Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 8

< 7 April	9 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 Keep with regard to the facts that:

Sources added to the article, as well as the overwhelming consensus here shows that not only the subject complies with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not but also complies with Wikipedia:Notability (software)
The article is a Stub
This article is expected to grow rapidly

— (Non-admin closure per Snowball clause) Fleet Command (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer 10[edit]

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

Pure speculation. This may be just as well released earlier or later than Windows 8. Unencyclopedic. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, completely WP:CRYSTAL and not valid yet per WP:NSOFT. Sources like [1] are just conjecture, with nothing substantive about Microsoft's intentions. This article should only be recreated when the sources can provide more than rumors. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject has been formally announced and there are now multiple reliable sources discussing it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it has been announced by Microsoft (via press); more information will be available over time. Unlike Windows 8, nothing was announced (by MS) at all. Weak keep. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 08:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.94.233 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; it looks like somebody created this entry just for "completeness", rather than because it actually warrants its own entry at this time. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If IE 10 has actually been announced then quite frankly we should keep this article. It will eventually become a full article so why delete it, if we will have to recreate it again. It would seem more logical if we left it to be, and continued to expand on it as time progresses.--A9l8e7n (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where has it been announced? See WP:Verifiability - virtually none of the page info is sourced. This would be much better placed on the main Internet Explorer article, but if and only if Microsoft announced it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well if there are no legitimate sources to be found, it shouldn't even be on the main Internet Explorer article either--A9l8e7n (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't delete this article. IE 10 was announced on MSDN today (12-April-2010). It was also announced and the Platform Preview 1 was demonstrated at Microsoft's Mix 2011 conference in Las Vegas (also 12-April-2010). Announcement of IE 10 Silvie rob (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first IE 10 preview was announced on the IE blog on the 12th of April. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it stands though is pure speculation.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The software already exists - only as platform preview although for other (smaller) software that wouldn't be enough but MS is showing interest again in the WWW and thus will be release more information and software(updates). Also per two comments above: it is already referenced my MS. As A9l8e7n already said: why should be recreate this article in a few weeks? mabdul 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Little is known about IE10. It would be more efficient if for now this article was merged into the Internet Explorer versions or History of Internet Explorer articles. The article should be recreated only after the beta version is released and people know more about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfoske70 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually know a lot about IE 10 from MIX11 and from the developer preview. The only thing that we know nothing about is the interface. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- Though Microsoft has not released specifics, the software was in fact announced at the mix11 developer conference. Furthermore, the software isn't speculative vaporware as there is an IE10 download officially available via the developer internet explorer test drive site. The software has received substantial coverage including: PC Magazine, InformationWeek, San Fransisco Chronicle, and a number of tech blogs including: ZDNet, CNet, and Computer World. That being said, the article should be expanded, not deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since Microsoft has announced Internet Explorer 10 at MIX11 and release a the first platform preview of Internet Explorer 10, we should keep this article. EDIT: I just notice that all the "Delete" were posted prior to IE 10 announcement. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is announced and having the article allows it to grow naturally adding timely info and refs. --Pmsyyz (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is going to be a valid article soon enough if not already, I don't see any harm in leaving it around until then. –CWenger (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has enough content to justify itself and it will only grow with time. Though it is small right now, all content is verifiable and officially announced by Microsoft, the developer of the software. Users can download the first platform preview today so it is a tangible product. Captain Stack (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is already a tangable product announced by Microsoft. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the first preview version is released and downloadable. -Abhishikt 20:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong keep It's been officially announced and even has a platform preview released; seems pretty obvious to me. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's been announced, preview released. I was shocked to even see that it was up for deletion. I mean, that may have had some weight before the announcement, but now? No... Bmecoli (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not fail WP:CRYSTAL as MS has already released a beta version, so the amount of speculation dropped drastically and the verifiable facts increased. The amount of coverage it has received should allow it to pass WP:GNG now. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fast-tracked keep This is just as obvious as 1+1=2. Any further discussion is nothing but counterproductive. Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:42, 14 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) 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Huaxia Road (Shanghai Metro)[edit]

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

Not notable IMO. Hello71 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe metro stations have inherent notability. Taroaldo (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Metro stations are notable per WP:N and WP:GNG. There is a large precedent on this, as many other such articles exist. — P C B 23:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES#Transportation.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rail stations are generally kept as notable and it would a severe waste of time to flesh out and argue the notability of each and every one in the world. Editors time is better spent improving and creating articles. --Oakshade (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many rail station articles here can be thin on the ground with facts.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just as notable as the other stations on this line. Racepacket (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All other rail stations are considered to be notable - I fail to see why this one should be an exception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jorgenev (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2011
Keep, likely WP:SNOW. I am perplexed as to why the nominator chose this particular station and not any of the other 200+ members of Category:Railway stations in Shanghai. "Not notable IMO" is not a policy or guideline-based rationale to recommend deletion; indeed, per WP:OUTCOMES, metro stations have inherent and consensus notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if the notability of the station is also in question for the hundreds of thousands that pass through the station daily? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Metro stations have inherent notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:22, 12 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) 00:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tournesol media entertainment[edit]

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

Film production company of doubtful notability, but since some (possibly non-reliable) sources are provided, I declined speedy deletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 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) 00:01, 2 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 22:18, 8 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) 03:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Grey[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NSONG. The article has been unsourced since 2009 and has been unedited since June 2010. Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The limitation of the own EP clarifies that it does not meet the required notability level to have an article in Wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this title should redirect to the disambiguation page; if this article is kept, it should be renamed to The Grey (EP). 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 28 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) 00:02, 2 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 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Info doesn't warrant its own article, doesn't seem to be a major release. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:37, 15 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, of the 2 "keep" !votes one was conditional and the other was not based on any policies or guidelines. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Alley Cats (doo-wop group)[edit]

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

No indication that this group meets inclusion criteria. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 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) 00:03, 2 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 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be documented by good sources, keep, becuase they meet WP:MUSICBIO as having toured - Vegas, White Hosue, etc. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep international band, toured in USA... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 12:37, 11 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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Osler[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. This seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E: the only significant coverage of him in reliable sources relates to a libel case against him, which was dismissed (see [2]). That isn't sufficient to pass our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Can this information be used anywhere where the article could be merged, such as to an article on the court case, on Kaschke (who seems to have sued several others as well and could be notable), or a general article on internet censorship in Britain? If anyone can come up with a sensible location, this would change to a Merge and Redirect !vote for me. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 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) 00:03, 2 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 22:17, 8 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) 01:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The South Shore Standard[edit]

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

Founded in March 2011. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMEDIA Taroaldo (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I don't even see a claim of notability. A7. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not eligible for speedy delete because it is not in one of the required categories: people organisations or web content. So if you want to definitively delete it vote for non speedy delete. For any real newspaper I would like to see an article here about it, but this is very recent and unproved by any reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that it fails GNG. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:00, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield Advisors[edit]

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

I don't see how this meets WP:COMPANY. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. bender235 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use a couple more references, but I think ref #3 in particular goes to notability, and if the Mundy article is merged in, #2 should also, if it doesn't already. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is about a real estate and business consulting firm. The references are to appraisal business journals with small, specialized readerships. The chief claim to fame here seems to be the business's associations with notable events like the Exxon Valdez spill. That still does not establish that this firm itself had a significiant effect on history, culture, or the field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If correctly sourced, the article could stand up. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:51, 26 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) 00:04, 2 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 22:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above, there is no indication of notability, neither in the sources cited nor in the results of a Gnews search. Perchloric (talk) 02:23, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MicroDreams Foundation[edit]

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 06:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref #2 may contain evidence of notability given the assertion that references it, but I have no way to check what it actually says to see. Monty₈₄₅ 07:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 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) 00:05, 2 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 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The current reference #2 is a the Samoa Observer in which the coverage is decidedly minor. I believe the original reference #2 was "SPBD: Samoan Tsunami Relief. Microfinance Pasifika, p. 1." based on the article history. However, I would not count Microfinance Pasifika as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 13 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H.V. Dalling[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Creator of an insignificant invention who has not received any coverage outside of New Brunswick. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I admit the article is weak when it comes to the notability guidelines, but I think it contains an interesting bit of history, in that it talks about local adoption of the telephone, and its sourced. Keeping individuals who serve as anecdotes about history and the adoption of technology will improve the quality of wikipedia. Monty₈₄₅ 03:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - locally notable, but doesn't meet WikiPedia's guidelines. PK T(alk) 14:02, 30 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) 00:05, 2 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 22:16, 8 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) 00:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Colin[edit]

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

No references in article. All claims unsubstantiated. Unable to locate any significant, secondary source coverage. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 20 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) 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I found a lot of mentions in both english and french for both "denis colin" and "denis colin trio", but most of the results seem to be event listings. The only news results for '"denis colin" review' are [3] and [4], which only mention him tangentially. However, further web searching brings results like: album review, album review, album review - all for his album "Someting in Common". So he's definitely got coverage, he just seems to be the kind of guy who's obscure enough that the sources tend not to be available online. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- More sources: interview in french, interview in english, chicago reader writeup. THAT should be enough for an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:13, 26 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) 00:07, 2 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 22:16, 8 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) Swarm ^X 20:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Coscarelli[edit]

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

Some trivial coverage for winning one show, [5]. I really don't imagine that this counts as significant coverage. She certainly does not stand out in her profession - there are hundreds of identically important people who win minor TV cooking shows every day. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 20 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) 00:01, 26 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) 00:06, 2 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 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is the focus of sustained coverage by reliable third-party sources, including The New York Times, several of which focus on her as a vegan chef and a person, not simply a reality show winner. I have significantly overhauled the article since its initial nomination and invite any interested editor to review the article in its current state. (Does it still need expansion? Sure, but there are many sources available for any motivated editor to do just that. AfD is not cleanup.) - Dravecky (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dravecky. agree with the user..--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dravecky's edits save the day; subject has coverage in multiple WP:RS, and notability (though thin) is clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 15 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) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie X[edit]

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

Non notable musician, fails WP:NMUSIC, contested prod Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 02:04, 2 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 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has not been established. Although many sources have been posted, unfortunately none satisfy WP:GNG. I guess that makes it delete.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NMUSIC. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this musician. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 21:43, 14 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) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marieta Besu[edit]

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

Neither delivering an interview to one's local paper nor having one's paintings exposed in one's city of residence (what the references indicate) is substantive evidence of notability. I can't see any of the WP:PROF or WP:ARTIST criteria being met. And indeed, none of the long list of achievements seems to merit inclusion, but before someone says one of them does, I'd like to note they too are unreferenced, so we have no evidence that she can actually lay claim to all but three of these (the footnoted ones). - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under any guidelines, personal CV. Dahn (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 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, Acather96 (talk) 06:37, 2 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 22:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I trimmed down all the cv-like cruft from the article so I could see what was actually there. There does seem to be a little coverage of her in reliable media, but most of it is announcements of exhibitions in her local newspaper. I'm having a hard time justifying the broader coverage in reliable sources that would pass WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. And while she claims some major art show and museum exposure, again there doesn't seem to be much coverage of it that we could use as the basis of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 8 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) 00:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Urquhart[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. Non-notable journalist. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 08:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 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) 00:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means he fails every part of WP:BIO, unless someone can find something I missed. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:50, 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, Acather96 (talk) 06:44, 2 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 22:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this journalist .... --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:29, 14 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, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlexTracer[edit]

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

Very specialised piece of software with no evidence of notability. — Sgroupace (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took the liberty of adding an AFD notice to the talk page of the creator and primary contributor User:Pdmitry. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 18:11, 18 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) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this software article lacks 3rd party references needed to establish notability. Created by SPA so possibly advert. Dialectric (talk) 13:44, 26 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, Acather96 (talk) 06:45, 2 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 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete' one gnews hit says it all [6]. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 14 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) 00:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Chandra Patra[edit]

