Zero[edit]

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

Unreferenced orphan article, a long-term stub about a product that contains little more information than would be found on the product's can. A search for additional sources turned up a number of articles tersely announcing the product's initial release, all of which read as if they came from the same press release; and a smattering of articles that mention the product in passing as an example of a Japanese zero-alcohol beer. Neither establishes sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG. The article has had some time to progress past a stub; it doesn't look like sources exist to ever permit it to do so. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, maybe I should have tried WP:PROD on this one :) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, uncontentious deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. - filelake shoe 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Suntory. Fails WP:N and WP:V, but may be used as a search term. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of the sword[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable book by non-notable authors which has only just been published. De728631 (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a book written by teens, this should be on wikipedia. its not every day that yu have young authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard400 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, Wikipedia has clear rules about what can be added here. (There's some information about that on your user talk page already). We can't use Wikipedia to spread information about things that are still unknown and that haven't been written about in, for instance, papers, magazines or news websites. When that happens for your book, and multiple sources have mentioned it, then the book becomes notable. Meanwhile, focus on your writing. It's great that you enjoy doing it! --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with richard400, teen work should be visible to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.131.205 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that teens want to show the world what they can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.131.205 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this article has been repeatedly speedied (as db-web, since it is published on a website), see Humphery and Bogart and Www.humpheryandbogart.webs.com. No sign of notability or significance, as yet. If it does become notable (that is, if it is written about in other media, for instance newspapers or reliable websites) there can be an article about it, not before. --bonadea contributions talk 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bonadea. Blatantly non-notable; self promotion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly done article with no claims of notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as the article duplicates Yolanthe Cabau van Kasbergen. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanthe Sneijder Cabau[edit]

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

Double article: Yolanthe Cabau van Kasbergen — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATX-NL (talk • contribs) 2011/04/07 20:46:10

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - filelake shoe 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stocky Award[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Figureofnine (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant GNews hits for this minor award for videos. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Dolls[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements; Does not provide information valuable to the categories in which it belongs; The band no longer exists. bllix (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. True, they don't meet WP:MUSIC for having a charting single or album (or any single or album) or any of that, and they don't appear to begin to meet WP:GNG - there are no articles about them at all. On the other hand, all five members are bluelinked, and that has to count for a lot - WP:MUSIC says "...an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" and I suppose having an article would tend to indicate being independently notable, and all five members have an article. Herostratus (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the above is an acceptable criterion to pass WP:MUSIC, the article does need better sourcing though. - filelake shoe 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are only four band members blue linked and three of them have notability tags on them. Z gin der 2011-04-28T18:48Z (UTC)
Delete, the band and band member articles seem to be something of a walled garden. Doesn't meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom. Keb25 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoons Yogurt[edit]

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

non notable firm WuhWuzDat 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Admittedly, it is a small chain. But non-notable? It has references, multiple Yelp! reviews, and more locations than many business articles on Wikipedia. TheListUpdater (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - filelake shoe 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as written~~ only one independent source. Zginder 2011-04-27T21:45Z (UTC)
- Added a second reference, this time on the Fayetteville location.TheListUpdater (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Z gin der 2011-04-28T18:38Z (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saints Row 2 characters closed with deletion too; a redirect can be recreated if necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saints Row characters[edit]

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

Fancruft, does not use any reliable sources. CR4ZE (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and this is different from any of the other "list of characters" pages? LiteralKa (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a series character list. Far too much detail and coverage of minor characters, while on the other hand, we know Saints Row 3 will reuse some of the same, so it would be better as a series list. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (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) 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plot information belongs in the plot summary of the game's article. Insufficient out-of-universe context to justify a separate article (WP:WAF) Marasmusine (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saints Row (series) until someone finds sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - this is a clear WP:WAF violation and unnecessary plot expansion. Few to none of these characters are notable and any that are can be covered elsewhere. --Teancum (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seriously a WP:WAF violation and also violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saints Row (series) per nom. We have many other lists, so in theory this one could work, and someone is bound to recreate it anyway. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: there are sources that mention the concept, but nothing substantial. The most substantial coverage is about the game's character customization capabilities, which is worth mentioning in the main series article. A few of these characters can be mentioned there once there are sources. No problem splitting an individual character back out or even a few of them once there are sources. Probably never all of them in micro detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:PLOT, WP:FICTION requires same (real-world perspective) notability treatment -- no RS thus GNG not satisfied. Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saints Row 2 characters. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Network Analysis[edit]

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

An extremely new theory that has that seems not to be cited anywhere as far as I can tell. Might be notable if it gains a following but right now its based on single source from 2010 proposing the model. Cant find a following for it any where or even a citation for it in recent literarture FAils WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The text seems uninformative:

CNA is used to develop cultural models for groups and populations, typically depicted as a network representation of the culturally-shared concepts, causal beliefs, and values that influence key decisions. CNA can be usefully employed for a variety of applications, including developing cultural training programs, characterizing the thinking of audiences to support cross-cultural communications campaigns, and facilitating the development of hybrid team cultures in multinational collaborations.

You also have the familiar categorization of some vaguely defined process into vaguely defined steps that are given titles; you will note that it would have easily been possible to add more or fewer steps:

CNA is a method for building external cultural models that have been extracted from a group, organization, or society. CNA includes specific techniques to:
* collect relevant cognitive information from a sample of individuals within a population
* extract elements of mental models from the body of information
* analyze the mental models in terms of their culturally-shared elements across individuals
* represent the cultural models in accessible format for a variety of uses
Cultural Network Analysis encompasses both qualitative, exploratory analysis, and quantitative, confirmatory analysis. The specific techniques used to achieve each step in the analysis depend on whether the cultural analyst is employing exploratory CNA or confirmatory CNA.

The article seems to have impressive references, but I question whether this is actually a meaningful scientific theory in genuine anthropology, or just someone's Executive Leadership and Team Building musings, of the sort easily assembled by a mind "gifted with sufficient leisure and vocabulary". Apart from the Rassmussen/Sieck/Smart papers, the other references seem to be general sources about the themes. Leaning towards delete; open to persuasion otherwise. Article probably wants thorough rewriting in plain English if kept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:44, 12 April 2011 (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, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for a buzzword/hypothesis that isn't going to catch on and isn't notable. No refs apart from the book. History of article says were it is going too. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With no prejudice to recreation once reliable sources have been found for this individual that allow WP:GNG.to be met Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gifford[edit]

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

Lack of secondary sources, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running a search on books using the above find sources tool brings up the author's publication. The publication itself has received acclaim and positive reviews from the development community it was targeting. These reviews can be used in reference to the author.

Please view the article with updated cite information. There is more to be added in, relating to publications through the UNEP relating to development work in regards to coral reef databases. MrsGorilla (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of cite and extra publication where the author was involved with the project and referenced as a contributor, as well as developer of iT systems accompanying / forming a key part of the publication MrsGorilla (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following a series of content revisions for this subject, this author created an important publication (the first to cover OOP for ColdFusion development) and various other sources have been included, as well as external publications relating to UNEP work. I believe that WP:GNG has been met, as has WP:BIO in regards to providing more information to the author's background and previous history (from a career and personal perspective). MrsGorilla (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (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, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable blogger whose sole book is out from a vanity press. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'non-notable blogger' was not published by vanity press. Research into Packt Publishing will show it's a reputable tech publishing house that does not publish 'for a fee', nor was the publication self-funded. The book has also been used as a core resource for presentations on the subject, as well as teaching material at various courses. I will find details and add to entry. Again, this is the first and only book published that deals with Object-Oriented Programming in the ColdFusion development environment. This was an important publication for those within this community. As such, this would fall under WP:AUTHOR -> WP:CREATIVE 4.a) (significant monument within the community to which it was aimed) and 1) as a well-recognised individual within the community. MrsGorilla (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Simply having recently published a book is not a criterion for notability. Packt Publishing is a print on demand publisher. While perhaps it is not technically a "vanity press", this is a step down from more reputable publishers. According to Worldcat, there is only one library that holds this book [46], so it does not even come close to the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. It may be that this book does eventually become important for the reason you say, but that happy day has not yet come and, alas, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User "Mrs. Gorilla" is voting multiple times here and has already admitted, on his user page, that he is Matt Gifford himself. This article is nothing more than self-promo WP:SPAM. It does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:BOOK. Furthermore, his publisher, as explained on its own webpage [47], is nothing more than a vanity press that takes all comers. Also, Gifford has spammed himself into multiple articles throughout Wikipedia, and it's going to take us a lot of work to weed out all of his spam. Qworty (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to above comment from Qworty (talk). I am Matt Gifford, the subject of this article/entry. I have many issues with your above comment. Firstly, where does the publisher's website state in any way that they are a vanity press? Please provide details to back this up. Packt do openly invite developers and individuals within the communities to submit book proposals to them in an attempt to extend knowledge in various areas. Having written my own book through them, I can also quite happily discuss with you the levels of chapter synopsis, communications to and from the publishing house, and my final contract with them. So, they do freely accept proposals, but they do not publish every individual who does send ideas. Secondly, and more importantly, I am concerned that you have so easily publicly stated that this article was written by me (it wasnt) and that I have spammed myself into other articles. As a developer, writer and speaker, my online identity is incredibly important to me, and I take great offence in the implication and seeing my name associated with spam, which I see as libellous. Having read through the history of the article and the original author's other contributions, the only other entry appears to be the addition of the book to the OOP page, which is an incredibly valid addition. As MrsGorilla (talk) originally stated, this is the first and only book to cover that subject for the development language ColdFusion - one of the reasons why the book was written. Again, the use of language from above commenter that it's going to take 'a lot of work to weed out all of his spam' is incorrect and unjustified. It is one additional entry from what I can see, and the negative implications of these actions against my name is simply wrong and unjustified. I respectfully request that actions are taken to remedy these slurs against my name (spam related). I have not written this article or added to it (in fact, I had to search through to find my login details as i havent used this account for so long), and I am not adding any note here in regards to the actual article; purely a defence against my own name. Mattgifford (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

addition to above comment - after short investigation even to an inexperienced user such as myself, you can clearly see by following the conversation from the start that MrsGorilla (talk) is not me, nor has ever claimed to be. The initial draft of the article was userfied by Catfish Jim & the soapdish to act as a backup. As such, once again Qworty (talk) seems to be spouting inacuracies about individuals involved in this article. Mattgifford (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzigish[edit]