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

Non-notable person, there have some non-verifiable reference. Not as per WP:BIO.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 18 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) 00:02, 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, Acather96 (talk) 06:46, 2 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 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the fellow is a retired IAS officer who has been Deputy Collector of a former princedom in India (merged since Union) and has done a considerable amount of social service in the region, the field of education is mentioned. He continues in work for upliftment of the poor and has received recent media coverage. Although article is poorly laid out and needs improvement, in his local area, he is a respected notable.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: has received recent media coverage. Where??- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the answer to that question was pretty obvious, i.e. in the sources cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 9 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. BigDom (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Riviera[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Not notable as an actor, reality television personality, or sports entertainer. Nikki♥311 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted back in 2009 for being non-notable and after having a quick look for sources I would say that is still the case. Does not meet the general notability guideline. Delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines; that is, unless your name is Jethro Bodine and you hail from Bugtussle--Hokeman (talk) 00:34, 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) 00:01, 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, Acather96 (talk) 06:58, 2 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 22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER per professional wrestler, actor... He survives the notability requirements.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs a re-write not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What this article needs are reliable sources. Unfortunately, the subject lacks GHits and GNEWs of substance to support notability via WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER or any other notability criteria. ttonyb (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two full pages of Google News hits give some evidence of notability. While the source quality is not exactly Washington Post or New York Times, there are 21 hits. One source I looked at was just a passing mention, but the second and third I picked at random: Hot Indie News and News Blaze, are indepth. Anarchangel (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the quality of the sources is not the highest and most are just passing mentions or press releases. Of two you specifically mentioned, one is a PR generated by ECLECTIC MEDIA PRODUCTIONS and even mentions the media company in the release. The other sure is written as a PR, not a news article. ttonyb (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like he lacks the necessary significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to prove notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - lack of notability, sourcing, etc. The Usual Caveats apply, however - the subject could easily become notable at some point. I would recommend that this go to DRV before recreating (again). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The 2 sources mentioned by Anarchangel appear to be supersources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second source you cite, from newsblaze.com, appears to be a verbatim copy of a press release, including the advert for the PR company at the end. Not sure about the other one, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems painfully clear to me that the two "sources" identified are press releases, they use the standard press release format, e.g. the closing paragraphs. Not a single reliable source providing in-depth coverage has been presented, nor have I found any in my own searches, GNG is not met. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of third-party reliable sources. http://www.hotindienews.com/2009/07/14/105107 reads like a press release. A sample:
For a sneak preview at the show: http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?id=1613969&vid=405979
For more information about “Megan Wants a Millionaire,” you can visit the show’s official website.
http://www.vh1.com/shows/megan_wants_a_millionaire/series.jhtml
http://www.hotindienews.com/contact states:
We always accept electronic press releases and physical submissions to help indies increase their world-wide exposure. So, please feel free to send your CDs, DVDs, and Press Kits to the address listed below for consideration on our site.
The second source mentioned by Anarchangel (talk · contribs), http://newsblaze.com/story/20100227105953zzzz.nb/topstory.html, is also a press release. The article is published by Eclectic Media, which the article touts as the "24/7 full service PR Company that is effective".
This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 07:47, 17 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. Jpmaytum's comments provide just enough reasonable doubt about deleting this article so at this time I'm going with "when in doubt, don't delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington and Chelsea TMO[edit]

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

Delete This pages is not notable. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it's hard to show notability when you write such a small stub and I'm intending to add more content which should demonstrate this organisations notability as a public-sector housing organisation (largest TMO in UK, only full-borough TMO, only TMO that is also an ALMO). However it's often hard to find the time to do justice to pages - that's why I hoped the stub indicator would indicate there is work to follow.

hope this is helpful

Jpmaytum (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. From searching Google News, Books and Scholar I found only one piece of significant coverage in what appears to be a reliable, independent source, namely pp. 76–77 of this pamphlet by Demos (UK think tank). Not enough on its own to meet WP:GNG, but i may change my !vote if someone uncovers one or two more pieces of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It is really hard to source good information about social housing as it is not widely covered in mainstream media and it is not a great area of academic research, although arguably it is an important area of public policy. However I've managed to find a reference to the organisation as a case study in a national newspaper. There are also a number of references in the leading trade journal Inside Housing (which I haven't added). Although I'm sure it's not covered by Wikipedia notability guidelines, it is worth pointing out that the leader of this organisation was honoured by the Queen for the work this organisation does, so is notable in UK public adminstration terms. Again - any comments welcome Jpmaytum (talk) 15:03, 28 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 2 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 22:10, 8 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.

Rolinson Ferdinando[edit]

The result was Deleted -BLP PROD was removed by author; AfD unnecessary. NAC by nom, housekeeping. Chzz ► 05:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to be notable per WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO - I cannot find any reliable sources. Chzz ► 18:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 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 22:09, 8 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) 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kochaly[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion by an editor who is local to the region, saying the village does not exist. I declined the speedy as there are some Google hits and it's not a blatant hoax, and the original nominator has replied on my Talk page to say it's really only a farm and wants to AfD it - so I'm doing it on their behalf. The rationale can be found at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 8#Kochaly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contrary to the comment in the article's history, there are numerous google hits for the place, including its weather and job listings. If it's a farm that seems a bit over-the-top, since farms in my country (USA) don't have many internet listings for their weather and job opportunities - maybe a farm with all that is notable for that alone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. If the location given is accurate, a visit to one of the mapping sites is revealing. Even on the fairly high resolution available it is impossible to establish that there is anything significant there. Frankly, that throws into serious doubt all the other Google references - which are only generating results for the general location supplied to them. This smells like a deliberate hoax, I'm afraid. AJHingston (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a difficult one, perhaps suffering from the lack of verifiability. If it once was a village, I'd say keep, but so far I can't find evidence of its existence. However, there are frequently multiple spellings of foreign proper nouns in English throughout a history of any given topic. Right now I can't find anything in this region for any spelling variations for what might be the same topic.--Oakshade (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a good sign that the GEOnet Names Server listing for the village marks it as unverified. The Google listings probably provide the same weather and job listings for any place in the GNS, and there don't seem to be any other sources verifying the existence of the place. I don't think a source which explicitly says "unverified" counts for WP:V. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:09, 28 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 23:47, 2 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 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - we have a plausible assertion that it doesn't exist, and no convincing evidence that it does. I don't find the Google hits persuasive - once a place is listed, all kinds of sites pick it up. We had an article about a non-existent Shropshire village called "Monvilla" which was deleted at AfD as a hoax three years ago, but Google still finds references to it. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My nomination wasn't a Delete !vote, as it was just a procedural one on behalf of another editor. But I can find no verification that there really is a village there, and as nobody else seems to be able to, I think it's a WP:V fail too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 15 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 List of Oz (TV series) characters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Keane[edit]

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

Non-notable. Is a minor character on the show Oz (TV series), and doesn't even show up on List of Oz (TV series) characters. According to Jefferson Keane, the character Billie shows up in a few episodes in season 1, though List of Oz episodes doesn't list Billie at all. Furthermore, a Google search for "Billie Keane" oz shows few results that aren't wikipedia copies. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 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 21:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Oz (TV series) characters? I find only minimal coverage of this character (as opposed to mentions in show coverage), and the current article is almost entirely in-universe plot summary. Looking at Template:Oz(HBO), however, it seems that there may be more than 100 similar articles about different characters from this show, which is out of keeping with the usual WP practices for coverage of fictional characters in TV series. WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, I don't see much point in whittling away one small piece of a complex encyclopedic structure, when it is the entire structure that needs to be evaluated. Maybe this should be discussed in broader terms in an appropriate forum about whether the great majority of those articles ought to be consolidated into the character list.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Oz (TV series) characters. Wikipedia is WP:NOTJUSTPLOT, whereas this character has had nothing but plot summary written about them in reliable sources. Also a pretty minor character with only a few appearances. Better suited to a list than a full article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:21, 10 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) 03:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Iorio[edit]

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

Lorenzo Iorio is a gravitational physicist research how astronomical object interact with their surroundings. He is a researcher working for the Italian Ministry of Education. Almost all researchers/educators in Italy work for the Ministry in some fashion (University Prof, scientist at a public lab). So, I think he can be best described as an independent research scientist not affiliated with a particular lab or university.

The previous article of Iorio's was deleted. It went under deletion review 14 months later and was allowed to be recreated (albeit under false pretenses). Iorio's article was recently deleted on the Italian Wiki.

Iorio's first AfD, deletion review and current article have had alot of sockpuppetry happening. The Italian AfD and article was also marred in sockpuppetry. Some of the sockpuppets on both Wikis have the same name. Telling if what a sockpuppet added is relevant or somebody deleted what the thought was a sockpuppet comment, but wasn't, makes this a tricky article to decipher (also why I'm doing a longer nomination than normal).

Among the notable things mentioned in the article are:

Five "papers of him obtained high rankings in the Top 25 Hottest Articles classification of New Astronomy". The period of the classification is 3 months and a look reveals most articles in the classification were ones published the previous 3 months.
"Iorio received in 2003 a prize for his scientific activity by the Italian Physical Society". While the society hands out some prestigious awards, they also hand out "prizes" for graduating with a PhD, best presentation at the conference by a young scholar, etc.
Published 130 papers and "the h-index of Iorio is 20". Some of the publications he was a co-author of seems impressive. On the vast majority of publications, Iorio is the sole author. A look at who cited Iorio's publications, 45 citations, 42 citations, 41 citations and 37 citations, reveals the vast majority of citations are from Iorio's later publications. Bgwhite (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sysop on the italian wiki and I followed this "case" there. The research of Bgwhite is very strong and correct. I support the proposal. If you need some help for translations of the italian references/comments, feel free to ask. --Lucas (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What proposal is it that you support? To delete? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, of course: this is a deletion proposal :) (I copy this message down to be more clear). --Lucas (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say: keep it. In fact, most of these discussions are not about the merit and the content of the article itself, but on the sockpuppets issue. It is absolutely correct and necessary to block those sockpuppets, but the evaluation of the content of an article should not be affected by it. On some points by Bgwhite: the article does't deal with the affiliation of Iorio. Point 1) One could make a little cleanup of that. Actually, the prize of the Italian Physical Society to Iorio is not just one for graduating with a PhD, best presentation at the conference by a young scholar, etc. Most importantly, Bgwhite in point 3) used Google scholar, which is not complete. NASA ADS shows a completely different situation, including much more stuff than Google. Look at the most cited paper by Iorio. It has 54 citations which are mainly by other scientists. Now his h-index is 21 and his g-index is 26. All in all, we are not deciding here to hire Iorio in our department, but just if this article can stay on Wikipedia. And several criteria of WIkipedia are met about notability, etc. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand whether the nominator is advocating Keep or Delete and on what grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well, when someone nominates an article for deletion, he usually advocates its deletion, doesn't he? Although Bgwhite might have a bit clearer about his position, his pointing out that not all Physical Society prizes are notable prizes etc. seems to confirm that he is actually suggesting that this article should be deleted. Goochelaar (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the article is full of vainglorious puffery a Google Scholar h index of 18 would often predispose to a pass of WP:Prof#C1. However, in this case, in a search of the 'cited by' lists on GS much labor is needed to find citations that are not self-citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. From what can be understood from the article, this is a good researcher, just like thousands more in any given country, rather than one who has "made significant impact" or any other criterion for academics. For instance, the "prize for his scientific activity" is a "premio di operosità scientifica" (literally, something like "prize for scientific hard work"). I find nowhere what this is supposed to mean, but a quick google search for premio "operosità scientifica" shows a large number of people being awarded it, rather than it being "a highly prestigious academic award" (and the only proof given for the prize is a scan hosted in a non-descript website). Goochelaar (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the tone of this discussion, I wish to let you know that Bgwhite, in asking if I am a sockpuppet, wrote that I am singing the virtues of Lorenzo Iorio. Apart from the fact that he did not give any reasons for supporting his suspect-I merely partecipated this discussion-it does not seem to me correct showing, perhaps, also a bias by Bgwhite against the subject of this article. Going to the substance of the article, dear Xxanthippe, certainly some minor points can be deleted, but also your vainglorious puffery does not seem to me adequate and induces little suspects. Google scholar is not complete. You should use NASA ADS, from which it turns out that he has more than 600 non-self citations. criterion for academics is satisfied since he has an h-index of 21. Dear Goochelaar, I may remove some minor points, but if I edit this article, certainly somebody would immediately suspect me of sockpuppetry...Anyway, please note that it is incorrect that the only proof given for the prize is a scan hosted in a non-descript website. Indeed, in the Hindawi webpage, not run by Iorio, it is explicitly stated, along with other information. I could make such a change, but...what if other screams that I am a sockpuppet? Anyway, the links to the media (magazines, etc.) dealing with him prove that the notability criterion is satisfied. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megalobingosaurus, I do not know what you mean by "it is incorrect that the only proof given for the prize is a scan hosted in a non-descript website". Last time I checked, the scan is the only reference given for the prize, hence it is correct that the only proof given is that one. I believe nobody will criticise you if you make impartial, sourced edits. I myself shall not, at least. For all I care, you may be Iorio himself, and this is ok, as long as you give full and independent sources for all your claim. (As for Hindawi, I doubt they do independent investigation about their authors' curriculum. A webpage by the Italian Physical Society, or a reference to some official publication by them would be far more interesting, and would throw some more light about the nature of this prize. Feel free to provide such information here, as you are so conversant with the subject.) Goochelaar (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Goochelaar, I removed a non-relevant info, I removed the link to the scanned copy of the SIF prize by including a reliable secondary source. I don't see why you are questioning Hindawi. Thank you for your constructive and useful remarks. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my supporting to the deletion proposal: most of the distinctions listed in the article, when looked more carefully upon, feel rather dubious, at times to such a point that the idea may come upon one that somebody intended them as a joke on Iorio. For instance, take the claim "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences invited Iorio to submit appropriate candidates for the Crafoord Prize 2006, the most prestigious award in the field of geosciences". The source given is a publishing house which hardly is in direct constant contact with the Swedish Academy of Sciences. Delving further, one finds in Iorio's curriculum a similar claim, but this time it is described as an "invitation on behalf of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences"; and there is a link to a pdf file, reproducing an email message sent by a German company (which in turn seems to be little more than a company organising meetings and offering other academic services), in which they explain what Crafoord prize is and apparently forward a generic call for invitations. Goochelaar (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Goochelaar, in the article the issue of the Crafoord Prize is neither sourced with that .pdf (indeed, it would not be considered as a reliable secondary source) nor with Iorio's personal webpage (the same). It is sourced with the Hindawi site. You did not yield reasons to doubt about it, and, actually, I think there are not. It is not plausible that a third party business website do not indepenently check the information about its authors. Anyway, it is difficult to believe that Crafoord Prize invitations are sent out to everybody. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as said above: I am sysop on the italian wiki and I followed this "case" there. The research of Bgwhite is very strong and correct. I support the proposal. If you need some help for translations of the italian references/comments, feel free to ask.). I quote Goochelaar too. --Lucas (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lucas, basically you did not discuss the merit and the content of the article. You mainly refer to the sockpuppet issue and to what happened in a previous discussion in .it wiki. I checked it, and that AfD seems to me insufficient. First of all, it was started by an admin, Ignlig, who manifestly was adverse to Iorio: suffices it to say that he clealry wrote that he preferred not to write what he really thinks to avoid legal actions againts him. Then, he removed all and only the references by Iorio in all the articles he found in .it wiki. Finally, in the entire .it wiki AfD issues like notability, verifiability, etc. were basically ignored. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to speak about the italian proposal we can do it in the italian wiki, first of all because it is the right place and second because it is easier to me. The 2000 sockpuppets here and there are just a "problem" (and a rule violation, and please remember that your current user it has been described as a possibile sockpuppet), but this do not affect the un-notability issue. As you know because you are a italian native, "another" user said on it.wiki just the same things you are saying here: and you already have the answer to all of your questions in the italian proposal (first: about un-notability proofs; and then: fake infos in the article / confused infos, spam, sockpuppeting, and so on). --Lucas (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lucas, actually you introduced here the discussion of the italian wiki since the beginning, not me. About the "same things" written by "other" users nd me, one could say almost the same about you and other people here. Anyway, it is not relevant: the content of a statement is important, not the person(s) making it. Then, after asking me not to consider anymore the italian discussion, you actually continue to deal with it asking me to answer the questions in the italian proposal. It seems contradictory and not pertinent. We have to assess the present article in en wiki, not the italian one. About the un-notability proofs, the links to several, independent and reliable secondary sources on international mass-media in various languages, and the Vienna talk passed to mass media meet the WP notability criteria. The same for h-index, etc.. There are not fake infos in this article (could you, please, tell us what are them for you?). There are not confused infos (please, specify). There is not spam. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First: you (I, everyone) are welcome here until you do not break the rules. I totally agree with Goochelaar: For all I care, you may be Iorio himself, and this is ok, as long as you give full and independent sources for all your claim. Anyway the sockepuppeting with the aim to change the community opinion is not permitted, and this behaviour applied on this article was demostrated on en.wiki and on it.wiki. But this is not the point. Second: I introduced the italian wiki just because it is a community witch know very well the italian system, it can therefore evaluate the situation, and it applies various guarantees of impartiality during the deletion procedure. I said, "if you need some help for translations of the italian references/comments feel free to ask": this is talking about contents, and not about users. Third: I repeat, if you want to speak about the italian procedure this is not the right place; if you want to speak about the italian notability of Iorio this is the right place (and i can help with translations); if you want to speak about the international notability of Iorio this is the right place. Fourh: to explain the notability, I think you should start from answering the strong opinion you can find here. The first question is: what is changed in the Iorio's notable activity from the last deletion decided here on en.wiki? Thanks. --Lucas (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Megalobingosaurus identifies himself as a 22 year old student of life sciences at an Italian university. He is to be congratulated on his good knowledge of the area of scientific citations, which is uncommon in one so young. His contributions are welcome here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Everything in the article seems like ordinary activities that any reasonably active university professor would be doing. No indication of real notability. Perchloric (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xan's findings. The only real claim to something that might pass WP:PROF in the article is the high citation count for his articles. But, at least as viewed in Google scholar, the citation counts are not that high (less than 50 max) and heavily larded with self-citations (the top entry in Google scholar, "The LARES mission revisited: an alternative scenario", is listed as having 45 citations but by my count only 3 of them are not self-cites; the next one "The impact of the static part of the Earth's gravity field" is listed as having 42 citations but by my count only one is not a self-cite. So the claim to WP:PROF#C1 fails, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear David Eppstein, I repeat again that you should use NASA ADS database, not Google scholar which is clearly incomplete. Do the comparison by yourself. Thus, WP:PROF#C1 is actually met (see below my comment including citation from WP:PROF) Megalobingosaurus (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The results do not differ significantly. ADS lists "The LARES mission revisited" as having 35 citations, of which only five are not self-citations by Iorio himself, and only three are not self-citations of any sort. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is interesting to consider what would be the result if an author cited in every one of his papers all the papers he had written previously. If he had written N papers then he would get approximately (assuming N to be a large number) (N squared)/2 self-citations and an h index of N/2. With N = 100 this would give 5000 self-citations and an h index of 50. In the case of papers in the physics ArXiv, papers can be revised and citations to newer papers can be inserted to improve statistics further. Of course, I don't suggest that any of this happened in the present case. One has to take care in interpreting citation databases, as it is in principle possible for them to be manipulated. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, I don't see the point of your speculations. They only serve to confuse other unexpert users. Go to NASA ADS, and see. He has 663 non-self citations, a h-index of 21, etc.

Comment To Lucas, who continue to speak about the sockpuppet issue and of the italian version, without speaking about the merit and the content of the article...With respect to the previous AfD there are several new points. First of all, from the point of view of the notability, there are now more links to independent, reliable third party sources (international mass media, scientific magazines) dealing with Iorio. They are not few. To Perchloric: since you compare Iorio to other scientists, please note that this is generally not the case for most of scientists having an article here. This is a fact. The notability is satisfied. Please, read "carefully" the rules for notability before writing something here. Second, with respect to the first AfD the bibliometric data of Iorio changed in a significative way. Now he has 663 non-self citations and h-index of 21. From the point of view of wiki rules (we are not hiring Iorio at a lab or department, ok Xxanthippe), this is sufficient. To other users: please, stop repeating always the same stuff based Google scholar, and go to the right database. Thank you Megalobingosaurus (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Passing over the aggresivity against the other users, I answer to this comment and the next one just by quoting Perchloric: everything in the article seems like ordinary activities that any reasonably active university professor would be doing. No indication of real notability. This is hardly questionable. --Lucas (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lucas, I quote directly from WP:PROF: "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the detailed Notes which follow. 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." As I am trying to let all of you here understand, point 1. is met from NASA ADS, which is the database which is appropriate to this case, given the field of activity of Iorio. Then, please read carefully also WP:Notability and the criteria inside. They are met by the media coverage. Since Iorio has been compared here to other common scientists, many of them have their own articles here, please note that very few have this media coverage. Anyway, again, here we are not a scientific commettee deciding if hiring Iorio or not. We are evaluating an article for its content and according to to the wiki criteria. Please, also look at the CONTENT of the previous discussion about the recreation of the article, which Bgwhite claims to be happened under (false pretences-why? On which bases you say that?). Megalobingosaurus (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About point 1 by Bgwhite on Top 25 Hottes Articles, I would say that their imoprtance must be judged with the criteria proper of the specific field of the article's subject. This is acknowledged also by the wiki rules explicitly. Now, in the field of Iorio, it is widely accepted that notability is assessed also over so short temporal scales. It is connaturated with science itself and its progress and how it is made. It is witnessed by the fact that several journals in the field have, and had in the past, similar rankings on even shorter time spans. Look, for example, at any astronomy-physics-relativity journal by Springer where you will find most downloaded articles over the last 7 days, 30 days 90 days. All in all, it is common practice in the field. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, note how Lucas operates: "I don't want to hear what you say", or "I refute to put my eye in the telescope". One could continue to present argumented and rational points, but he would continue to a priori refute them without discussing them because he had decided in advance. Until now, nothing from him: he has no arguments, and merely limit himself to just repeat what other said. And this is not aggressivity towards you (on the contrary, I've seen repeatedly aggressivity against ME, not YOU, and clearly a priori bias against the subject of the article), it is a fact. By the way, it is a minor point. Please, look at the substance. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. Iorio's h-index is heavily padded by self-citations, and there is not much else here to hang one's hat one in terms of passing WP:PROF. Given that the prior AfD was the target of heavy sockpuppetry, one should be particularly careful here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also Nsk92 does not refer to merit and content, do not take into account wiki rules themselves at all clearly ignoring them, refutes to use NASA ADS and deal with the irrelevant sockpuppet stuff. David Eppstein writes deliberately distorted and clearly incorrect statements. Everybody (serious) can check that, actually, NASA ADS and GS do not yield same results at all. David Eppstein, why do you refute to look at all other papers by Iorio NOT considered by GS but considered by NASA ADS? It is incorrect to state that Iorio's h-index is padded by self-citations. The non-self citations are 663. Anyway, it is a fact that you are deliberately ignoring the wiki rules about WP:PROF and WP:Notability. These are facts, not speculations. All here adopt the same points by Lucas: "I don't want to hear what you say", or "I refute to put my eye in the telescope" Megalobingosaurus (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I went through the ADS results more carefully. If we calculate his h-index using only refereed citations that are not self-citation, it appears to be 9: the top paper is "Solar System planetary orbital motions" with 40, the next few have citation numbers 23, 16, 15, 14, 14, 11, 11, 10, and all the rest are in single digits. So the picture is not as bleak as it looked from the smaller set of samples I tried, but it is still not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. This is not a low-citation field: it is easy to find researchers looking at the relation between theories of gravity and solar system motion with hundreds of citations per paper. So for a pass of WP:PROF I'd expect to see a lot more than what Iorio actually has, even with the higher numbers here than I earlier reported. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking with older and expert colleagues and professors, it is the first case I hear that one calculates the h-index based only on not self-citations. What if one would do the same with all the other scientists? In this discussion Iorio has often been compared to other scientists; well, do the same for the other scientists having an article here, and let me know...All these are clearly and blatant proofs that there is a priori bias againts Iorio driven by the sockpuppet paranoia. Does wiki have some rule about such a way to compute h? Is there a criterion on WP:PROF#C1 or elsewhere stating that one should compute the h-index in this way? This is another breach of the wiki rules. Look at the previous recreation discussion: such calculating operations are not admitted. Indeed, in the article bibliometric information are sourced by an independent secondary source stating the index. Apart from the fact that he has 663 non-self citations: again, WP:PROF is met. Again, you violate the wiki rules, which I literally quoted. And you deliberately ignores the WP:Notability rules and the mass media coverage, which other scientists do not have. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must have very peculiar "older and expert colleagues and professors". The world at large is very wary of self-citation, and even our article about h-index mentions that it "can be manipulated through self-citations", giving as reference a paper (Christoph Bartneck & Servaas Kokkelmans (2011). "Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis") about such manipulations, which mentions that some scholars "condemn [self-citation] as a means to artiﬁcially inﬂate bibliometric indicators" and describes the methods used to "strategically manipulating the h-index". Goochelaar (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another breaching of wiki rules by Goochelaar: indeed, he is directly accusing Iorio of deliberately manipulating his h-index. Otherwise, Goochelaar's writing has no sense. Of course, the cases cited by Goochelaar has not any connection with the case examined here. Another wiki rules breaking: Iorio has published several papers in highly reputable journals with high impact factors: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Journal of High Energy Physics, The Astronomy Journal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Classical and Quantum Gravity, General Relativity and Gravitation: again, WP:PROF is met. Of course, you deliberately ignore that...Just like you deliberately continue to ignore WP:Notability wiki rules about mass media coverage, etc. which you don't like, so they do not exist for you. Really, a great discussion here, with very competent people! David Eppstein continues to give blatantly false numbers. Either he is not even able to run NASA ADS properly, and if so one cannot understand why he is here, or he deliberately and repeatedly falsify the figures. Again, these are facts, not speculations. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the "numbers" by David Eppstein