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

Unsourced band article, created by a former member, lacking evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline or WP:BAND. Result of search for sources: the band is mentioned twice in passing in articles on other subjects in an online marketing magazine (that solicits reader submissions for use as content). Ghits were notices of club dates, lyrics, guitar tabs etc.: i.e. nothing approaching reliable sources. No AllMusic entry. I could not find sources to confirm any of the (unsourced) claims of notability made in the article. Band bio at NME.com merely mirrors this WP article. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (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, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Goss (author)[edit]

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

Not notable. The article (originally entitled just Bill Goss) has been speedy-deleted, recreated, PRODDED, de-PRODDED (by the author), nominated again for speedy deletion, and de-nominated (with no reason given), so clearly deletion is not uncontroversial, despite the fact that that is how it looked to me when I found the article. Only one independent source is given, and that one just gives a brief couple of paragraphs. Web searches have produced lots of promotional pages, Goss's own site, Linkedin, FaceBook etc, but nothing that could be regarded as reliable independent sources. I really don't see how this could be thought to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, as non notable. I don't know how CSD A7 would fare against "Bill Goss considers himself one of the world's leading experts on luck and overcoming adversity", but in any case third party coverage is very scarce. This is the only reference that provides significant content, but I can't say much about its reliability. I wasn't able to find any information about the Animal Planet show except youtube videos and pages from the subject's website. I found these two book mentions but that is all - frankie^MR (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak keep, as per below - frankie^MR (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He actually gets a fair amount of coverage at Google News if you word the search right (I used "Bill Goss" plus "luckiest". If some decent sources are added and the fluff deleted, this could be an acceptable article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. While the results are not that many, they are solid, and put together with the previous ones it makes enough for a weak keep indeed. Cleanup and sourcing are still required, but notability is met. Taking duplicates out (and paywall aside) I think these are the substantial links 1 2 3 - frankie^MR (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2011 (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, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as well. While I found the book signing coverage articles less significant than Patitomr, there were a few other Gnews references (a couple paragraphs in a WaPo article) and several places where Goss was covered in Gbooks hits. I'm going to call the Herald-Journal cite previously provided and WaPo the 2 sufficient to hit GNG. Throw back in a few book refs, the signings, and we're there with a bit of a margin. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spending diet[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a neologism inspired by a newspaper article chronicling a North Carolina family's efforts to reduce their household expenditures. Or something. No evidence the subject satisfies meets the general notability guideline. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, even for catch phrases that have gained wide currency, which this one hasn't. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the phrase "spending diet" gets one hell of a lot of gnews and google hits. To me, there is no doubt that the word passes WP:NEO, hands down. Does it pass Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Well, that is a tricky one. It is a commonly used phrase, but that appears to be it. The current article wants to give credit to some family for "popularizing" the phrase, and would appear to be bunk, as the phrase is very, very old (first mention: Baltimore Sun in 1975). If kept, you would have to gut the current article and find some way to "verify" the phrase, but in the end, I think we still have a DICDEF issue. Weak Delete would be my !vote. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move or merge. I can't see how it is different from money diet or personal finance. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2011 (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, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current content is non-notable (and the sole reference seems more like a "spending fast" than a diet). The phrase is in moderately common use, but all we can really write is a definition. And the definition is obvious from the words. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Westbrooks[edit]

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

Other members of this team have been deleted at AfD for lack of notability, such as here. I see no reason that this player is exceptional. Gigs (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NBASKETBALL. – Michael (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Passes WP:NBASKETBALL by having played in Euroleague. This is indication that other sources are likely to exist to establish notability. —Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2011 (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, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If he has played in the Euroleague then he passes WP:NBASKETBALL. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you all getting that he played in the Euroleague? His article only mentions second-tier leagues. Gigs (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is the external link to his Euroleague profile in the article. It's the Ireland national team that is in the "second tier." I'm not an expert on Euroleague, but I see no indication that the non-national teams are not the highest level. —Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems you have confused Eurobasket.com with Eurobasket. Eurobasket.com is just a general sports news site with no affiliation to the Eurobasket competition. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, ignorant American thought it was same as Euroleague Basketball. Thanks for the info. I'll change strike by opinion above. —Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Change from my previous opinion above. He plays in Europe, but I was mistaken and he does not play for Euroleague per WP:NBASKETBALL. Having not played at the highest level, he also doesn't appear to notable either per WP:GNG as coverage is WP:ROUTINE. —Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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