Go to NASA ADS, insert "Iorio, Lorenzo" i the author field, choose all the three boxes "Astronomy", "Physics", "ArXiv", then choose "sort by citations" and you get the Iorio papers ordered by citatins. One finds (note that David Eppstein does not specify how he sorted out the papers in getting his "numbers"): 1) 54 tot cit - 5 self cit = 49 (David Eppstein yields 40) 2) 38 tot cit - 9 self cit = 29 (David Eppstein yields 23) 3) 36 tot cit - 0 self cit = 36 (David Eppstein yields 16) 4) 35 tot cit - 29 self cit = 6 (David Eppstein yields 15) 5) 33 tot cit - 21 self cit = 22 (David Eppstein yields 14) 6) 33 tot cit - 13 self cit = 20 (David Eppstein yields 14) 7) 31 tot cit - 27 self cit = 4(David Eppstein yields 11) 8) 29 tot cit - 20 self cit = 9 (David Eppstein yields 11) 9) 27 tot cit - 9 self cit = 18(David Eppstein yields 10) 10) 26 tot cit - 4 self cit = 22(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 11) 25 tot cit - 1 self cit = 24 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 12) 25 tot cit - 14 self cit = 11 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 13) 25 tot cit - 9 self cit = 16(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 14) 25 tot cit - 13 self cit = 12 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 15) 24 tot cit - 3 self cit = 21 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 16) 22 tot cit - 14 self cit = 8(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 17) 21 tot cit - 5 self cit = 16 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 18) 21 tot cit - 14 self cit = 7 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 19) 21 tot cit - 17 self cit = 4(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 20) 21 tot cit - 9 self cit = 12 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 21) 21 tot cit - 14 self cit = 7(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 22) 20 tot cit - 3 self cit = 17 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 23) 18 tot cit - 4 self cit = 14(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 24) 17 tot cit - 2 self cit = 15 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 25) 16 tot cit - 11 self cit = 5 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 26) 15 tot cit - 11 self cit = 4(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) etc. etc. These numbers imply a "pure" h-index (which, of course, nobody computes anywhere. You will not find it elsewhere for any scientists here in wiki and in any other publication more or less academic: the "total" h-index is always displayed) equal to 14, not 9 by David Eppstein. Thus, WP:PROF#C1 is met. Again, I stress the high numbers of papers in high impact factor journals (this further concur to meet WP:PROF#C1, as per analytical description which state: "publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals") and, again, the media coverage which guarantees that WP:Notability is met. Moreover, they allow to meet also WP:PROF#C7: indeed, in the analytic description it is written: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."

I think the main difference in our numbers is that I was using the "refereed citations" listing, not counting citations that are only so far in preprints. Also, the order of the papers that I gave is not the same as the order ADS gives, but was re-sorted by the number of real citations that I found. Regardless, I'm tired of your filibustering and personal attacks on other editors here; you've made your point long ago and I don't see that your recent comments have added much to it. So, this will be my last reply to you. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on possible spam between Bgwhite and Lucas

Another breach of wiki rules is, perhaps, the wiki intercommunication between Lucas and Bgwhite on Iorio: go to their talk pages. It is surprising, since Lucas, who continuously cite the Italian wiki, wrote that the italian page was deleted also for spam.. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is as surprising as true. Anyway, this is my last answer too: please read carefully Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You have a lot of answers here about the central problem of this biography: the un-notability. Don't you agree with them? Are all the users ignorant? Maybe, but no problem: please stay calm and wait for the proposal end. Thanks. --Lucas (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I realize that, perhaps, I used sometimes a tone too rude. I make my apologies for that.Megalobingosaurus (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is an award winning published professor Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which categories of WP:Prof do you invoke here? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep

Hello! Ok, Im'rather new here, and you probably will not take me too seriously, but this article should remain.

WP:PROF#C1 met

WP:PROF#C7 met

WP:Notability met

See you, folks Blue rose yy (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to expand on your arguments as others have done with theirs? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, Xan! Well, I have to say that also WP:PROF#C2 is likely met since he got not only the Italian Society Awards, but also those two other awards by Elsevier top cited awards. WP:PROF#C1 is ok for me since his bibliometric and his invited review article. I asked some friends of mine here in academic CNR Bologna, and they confirmed that a h-index of 21, or even of 14 is quite high, especially because he was the sole author in most cases. But perhaps the most clear case is WP:Notability and WP:PROF#C7. Many important and non-local science magazines (Scientific American, guys!), newspapers, wrote on him and his researches. See you! Blue rose yy (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Nsk92, Xxan, David Eppstein above. Heavily padded self-citations render the usual citation-counting moot, and other sources of notability seem to be lacking. Ray^Talk 15:51, 13 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) 03:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tsunami films[edit]

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

Delete. An unreferenced list of trivia; a tsunami film is a film that features a tsunami. Very topical now, but alas not encyclopedic: any more so than List of swimming films, List of kissing films, List of people films, which of course would be films featuring swimming, kissing, and people Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of disaster films. Tsunami films are an overly specific subgenre of disaster film. The current list article doesn't even contain "proper" tsunami films for several entries. A tsunami film is a disaster film where the operative disaster is a tsunami, hence a heavenly impact or earthquake film is not a tsunami film even though a tsunami may occur in the film. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Give this list a big wave goodbye. Lugnuts (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, narrow list. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:02, 14 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. Recommend continuing discussion on possible merges. (non-admin closure) Swarm ^X 21:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section 8 (comics)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify this material. It looks like a joke to me. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have my doubts about notability, but clearly not a hoax/joke. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So can you actually verify this stuff then? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verify existence, etc., no problem. [7] [8] [9]. Will I read the comic books and see if the details are right? Better you than me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these reliable sources? If they are then maybe existence is verified. But we are still very far from notability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newsarama certainly is reliable; it's one of the leading comics newssites. (The precise link does go to a discussion board, but that's because the site archives its articles and user comments together; the initial "post" is the RS article, an interview with the very notable writer.) The other two are reliable by user consensus; they're often used as cites in comics-related articles. Since your deletion rationale was hoax/joke/unverifiable, that should settle this round of things. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that forum.newsarama.com is, well, a forum. The OP of that thread may be notable, but he would need to be an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" to be reliable under WP:SPS. I'll comment on verifiability versus notability below. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I addressed this point already. Newsarama archives its articles, which by general consensus satisfy WP:RS, together with user comments on them, which generally fail WP:RS. This is not significantly different from practice at other news sites; here Newsarama uses less sophisticated software, but the RS editorial content is clearly identified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine your comments to the discussion in hand and omit the comments on the inadequacies, real or imaginary, of other editors. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Ah, so the claimed RS is the material by Smith, quoting Garth Ennis, who devotes 200 words to this topic. That would establish the existence of the comic, which is good. I doubt that it goes very far towards "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only a joke in the sense that, yes, sometimes comic books have jokes in them. Comic Book Resources verifies much of the article. Note the "Fun fact: Dogwelder won a Wizard award for 'Best new character' back when people actually read Wizard." Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course! Thanks for asking, Starblueheather (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much "of course" about it, I fear. The link is to a post on a forum, and so ruled out by WP:SPS. If you have better information about the author of the post, such as a reason to believe that he is sufficiently expert that the exemptions apply, please give them. Otherwise it does not seem to help with verification, let alone notability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are appear to be so laughably uninformed on the topic of comics that 1) You think this team "Section 8" is a hoax, even though it easily confirmed to have been published in mainstream DC comics, and 2) You think Comic Book Resources is an unreliable source, when it's instead the winner of the "Best Comics-Related Periodical/Journalism" Eisner Award. Thanks for the laughs; I wish you the best of luck in avoiding unintended comedy by confining your future editing to topics which you have greater understanding of. LOL, Starblueheather (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Comic Book Resources is an unreliable source in terms of Wikipedia policy unless and until there is convincing evidence to the contrary. If there is an argument in terms of Wikipedia policy, please present it. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming quite tendentious. HP is both unfamiliar with the general subject matter and the existing working consensus as to which comics news sites are treated as reliable references. It is a waste of time for HP to insist that other edits educate him on matters he appears unwilling to do basic research on for himself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the article, not on other editors. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hitman (comics), where they appear to be recurring characters. The ELs are plenty to meet V, and possibly N, but is there really a call to cover them in their own article? I see no indication that they ever crossed over with any other comic. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I proposed this for deletion because I could not even verify the material in reliable sources and thought that it might even be a hoax. HW has given some sources which may be reliable for establishing existence and so I was probably wrong is suspecting it to be a hoax. But so far we are very far from establishing notability and it is false logic to argue, as has been done twice that the conclusion from "Delete as unverifiable" and "No, verifiable" is "Keep". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of Hitman characters instead. A merge to Hitman (comics) is not appropriate for two reasons. One, that article is presented in a timeline, per-issue format, where the characters would be (and I really hesitate to use this rule, as it is so often abused) undue WP:WEIGHT. Two, and fairly obvious, they are characters, and the format of that article suits their presentation perfectly. The sources listed at the AFD are very high quality (thank you for finding those, btw). The only thing standing in the way of their own article is that they are not the main subject of the series they were in. Anarchangel (talk) 12:29, 11 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) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Blankenheim[edit]

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

Ed Blankenheim was "born in the 20th century". That tells a lot... not! The Master of Mayhem 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability doesn't transfer to individuals simply because they belonged to an organization that is considered notable. Doesn't meet WP:N, WP:V. Brumak (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The absence of his birthdate is a silly reason for deleting an article and not worth citing in the nomination, let alone as the only reason. Verifiability is amply satisfied by the many books and news articles cited below. At Google Book search, good evidence of notability is "Ed Blankenheim is noteworthy as one of the original thirteen Freedom Riders who risked his own safety to protest racial segregation in the South. (more at the book)" in a 2009 book from U. of Illinois Press. Couldn't have said it better myself. See also extensive coverage in an Oxford Univ. Press 2006 book:[10], [11], [12]. See also 60 other books with coverage. Google News archive shows 2 references for "Edward Blankenheim" freedom-riderand 11 cites for "Ed Blankenheim" freedom-rider from 1961 through 2008. Some are reprints of a May 2001 Associated Press story. A June 2001 AP story had 2 paragraphs on Blankenheim. A September 2001 story had a paragraphon Blankenheim. Many stories are behind paywall, so further research by someone with access will be required to determine the depth of coverage. Some are just listings of him as one of the original 13 "freedom riders." His Oct 3, 2004 Obit in the SF Chronicle might contain more info about his birthdate, for those anxious to add that information. Edison (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. He received continuing coverage as one of the last of the original freedom riders, and there's no encyclopedic benefit to deleting this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ed Blankenheim was born March 16, 1934. He was notable, he was brave and he was a hero. Edison found many reliable sources, and there are many more available. He was far more than just an individual who belonged to a notable organization. He was a person who walked non-violently and calmly into a situation where vicious and brutal thugs were yearning to murder him. He is a notable figure in the history of the United States and the struggle for freedom everywhere. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. [13] They give him ample coverage, decades after the event happened. Dream Focus 10:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 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) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levolor[edit]

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

Advertisement for a company. Damiens.rf 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is written in a fairly neutral way, and there is little in the way of promotional "peacock" language. It is about a significant and notable company that has been in business for 96 years, and has had in-depth coverage in reliable sources going back decades. Cullen328 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand the nomination, since the current article does read like a profile of a run of the mill company, but Levolor is actually an old and famous brand, as the very large number of hits at GNews [14] and GBooks [15] will attest. Here's a lengthy 1988 New York Times story about the history of the business.[16] --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos' searches/article. I would have nominated it too. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having been through goole news links until they broke around page 10 I am still not sure that it has the sources to pass WP:Company. However, the product does seem well known and the connections with notable buyers and parent company lead me to think the article should stay. I have removed the most irrelevant section that was unsourcable and added some refs.Tetron76 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well established consumer brand that dates back to 1914, so it's not surprising that it has received extensive, on-topic treatment in reliable sources since then. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:21, 13 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Riley[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher. His statistics aren't astounding, there is only one reference...I just don't think there is enough to make this a worthwhile article. Alex (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing that made me pause was the "special assistant to coaches" claim, but it's not an official part of the coaching staff, so I don't think it's enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 11 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) 16:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in New York City – Manhattan[edit]

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

Subst and delete There is no reason why these borough-by-borough lists can't simply be part of the main article List of high schools in New York City, it makes editing harder and doesn't help the reader. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. This nomination is a little confusing because List of high schools in New York City is also marked for AfD. Is that just a transclusion glitch? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The main page is not nominated for deletion. The AFD notices from the transcluded pages were showing through to the main page because the nominator misplaced the AFD notices on each sub-page. I have corrected that now. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Valid navigational function for these sourced lists. Carrite (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was the user who originally broke List of high schools in New York City into five transcluded pages for the five boroughs to make editing of individual boroughs easier. The original page with all five boroughs was so long that it was difficult to edit and maintain. (Note that there are over 750 external links and hundreds of wikilinks on the combined pages.) Transcluding the five boroughs into one master page works perfectly well and is within Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Transclusion. The nominator apparently wants to recombine all five borough articles into one massive article but not delete the master page. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The main page is not nominated and by all means should be kept. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Given the size of New York City, it is perfectly valid to have separate lists for the five boroughs, then to combine them via transclusion. --Orlady (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per other editors - breaking down into manageable chunks is appropriate. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYC is a big place, I am sure it will help those looking for schools to have a good list. Has anyone seen "Waiting for Superman"?? Sounds like a hard place to be in, looking for a public school in the USA Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:47, 12 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. No arguments for deletion except from SPAs. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Krovatin[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by 75.4.198.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the rationale "non-notable author, just the son of someone famous"; however, it is ineligible for prod due to previously being prodded and contested, so I'm bringing it here on behalf of the IP user.

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Weak keep Krovatin is the son of Anna Quindlen. I think the situation is a bit different than in 2006 (the article was deleted). The comic book Deadlocke published by Dark Horse was based on his second novel, “Venomous” (see [17] Comic Book Resources and [18] Dark Horse Comics). Additionally, I found [19] Kirkus Reviews and [20] The New York Observer articles. In my opinion it is enough for an informative article about this author. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems self created, minimal to non-existant achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnny (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete in reading up on his "novels" they were just projects arranged by his mother and her agent. This page seems to be self-promotion for a spoiled child rather than a chronicle of an estabilished authors's achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETBfeet (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 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) 00:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For me its a quite clear cut Keep case.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 2 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no achievements just nepotism

Delete don't think he merits wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanuer (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting coincidence, Turnny, Hackson25 and Lanuer. All of you started editing at this AfD and your "vote" here is your only edit. (ETBfeet has five edits in total.) I assume this is an attempt to make a sophisticated masquerade, but your meeting here is rather funny. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:23, 12 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. Notability not established, notwithstanding the claims by the "keep" SPAs (note also sockpuppet issues). postdlf (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takuro Ueno[edit]

Article says he is a Japanese management consultant, political economist, writer and founding partner at at Ueno & Company. Only references given are Who's Who publications. Unable to find information on him or his company with a general Google search. Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He gives seminars to leading corporations in Japan. You will occasionally find his articles thought provoking. I think he is a member of the American Economic Association.--Todaisei2100 (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)— Todaisei2100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keepMr. Ueno is quite well known in Japan as a management consultant and also teaches strategy at many of the academic institutions including Globis Management School, a leading business school in Tokyo, Japan. Worth included for reference purposes for Japanese management consultants. Please refer to//ges.globis.co.jp/faculty/emp_ueno_takuro.html--GeorgeGeorge-M (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)— GeorgeGeorge-M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

External links that I have found so far are all in Japanese. But, there are surely sources which we can now refer to.--GeorgeGeorge-M (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ueno is quite well known in Japan as a management consultant and also teaches strategy at many of the academic institutions including Globis Management School, a leading business school in Tokyo, Japan. Worth included for reference purposes for Japanese management consultants. Please refer to//ges.globis.co.jp/faculty/emp_ueno_takuro.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeGeorge-M (talk • contribs) 04:44, 26 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) 00:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more reliable sources can be found. Unfortunately, the Marquis WW's aren't considered reliable (see, for example, [21]), and I'm unable to find significant secondary coverage of this consultant under this name or 上野拓朗, you'd think there'd be a news article or book that gives some in-depth coverage of him somewhere. AEA membership is not a criteria for notability, nor is being a teacher (see WP:PROF for guidance on that), but more important than questions of notability are the questions of verifiability. At present, we have no verifiable reliable sources that I can see, and WP:BLP and WP:V leave little room for any result but delete in such a case. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:27, 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a significant number of articles under the name 上野拓朗 that can be located through Scholarly and Academic Information Navigator at the National Institute of Informatics, a government-run entity, where they keep track of important academic journals in Japan. In addition, we are able to find a lot of information on this person through a general Google search in the Japanese language and, therefore, easily verify what is written about him.--TomJonesIII (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)— TomJonesIII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment-I am concerned about the number of SPA's voting at this AFD, I suspect someone is canvassing.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On Wikipedia, notability requires verifiable evidence; I haven't found reliable secondary sources that can be used to bolster notability. Joe hasn't found any either, searching in Japanese. Because Ueno is a living person, I think that we should only have an article about him if the content meets WP:V. To respond to Tom's point about scholarly articles written by Ueno, WP:ACADEMIC should be met in order to substantiate the notability of the writer. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:35, 16 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) 04:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ifun4all[edit]

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

Young company, indie game developer which has produced just a few games. Doesn't show enough media coverage. Not notable IMHO. Removed earlier as IFun4all, also removed from Polish Wikipedia for lack of notability: [22]. Sir Lothar (talk) 07:52, 1 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) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is based on the same couple of press releases published at Develop-online, IGN and Gamasutra, and a handful of app review sites that do not pass WP:RS. Nothing compelling turned up at the VG Google search, or Google News/Books. Marasmusine (talk) 21:26, 2 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article is in need of a major cleanup. The Gamasutra source and the multiple IGN sources are considered RSes, and PSX Extreme is listed at WP:VG/RS. The article as it stands certainly reads like an advertisement. Someone has also nominated it as violating NPOV (although I notice that this tag was improperly added as the tagging user failed to initiate any discussion in talk whatsoever). I also agree with Marasmusine that the article isn't very compelling right now but I think it passes WP:N. It just needs to be re-written and expanded. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamasutra and IGN only list press releases; simple acknowledgment of a company's existence is not enough for an article here. As for the NPOV dispute, I would venture to say that it really needed no discussion, as the article reads like an ad. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what the advert tag is for. NPOV disputes require the existence of a dispute not just a general sense of unease in a random editor passing through. Anyway it's a moot point since it's so abundantly clear that the article needs to be re-written anyway. As for the notability issue, I think the sort of in-depth acknowledgment that comes from a republished press-release is sufficient to confer notability unless Gamasutra and IGN have a policy of republishing all press-releases that are submitted to them regardless of notability. I can't imagine that's their policy, is it? -Thibbs (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it's not their policy. But "this company exists" enhances the article in absolutely no way. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources are press releases, which are not independent enough to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:19, 16 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. BigDom (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Spencer[edit]

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

Notability, perhaps BLP1E. The only two reliable, secondary sources I could find on this author concentrate on his autobiographical claims of having slept with both the parents of some singer (see reference on the article, and [23]). That doesn't appear to rise to WP:AUTHOR, etc. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 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) 00:01, 1 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 18:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published author. I was unable to find any WP:RS:reliable sources that discuss him or his books, other than two passing mentions in Spanish. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Joe's assessment that the sources cited in the nomination are insufficient for the general notability guideline and WP:AUTHOR both; I wasn't able to find anything else that might help establish notability. Someone must be buying his books, though; it looks like he's about to release the eighth volume of his "Romeo and Juliet" series. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:46, 16 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ConcertWare[edit]

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

No secondary sources, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A music program that debuted in 1984 before the widespread popularity of the internet is likely to have offline additional sourcing to the following material that I was able to find online: [24], [25], [26]. also behind pay walls: [27], [28]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 28 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) 00:01, 1 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 18:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Great Wave Software or Keep and Improve - per Whpq, it definitely is notable enough to be referenced in Wikipedia but perhaps not in its own article. -George100 (talk) 19:53, 8 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) Swarm ^X 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives of Texas[edit]

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

State organization, little-or-no independent sourcing given, and no sourcing given to establish notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Week Keep - The current article does have a lot of problems... but I think it can probably be fixed with a rewrite... the organization gets a fair number of [google news hits], but most of them are no more than passing references. I think it is a toss up as to whether the org is a notable enough topic for a stand alone article. In short, there may be an article here... but it's boarderline and it's not the one we currently have. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: I had this article deleted several months ago and recreated it to include more cites, however the same text has appeared again. This was the second time the article was deleted and I feel that it should be deleted again.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — I am far from convinced of the supposed notability. Most of it strongest cases appear to stem from the membership of people elected to various roles. I consider that insufficient. A F K When Needed 16:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor a low notability standard for political parties and their youth sections regardless of ideology. That this is not a universally-held opinion is a pity because it has already lead to the elimination of useful encyclopedic information for no good reason. This is not a political party, of course, but it's close enough for rock and roll — an organization of political co-thinkers that has been in existence for over three decades. This is a de facto youth section of the Republican Party in Texas, with campus chapters around the state, including BAYLOR, TEXAS A&M, and TEXAS TECH, among others. Basically: the state-level Republican youth organization. No, I'm not a conservative, or a Republican, and I don't play one on TV — but this sort of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT exercise needs to stop. Leave valid content about political organizations alone. It belongs in an encyclopedia. Period. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WikiProject Texas still needs to be notified of this deletion nomination. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization was mentioned in this book from 2004 which quotes a news article about them from 2003. Here's another book. And here's one which has the group protesting a speech by Clinton. The YCT is called "heartless, greedy, anti-intellectual little fascists"... pretty exciting prose. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was just reading Rand Paul's book the other day and he mentioned YCT. It seems fairly notable, although I agree the article needs a lot of work. –CWenger (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the sources available, that have yet to be added to the article, there have been multiple references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject to the group that are widespread (local, regional, and national). Furthermore, with the large number of mentions, in news, books, and scholarly sources, if added all together, they maybe considered fulfilling significant coverage. Therefore, the subject of this article clearly, passes WP:GNG, and even though the article needs to be improved to increase its quality, it should be kept as it is notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perry and Paul, seems to have a pretty substantial following. - Haymaker (talk)

Weak keep - General notability seems evident; article deficiencies aren't in themselves rationale for deletion. I would recommend keeping watchful eyes for neutrality and coats. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the in-article sourcing is terrible, and the article needs some additional work, but there's more than enough reliable sourcing out there to meet GNG, a quick scan of Gbooks/Gnews seems clear enough. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. All this article needs is a really cool nav box and it'll be ready for GA review. Lionel (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Seriously? Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': The article needs to be fleshed out a bit and better sourcing wouldn't hurt, but it certainly is notable enough to pass muster. This isn't someone trying to get their garage band some publicity by creating a Wikipedia article. This is a statewide organization that has been in existance for more than 30 years. Improvement certainly, but by no means would I recommend a delete.SeanNovack (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are people looking at the same article I am? GA with 0 reliable sources? This article, in its current state clearly fails the general notability guidelines as there are no reliable sources that support the claim to notability. I agree with Carrite that there should be a very low bar in this case, and so I'm not !voting for delete. However I would strongly urge those in favor of keeping the article to either get some cites into the article, find some policy grounds to support their positions, or to make it clear they are voting IAR/think policy should be changed. Pretending this article meets the GNG is not helpful. Monty ₈₄₅ 06:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search shows 656 results. This group gets media coverage, and they include their representatives in political discussions. Dream Focus 08:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Although notability has not been well-established, the article's content appears largely encyclopedic. Of course, with most articles concerning political organizations on Wikipedia, questions of NPOV must be raised. But I would like to see the incorporation of reliable third-party sources such as the following: NY Times article mentioning YCT at Texas A&M. FitzColinGerald (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article needs work..not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as the organization has almost certainly drawn media coverage over the years for their many claimed stunts but with none of those sources in the article, it's impossible for a reader to determine what of this article is factual. Fails the verifiability threshold, the only one more important that notability. If kept, it needs to be gutted, re-written, and properly sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So what is wrong with tagging for sources? This is the typical way that sourcing issues are addressed... Why are we leaping straight to annihilation of the article here? Carrite (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives of Texas produces STATE LEGISLATOR RATINGS which are cited by Project Vote Smart. In addition to the three chapters cited above, they also have chapters at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN and STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE COLLEGE, at a minimum... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be NUMEROUS ARTICLES on the group's activities which have been published by the Austin American-Statesman (paywalled). Carrite (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's 109 MORE HITS on the exact phrase "Young Conservatives of Texas" from the Dallas Morning News... (again, paywalled). Carrite (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you can find out-of-state coverage -- local coverage doesn't establish notability nearly as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Texas is plenty big enough, Wikipedia is not an index of stories in Time magazine. There seem to be a truly massive number of news stories relating to this group's activities — albeit paywalled. Improve, don't delete. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another fuckin' paywall at the San Antonio News Express, but again copious news hits from the archive on "Young Conservatives of Texas," including this lead:

"6.) Flap over bill illustrates need for communication
Author: Scott Stroud Section: Metro and State News Publish Date: January 28, 2011 Word Count: 545 Document ID: 1350E1497363BF18 AUSTIN - The Young Conservatives of Texas have tagged a bill by Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon to designate April Minority Cancer Awareness Month as one of the worst under-the-radar bills filed so far in the 2011 legislative session.

They didn't know she has stage 4 lung cancer...."

Ouch. Still, there's no way that it can reasonably be claimed that this is some obscure organization which has not been featured in independent, third-party news coverage. Tag and flag all you want, but there is no way this should have been brought up for deletion... An obvious KEEP. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mainly on notability from having members become Congressmen and a Senator. Makes NYT at [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], and more. NYT is sufficient on its own to meet any notability requirements. Collect (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more work, including some more reliable inline citations, but sufficiently described to be kept and improved. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs a lot of work, but the notability is there. Perhaps this is a job for WikiProject Conservatism. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like they've gotten a lot of coverage, AFD shouldn't be used for article that just need cleanup. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly how I feel about this. Looks like somebody jumped the gun on an AfD when some cite tags would have been far more appropriate. SeanNovack (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I support a relatively low bar for notability on political organizations, but I don't think the tactic of plugging the group's name into Google News or whatever is that useful in these types of cases. I'm reminded of the fairly recent AfD on Focus on the Family Canada, where a number of links to articles were provided, but many were just brief quotations of what the group's spokesperson thought on an issue. These types of links aren't really helpful here - it seems awkward and artificial to just plug into the middle of the article "Young Conservatives of Texas supported House Bill 123". Since it's clear that this AfD is heading for a "Keep", can we improve the article by looking for sources about the organization itself and its influence, (and not just sources that mention it in passing) and actually incorporating these sources into the article (which hasn't happened yet)? Kansan (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - The New York Times meets a much higher bar than just "Google" in point of fact. And a whole slew of cites therein. Collect (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - For example, the third New York Times link just says they endorsed a particular candidate... which is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Quality, not quantity. Kansan (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And the one which has The Campus Coalition for Peace and Justice has had a couple of antiwar rallies here, and university campuses always have more antiwar feeling than America in general," said Austin Kinghorn, public affairs director of the Young Conservatives of Texas. "But I think a lot of students here are still unsure. We're going to set up a debate with the coalition people, and I think that will get a huge turnout." is chopped liver? Sorry -- pointing out that one of many links "only" describes an endorsement is not a strong argument to ignore the other links. Collect (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not calling for deletion or anything like that - I'm only stating that, as it appears this article is clearly going to be kept, it's time to start incorporating some of the myriad links that have been presented, and that we should focus on some of the more useful links instead of just linking to anything that vaguely mentions them. Kansan (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, yes, that is chopped liver. Quoting an organization's spokesman does not indicate notability of the organization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable group. Tentontunic (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More work, less talk. Google News sources are numerous; I have to admit I was surprised, but there are Google Books cites also. Also Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Democrats of North Carolina and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles County Young Democrats Anarchangel (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not something that can't be fixed. I see no good reason for deletion. It's a legitimate 26 year old organization with a history.

jjrj24 (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work, but no reason to delete. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This organization is old enough and active enough for inclusion. Perhaps more work is needed, but there is no reason to delete. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:19, 14 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) 03:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Till[edit]

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

State chair of national organization -- no particular notability asserted. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has several sources that mention him and was the head of a large political organization. He meets the notability guidelines.Theseus1776 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No automatic notability attaches to the state chair of a political organization for college students under WP:POLITICIAN. Gnews search reveals minimal, trivial coverage in the context of political positions taken by his organization. Ray^Talk 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, state chair of a national organization, does not have sufficient coverage per WP:GNG to warrant a standalone article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:12, 10 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) 01:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lettunich[edit]

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

State chair of national organization: no reason given demonstrating notability beyond that. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also going to delete every College Republic national chair? I think you need to also delete these articles as well. The organization is clearly notable and as its head he meets the notability guidelines.Theseus1776 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By your standards this article should be deleted as well: Zach Howell.Theseus1776 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a distinct lack of assertion of notability in that article, but Howell is a national chair: Lettunich was a state chair. If you want to nominate Howell, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't want to nominate either, but by your standards Howell should be deleted as well. Also, being the state chairman of Texas is notable in it of itself. Texas has over 30 million people; you could be a "national chair" and still be less notable than Texas'. There are no claims of notability in Howell's article, and for sake of consistency you should nominate it for deletion.Theseus1776 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are fewer citations for the former state chairman of the Republican Party of Texas than this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tina_Benkiser Theseus1776 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, that's bad. Think you can add a few quickly? BLPs shouldn't be left in that condition, but I have to head to work.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No automatic notability attaches to the position, coverage in secondary sources is trivial to non-existent. Ray^Talk 23:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, state chair of a national organization, does not have sufficient coverage per WP:GNG to warrant a standalone article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:12, 10 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) 01:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie McCaslin[edit]

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

BLP1E, not otherwise notable. Borders on attack page, but sourced sufficiently to not qualify for G10. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP1E. Notable only for shooting his mouth off in an insulting fashion, with a video camera running. Cullen328 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is more notable than most other entries on Wikipedia. The sources are substantial and many.Theseus1776 (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Any and all notability stems from one incident, which good taste and a sensible regard for the subject's reputation would leave off the encyclopedia. Ray^Talk 23:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, state chair of a national organization, does not have sufficient coverage per WP:GNG to warrant a standalone article. Ultimately a WP:BLP1E. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:13, 10 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) 01:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Sulaimon[edit]

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

High school student, fails notability criteria for Basketball player inclusion Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: High school athletes are tough cases. There is a burgeoning media business covering them and major outlets like ESPN have been building their HS recruiting coverage over the last few years. After looking at Google News entries, I would say Sulaimon probably isn't notable at this point - under the assumption that very few HS athletes are. My guess is that this he will become notable as he goes through his senior year - especially as a Duke commit. He's not on the Brandon Knight/Harrison Barnes/Austin Rivers notability level (as HS students), that's for sure. Rikster2 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage seems to be about a high-school athlete signing with a college team, which falls under WP:RECENTISM. The remainder of coverage is WP:ROUTINE sourced from player statistic pages and high school team schedule and results and basic game coverage. Finally, a star high school player attending a college is WP:ROTM and not notable in this case. —Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 13 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 Result was keep. The WP:NSPORTS guidelines for high school athlete notability are more relevant than WP:NBASKETBALL. Most crucially "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." This burden appears to have been met by the "keep" !voters. Rlendog (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Murphy (basketball)[edit]

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

High school student, fails notability criteria for Basketball player inclusion --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with the nominator's reasoning, per this. I feel that the player's various Top 15 rankings by national publications passes notability. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 18:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alex Murphy basketball under the current title. Sellyme^Talk 06:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated Alex Murphy basketball for speedy deletion as a duplicated (identical content, created by same editor) of Alex Murphy (basketball). --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: High school athletes are tough cases. There is a burgeoning media business covering them and major outlets like ESPN have been building their HS recruiting coverage over the last few years. After looking at Google News entries, I would say Murphy probably is notable at this point. He's a top recruit, and is the son of a former NBA player. Both of these (especially coupled by his commitment to a high profile program) tell me he is probably borderline notable. I wouldn't argue with a delete decision either, though. Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. The sources that are available are mostly about one event, his commitment to attend Duke, and WP:RECENTISM seems applicable. A star high school player attending a college is WP:ROTM and not notable. —Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd guesstimate that 99.99% of high school athletes aren't notable. But this is one of the exceptions. He's rated as the number 15 recruit in the country by ESPN, number 8 by scout.com and number 11 by rivals.com. He was pursued by the top college programs including Kentucky, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina and Florida, and he has committed to Duke. He has been the subject of extensive national media coverage and doesn't fit into the usual box for high school athletes. Multiple feature stories have been published about Murphy in major media outlets like ESPN.com here, Fox Sports here, The Boston Globe here, USA Today here and The Providence Journal here and here. These articles are not merely "routine" announcements of a player signing with a college team. They provide in-depth coverage of Murphy. Cbl62 (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe sources you list are all reliable, but they deal with one event published February 7—his committment to a college—and is a case of WP:RECENTISM. —Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not all the coverage is about his signing. But in any event, recentism (even if applicable) is not a basis for deleting. As stated in the article, it "is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well." Cbl62 (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS would be more succinct for lack of "enduring notability." —Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The key phrase is substantial and prolonged coverage, which this person has not received. Swarm ^X 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article from WPRI-TV (titled "Alex Murphy deep into NCAA recruiting") was published on 27 April 2010. This article from The Providence Journal (titled "Recruiting war is on for South Kingstown’s Alex Murphy") was published on July 18, 2010. This article from the Boston Globe (titled "Murphy picks Duke") was published on 8 February 2011. The news articles, spanning nine months, are "substantial and prolonged coverage". Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not "substantial" and it does not go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Swarm ^X 03:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is "substantial" in my opinion. That multiple articles feature Alex Murphy as their main subject attests to his notability. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the coverage we see here tips this subject over the line as far as notability is concerned. It's a narrow thing, but enough to Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nuclear Physics[edit]

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

The title notwithstanding, this article is actually about a blog where a private inventor self-publishes material related to his purported cold fusion device, the Energy Catalyzer (which probably also should be deleted, but that's another kettle of fish). Our article says next to nothing about the Journal of Nuclear Physics itself (largely because there isn't anything to be said), instead largely consisting of a list of links to 'real' journals about nuclear physics. There are no reliable sources anywhere which discuss the blog itself, and it badly fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Links to the site from elsewhere on the web are predominantly from fringe cold fusion forums—and even those sources are more than a little bit ambivalent about it. This blog should not be confused with the Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics, a legitimate scientific publication which ceased operations in 1992. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC), expanded 14:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cites about the dubious nature of the claims, not the actual "journal" (cough, cough, blog). Dennis Brown (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regardless of the content of the blog, is it notable? // Liftarn (talk)
- Comment That was my whole point, the only sources talking about it are talking about the dubious nature of it, and those aren't reliable sources themselves. WP:RS sources are ignoring the blog in droves ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, I did find some RS that mentions the blog, but only in a sentence.[35] // Liftarn (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I would agree the source is reliable, but quoting from the source itself "Note that the site is not a scientific journal – all the material was presented and examined mainly by Rossi himself. "When I say that this is a preliminary report that I sent by fax to Rossi, I certainly do not consider it a scientific publication. Because you can not publish where you do peer review yourself, right?” Professor Levi said.", making this a passing glance at the site, highly qualified as to its reliability (pure blog), and by itself not significant enough coverage to really be called "notable". If it had several of these types of cites, it would still be questionable from my reading of WP:N. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article is not and probably will not contain much information, two things are important: 1) it clearly states that it is not connected to the other journals. So it is valuable for avoiding confusion. 2) Peer-review-journals seem the be very reluctant in accepting anything that has to do with cold fusion. The existence of this blog-journal is an example of the effects and disadvantages of the current peer review system. --217.10.60.85 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misleading at least. It has the title of prestigious journals, but it is a blog... about a highly controversial topic. We don't need to make extra publicity to an already controversial topic. Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEB. The only reliable third-party sources I could find in Google news archive that mention this blog do so only trivially as an aside to their coverage of its founders' cold fusion claims. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 14 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) 16:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Lyles White[edit]

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

I'm sure she was a fine and admirable person, but there is no indication of her notability outside of her home region. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom that she was likely an admirable person, yet there is a complete and utter lack of verifiable material regarding her in either news, books or scholar. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike delete, stay neutral due to new sources being found. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Presidential recognition of Hope House of Central Louisiana which she helped found in 1989; WP:N for organization, not individual. Unable to locate verification of Sojourner Truth Award beyond 2nd reference in independent WP:RS. Charities not listed under Combined Federal Campaign, restricted to local notability or local chapter of larger organization. Awaiting further references... Dru of Id (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing would make me more pleased than for someone to dig up some references, which very well may exist but simply be beyond my reach. I would be happy to strike my !vote above with the proper references. Sounds like a good person. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Louisiana House of Representatives passed HR13 in April 2011, commending White as one of "Louisiana's finest daughters" and commending the long-lasting statewide importance of her accomplishments. User:Atowner —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It was submitted Mar 25, signed by the SoH and taken to SoS Mar 27. Good catch. Dru of Id (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- HR13 establishes state-level WP:N recognition and assumes WP:RS WP:V Dru of Id (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep White's obituary was published in nearly a dozen newspapers in Louisiana. Her life's accomplishments were commended by the Louisiana House of Representatives. It appears as if her page is being ridiculed by a user who believes that referenced obituaries, news reports, and even an official resolution of the Louisiana legislature are not proof enough of the integrity of her biography. The user even asks for a citation to reference the number of children she had, as if her obituary, news reports, and the Louisiana legislature misrepresented this basic fact. User:Atowner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atowner (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request for a citation is more to specify from which source the information came from for verification. All items in an article should be referenced back to a source. —C.Fred (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the 'a' in 'a towner' is Alexandria? You created what is now, I think, a page that deserves to be included; it contained a lot of material, but her notability hadn't been established in a way that she merits. Articles aren't just deleted; they go through this process with the expectation that more eyes looking will find enough for inclusion, or that a group decision is to remove pending additional action, research and references. Notice that people worked on it. If you took this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Louisiana, you might get enough interest and assistance to make this a 'Good' or 'Featured' article; the potential is certainly there. At this point, we're all trying to ensure that (if, though that seems most likely now) kept, it is as good as it can be before people get drawn to other things. I, for one, am glad I've had the opportunity not just to learn about her, but to help develop the article, so I thank you. Dru of Id (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you Dru of Id Atowner (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the article, there appear to be sources in place, and HR13 is enough to satisfy notability. I think the best course for the article right now is improvement and expansion. If the article can't grow after some time (like 3–6 months), then a second AfD could be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So my brother-in-law recieved a citation from the State of Delaware legislature in 1978 for earning a National Merit Scholarhip. Does that mean he has achieved notability also? Seriously though, does a resolution equate to notability? Politicians hand these out like candy for any possible reason.Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution does not directly; however, IMHO, it's evidence of recognition, and a "widely recognized contribution" to one's field is a notability criterion at WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ When your brother-in-law was commended by the Delaware legislature for earning a National Merit Scholarship, was the resolution a four or five page document outlining all of his contributions to the State of Delaware and calling him one of "Delaware's finest sons"? Because that would be unusual and noteworthy. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Read the Louisiana House Resolution. Moreover, you're assuming that any resolution of a State legislature is somehow insignificant because of something Delaware rubber-stamped for a bright teenager in the late 70s. Just read the source material. The fact that it was entered into public record is not the issue; notability is located in the specific language of the resolution. Atowner (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate recommendation by the same participant struck out. —C.Fred (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The obituary notice was a broken link when the nomination was made; the article has improved much for the inclusion of a working link. Notability outside of the subject's home state is established. Anarchangel (talk) 13:18, 12 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Exeter Inn[edit]

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

Article does not establish the reason for notability. Claims it is "historic" with no further explanation. Reads mostly like advertisement. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep primarily because it is mentioned in a few hundred travel books. As to the extend of the coverage, it might not be deep, but it is rather broad. As for claim of notability, it does say it is "historic", which is vague but enough alone to escape wp:speedy. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Inn has received significant coverage in newspapers and features prominently in any travel guide of the region. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is mention of a commercial establishment in travel guides of and by itself really enough to establish notability? That seems awfully low of a bar to set.Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are correct that being mentioned in dozens of travel guides would be too low a bar, but this Inn has received much more attention than that. I am assuming there is more coverage that we just can't find in the quick searches we do here, based on the type of sourcing I did find. Yes, an assumption, but an experienced assumption. Places that are several generations older than the internet often have at least a few articles that are simply not accessible with a web browser, as I'm sure you know, so I would rather keep it on the very very slim chance I'm wrong than delete what is much more likely to be an article on a notable place. The key is my reading of wp:v as being "verifiable" (able) not "verified". To delete based on our own inability to verify would seem to be counter to the intent of the guidelines, IF we can (in good faith) conclude that the sources exist but they are simply not low hanging fruit. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the nom's objection, I do think that simply being mentioned in a travel guide is insufficient–but I see three separate reliable sources here that are not travel guides or routine restaurant reviews, two newspapers and a book. I think that satisfies WP:ORG. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To answer Wkharrisjr, I think that we should have coverage in several reliable sources that is much more in-depth than the usual listing of a "nice place to stay" in a travel book. For example, coverage that discusses the history or architectural features of the inn in detail far beyond the normal travel listing. So far, I don't see that type of coverage for this inn, but am open to changing my opinion if such good references are provided. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in numerous sources. Our editing policy is to keep such material. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't editing policy refer to content within articles themselves and not with whether the article should exist at all?Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CW often uses this argument about editing policy and I have to say I also disagree with his interpretation of WP:PRESERVE. BigDom (talk) 10:53, 17 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) 16:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timecamp[edit]

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

Completely non-notable piece of software; made by a non-notable company and without any mention in reliable sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline A7 Speedy Delete, as it doesn't really make a claim of notability, nor is it. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have speedy deleted it if software were speedy deletable, so I prodded instead. The reason why software isn't speediable is a good one--someone may actually know something about it and know of some sources). No harm in letting it run the 7 days. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point. I used to know that, thanks for the reminder. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to be notable. --George100 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:26, 12 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 page per author request (and clear WP:SNOW here for what it's worth --Errant ^(chat!) 07:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Fetishism Flag[edit]

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

Topic could be moved to Fat fetishism if need be. Designer of flag is also author of article, making for possible COI. Item is not-notable, there are no sources showing this is in use in any form. Possibly could be speedied as well? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a proposed flag. Proposed. Not notable, no reliable sources, no possible criteria for inclusion would seem to apply. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: a proposed symbol ... designed in 2011 - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made up in one day way back in 2011 by a dude with a computer. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 8 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Partners for Parks[edit]

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

No indication of notability, a single local secondary source. The editor has told me separately that it is the parent of Friends of Five Creeks, which may be marginally notable, but that isn't mentioned, and in any case the parent doesn't necessarily inherit notability from a marginally notable subsidiary. Acroterion (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe this AFD is premature, raised less than 10 hours after article creation and less than 8 hours since it was de-speedied from a CSD A7 in preference for appropriate improvement tags which I added at the time. A quick glance at results in GBooks and GNews shows a high likelihood that sources can be improved in the near future and as per the DEL guidance such searches should be taken into account rather than just the current sources included in a new article (which is what the nomination appears to be based on). The article creator has made some related articles quite successfully that were originally challenged and as they appear committed to improvement I would rather see these articles encouraged and discussed for improvement rather than challenging with deletion notices so shortly after creation. As for the partnership arrangements of the organization, there is some explanation on the sites linked already in the article and you can read some of these for yourself if you visit bpfp.org, consequently it seems a trivial improvement to add a bit more explanation in the article about how this works and their associated impact and influence on wider issues such as taxation and legislation which is not only supported in independent news articles but in published books. Fæ (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- If the article can be improved so that it doesn't have to reference its subject's own articles of incorporation, that would be a great improvement; the only secondary reference scarcely mentions the organization at all, and there is no real assertion of notability. By all means, if the article can be expanded and suitable references provided to deal with these issues, that would be satisfactory. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy if needed. Right now, the only citation and passes wp:rs only mentions them in passing. Others are 1st party. Other citations that can be found (primarily behind paywalls, ugh) are local in nature and limited in scope. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle I see the article has now been cited more fully. Actually, the text of the cites are approximately 5x the text of the actual article. I will give the benefit of the doubt and simply withdraw my previous objections. Thanks for the chuckle. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable organization that is routinely sourced as an authority on environmental issues. They are often quoted by major newspapers. They have created and launched notable organizations.Thisbites (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 28 news hits, most of them local, none of them in depth about the subject; however, two of the 5 hits in books, maybe considered significant coverage under WP:GNG, therefore I am not going to write the subject of the article as non-notable, but I don't believe that there is sufficient references that meet WP:RS to pass aforementioned WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above misleads and misrepresents the article. San Jose Mercury News, Restore: San Francisco Chronicle and Oakland Tribune are not local papers. We're also talking about a major metropolitan area (San Francisco Bay Area), so even the smaller papers like San Mateo County Times, Contra Costa Times, and the Berkeley Daily Planet are sizable. As the References section being larger than the article shows, the sources do go into depth about the subject. I support sanctions against editors who abuse their voting privileges at Wikipedia function pages in this fashion. Anarchangel (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that this article meets the "general" notability guideline and needs some room to grow but it has multiple non trivial coverage and is a noted subject.Thisbites (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Thisbites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as stated previously the nomination for deletion of this article was premature. The article should be given time to develop and hopefully with the future addition of reliable sources from the required parties, this article will satisfy others thoughts regarding its notability. It may be useful to add a Template:Under construction while it develops.08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:24, 13 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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shintaro Yamada[edit]

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

Deprodded without references being added. I agree with the original prod reason of "WP:N, WP:V -- Can't find reliable secondary sources in English or ~~Chinese~~ Japanese that mention the model and actor, nor is the actor mentioned in any of the articles on the films or television programs he putatively appeared in. Even barely possible it's a hoax, but ... of course, additional sources welcome." The-Pope (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am not sure why you would expect to find anything in Chinese (or even much in English), but the Japanese Wikipedia page is well referenced. My understanding is that references do not have to be in English, so this is enough to establish notability. Sorry I don't have time to translate the references. Francis Bond (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Japanese page is not so well referenced, but he was definitely in the Japanese TV remake of "My Sassy Girl" and the film Sakigake!! Otokojuku which is enough. Francis Bond (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ja.wiki article is only referenced to non-independent sources or other wikipedia articles. I don't see that definitely being in a TV show and a movie is necessarily enough, especially without any references in any language.The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I deprodded the article because of two defects in the original prod reason (the facts that it only mentioned the lack of English and Chinese - not Japanese - sources and that he is mentioned in Sakigake!!_Otokojuku_(2008_film)) and the fact that there was a clearly more detailed article in Japanese (even if I couldn't understand a word of it, let alone determine its quality, and Google Translate left me scarcely more enlightened). However, as I don't understand Japanese, I am quite happy to leave discussion here to those who do. PWilkinson (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a search of his name in Japanese yields quite a few hit that don't appear to be trivial (his name is in the headline for quite a few. I added one source, but the translation is very difficult. J04n(talk page) 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ENT, reliable sources were found. Dragquennom (talk) 17:55, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Swans[edit]

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

non notable band WuhWuzDat 08:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this now passes BAND#8, with the nomination for the Best British Newcomer at the Kerrang Awards. Added refs to back this up too. Lugnuts (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two releases on Bridge Nine Records satisfies WP:MUSIC (and that's international distribution; this is a UK band). News coverage in Kerrang!, Allmusic, etc. Chubbles (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I'm really suprised that a band this popular has ended up here. I've got a full-page interview with the band in the september 2009 issue of Rock Sound in front of me and I know for a fact that there's been more coverage in other issues (i'll find the coverage tonight), so the band passes WP:GNG very easily. I've copied the full text of the interview to my userpage if anyone's interested. doomgaze (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG passing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've also found live reviews in Rock Sound issues June 2008 and February 2010, album reviews March 2008, April 2008 and September 2009 and a 4 paragraph feature March 2008, in addition to the full page interview I mentioned above (and I actually cannot be bothered to find any more). So yeah, WP:GNG guidelines easily passed. doomgaze (talk) 22:58, 12 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) 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Hand[edit]

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

non notable band WuhWuzDat 08:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two releases on Bridge Nine Records satisfies WP:MUSIC; I added a reference from Allmusic, Google turns up more. Chubbles (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the two releases fulfil WP:BAND. I added some more refs from Rock Sound so the band now passes WP:GNG too. I can provide scans of the articles/reviews on request. doomgaze (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 8 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 under criterion G7, request by author/sole contributor, based on Wjohnson100's last comment. I think it would also be fair to say that this could be a regular delete under WP:SNOW. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Volume Electrolytic Purification of Salt Water Contaminated Radioactive Waste Water Streams[edit]

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

Original research, posted by User:Wjohnson100, who is likely related to the gentleman described as the creator of this process. - Philippe 07:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the user wjohnson100 is Walter L. Johnson, the creator of this process as described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohnson100 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons, the most important of which is the process lacking any notability, but also because of no mention in the press, being a pet concept by the SPA account that created the article and bordering on being a how to guide, very likely for the purpose of promoting the author. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of original research. The "references" in the article are by and large internal links; the article appears to contain only the ideas of the author and nothing that's been reported in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much into the realm of original research. Taroaldo (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research here, maybe original thought, but all the processes included are long proven industrial processes. The only unproven thing in this article is the numerical value of the volume reduction factors, which is calculated based on the quantity of NaCl in seawater and the solubility of NaOH and NaCl, all being established facts. As far as conflict goes, my only "interest" in publishing this here is to get it into the public domain and maybe be able to eat fish from the Pacific Ocean in the future. All that said, should you decide to delete this, it has still been a real learning experience and it is good to see all the comments and the desire to keep Wikipedia a quality reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohnson100 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of wikipedia articles, original/novel synthesis of existing ideas is considered to be original research. It's not a judgment on the quality or value of any given original research, it would just be really hard to run Wikipedia in a way that met the standards we like for verifiability and such if original research were allowed. I am glad to hear that you are not spoiled on the idea of WP over the potential deletion of this and I hope you stick around; feel free to drop by my page if you have any questions I can help with. Kevin (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of that, feel free to delete without argument. At least I have learned how to do many things in this process. Very educational. Regards to all and thanks for the input. Walter L. Johnson 00:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohnson100 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) by Versageek. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betamakers Community Application[edit]

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

There was a CSD A7 on it that someone removed. Bulletin board application with no indication of notability or independent sourcing, and quick googling doesn't show anything terribly notable about it. Since the speedy got removed, figured I'd send it to AFD. Kevin (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Only (non-BLP) prodded articles with the PROD tag removed can be AFD'd. Will be restoring the A7 though. Also I smell socks on the article. E Wing (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, my bad. I am still fairly new at this whole thing and thought it was considered inappropriate to restore speedies that had been removed by someone other than the article creator. Kevin (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, besides what Template:Uw-speedy1 are for anyway? LOL. E Wing (talk) 07:35, 8 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) 04:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lokpal bill draft (tabled by UPA government)[edit]

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

This is just a word-for-word copy of a proposed Indian law; such a document may be acceptable for Wikisource, but not for Wikipedia. I don't believe a law draft would be copyrighted, but if an admin believes it is, this could be speedily deleted. An article already exists on the Bill itself (Jan Lokpal Bill). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, even if it's not a copyvio. JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 15 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) 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of allergies[edit]

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

You can be allergic to any protein so what is the point of this page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In any case this articles title is incorrect - it should be "List of allergens". But as "Doc James" has pointed out such a list is practically infinite so should deleted as just a list of "stuff". Roger (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has references. Inclusion as per WP:LIST. The rest of the articles and allergens will need to be populated and sourced if it is kept. --Visik (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is like suggesting we should create a list of human. That one would be more finite than this one though as it would only contain 6 to 7 billion pages.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We DO have a list of humans, it is called Lists of people. And we have dozens of sublists within that list. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's okay for me to vote. It is useful to about 200 visitors each day. List of caves will never be complete either, but contains lots of the world's major caves. This list contains the most common allergies. It allows visitors to learn what treatments, reactions etc. are related to which allergies, and gives a good overview. Whether it's called List of allergies or List of allergens, it need only contain those that are most common. I will gladly participate in the expansion of the existing items, and will add a column for images if needed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome to vote, though it's not so much a vote as a recommendation - after 7 days or so, an admin will come around and review the discussion to see if there's consensus one way or another. The bold "Keep" or "Delete" or what have you helps give an overall feel for the debate, but the content of the comments is important as well, and a recommendation with a rationale (as you've provided) is more helpful than just a bold word. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I do hope the article remains. I'm not attached to it because I started it and put work into it. It's just that I think it's useful to visitors. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has many references and is a well established article. Useful to many people. It will never be perfect. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-referenced list on a notable topic. No objection to a rename - and, if it is indeed supposed to be only the most common allergens, we might consider changing the name to "List of Common Allergens" instead. The complimentary "List of Rare Allergens" would follow, though we'd then have to figure criteria for Common and Rare. Is there some sort of medical criteria or classification that might come into play? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure those included in the standard battery are probably common, and include pet dander, eggs, insect bites, shellfish, peanuts & others, corn, wheat gluten, dust, mold, pollen, etc... Dru of Id (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep seems to be a reasonable way to list many common allergens/allergies, and would appear to perfectly fulfill the reason we have "list of.." articles on Wikipedia to begin with. If you think it needs renaming, that should be taken up on the talk page, not AFD. The fact that you can be allergic to any protein is not a valid criteria for deletion, thus the nom itself is fatally flawed, thus the request for a speedy keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Falls under WP:PURPLIST.—RJH (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined list with inclusion criteria of a notable topic. Lugnuts (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts exactly. its incompleteness is acceptable, not a reason for deletion. (added common tag for "dynamic lists")Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination asks about the point of the list. One point is to assist navigation or browsing of our articles about notable allergies such as hay fever, cat allergy, penicillin allergy, &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of most common allergies makes a lot of sense. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change Instead of "most common" allergens, I think a list of allergen-specific IgE tests would be more useful. Anybody can be allergic to anything, but it's the IgE mediated response that makes it a true allergy. Listing the available tests would be useful for patients who are wondering if they are truely allergic to something.Rknight (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure if I would agree with adding "common" to the name, as there isn't a reason you shouldn't include lesser known allergens as well. Most people would find the current title as the one that makes the most sense, even if it isn't exactly accurate. At the worst, List of allergens and this would become a redirect. Again, more of a talk page topic, but since it was brought up.... Dennis Brown (talk) 23:04, 12 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} 14:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someones Ugly Daughter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources [36] and the band is redlinked. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It comes very close to qualifying speedy delete #A9 because the band article does not exist. There is a statement of importance (also required for #A9) about appearing on Beavis & Butthead, so regular old "Delete" is in order due to a shortage of notability otherwise. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Noting that CSD wasn't used due to a slight possible claim of importance. This related to a specific song being included on a TV show, which is too minor to evidence notability and in any case WP:NOTINHERITED (the album doesn't become notable because a song on it was played on TV). Searched for other evidence, couldn't find any. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:10, 15 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} 14:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy bear parachuting[edit]

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

Not a very notable idea. PROD removed by creator JDDJS (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Aside from the official(?) website, all I can find on the topic are photos and mentions on GeoCities-like sites. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Brumak (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a bit of GNews searching shows some interesting cross-matches to news articles dating back to 1940s of teddy bears in parachutes being used during the war for target practice, use as part of food-parcel drops and used to drop from balloons to show wind direction. With a shift in direction from just the charity campaign viewpoint to the wider cultural impact of parachuting teddybears this would be unambiguously encyclopaedic. Fæ (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the BBC has an article (cited in the article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cambridgeshire/out_about/2003/08/teddy.shtml) that is exclusively about the very topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't a game but I think there are enough passing references in local news sources and .org [37] [38] to warrant the article and meet notability several charities have had events including it. As long as any commercial element is kept off the page I don't see that there is an issue.Tetron76 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been a popular pastime amongst kitefliers for 20-odd years. I've expanded and added a book ref. If I can find where he's hiding, I'll photograph my own parachute bear. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak keep. The single BBC report isn't enough, but I would be surprised if there wasn't a lot more that we simply don't know. (I couldn't find it on Google News, but that doesn't say much.) If done well, this is the kind of little topic that we can and should really cover. Hans Adler 20:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of sources which cover the topic from a variety of angles. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn Since of everyone is voting to keep it, I withdraw my nomination (even though I still think it should be deleted). I'm too busy to officially close this AFD, but feel free to do so yourself. JDDJS (talk) 15:29, 9 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, G4. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falling In Reverse (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Band appears to fail WP:BAND. Current band lineup includes no notable musicians (Ronnie Radke redirects to his previous band), the band is currently unsigned, the band has yet to release an album or single, and the band has not been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial, published works" that I can find [39] (the Alt Press ones appear to be trivial). Also, the second paragraph of the "Band History" section appears to be a copyvio from a fansite. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind...speedy delete per previous recent AfD I failed to notice until now. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:21, 8 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 consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danger triangle of the face[edit]

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

I'm not sure if these citations are legitimate; Google searches don't turn up much. Hello71 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a relatively common term relating to oral and maxillofacial surgery & otolaryngology - Alison ^❤ 10:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't appear to be the most commonly used expression in Wikiland, but does seem to get enough traction to qualify as a notable expression to describe a vulnerable area. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google searches turn up plenty of good sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information seems to be in Cavernous_sinus_thrombosis#Etiology, although the term itself isn't. I think the term is an obsolete one, and should probably be depreciated so as not to be confused with the urban legend. Rknight (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Redirect to there. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 12 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) 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert MacDonald Ford[edit]

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

The only reference listed is a broken link. I could find almost no independent sources to verify that this person even existed, including on the site where the broken link goes. Wknight94 ^talk 01:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a former Washington state representative, he meets WP:POLITICIAN. Online sources are scant as he served six decades ago, but I found a few by searching Google News with terms: "Robert Ford" Washington state representative, or Bremerton state representative. Here's an article from the Spokane Daily Chronicle. Here's another one from the same paper, and there are many more from that paper. Here's one from the Spokesman-Review. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, state reps meet WP:POLITICIAN. More refs definitely needed. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With various searches found interview, official 1945 photo, official 1949 photo, [40], and letter of recommendation with signature. Dru of Id (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a (the?) primary source that matches most of the details in the article; I've reworked some, but it neeeds to be checked by someone more knowledgeable about CopyVio standards. Read my edit summary as well. Dru of Id (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The vital info is from an unreliable personal family tree site. Can anyone reliably verify even his birth date or place? Wknight94 ^talk 21:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed at deadoraliveinfo, findagrave, or political graveyard; no local obituary seems to be online, so the 2005 legislator pdf was likely the closest thing to reliable source, and son's wedding & other announcements merely say father deceased or give year; daughter seems to not be noted beyond married fullname, and non-notable (adult) childrens' names didn't seem necessary. Dru of Id (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crud. Currently available; merely lists name, district, & service period. Dru of Id (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence WP:AFD. If you remove everything sourced solely to that family tree site, you have almost nothing left. Wknight94 ^talk 22:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes POLITICIAN, whether or not most of the material is from an unreliable source. However, that material isn't defamatory or contentious and this isn't a BLP, so there's no real reason to remove it: no one has yet challenged it as inaccurate, and noting it as unreliable is not the same thing as asserting that it is incorrect. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced as meeting WP:POLITICIAN. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He served in the Washington State Legislature. The article has citations. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:45, 14 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) 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-diagnostics[edit]

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

Contains speculation and WP:OR. At best, right now, this term is a dictionary entry. Taroaldo (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this would be something more for Wiktionary, but I think it would fall short even there. You can't just add the letter "e" to a word and instantly make a new notable word. You can the letter "i", but only if you are Apple, Inc. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vague dicdef, no sources. Hairhorn (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. E-anything is so 1999. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Completely unsourced, and anyway would server its purpose better in Wiktionary or something. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 8 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. per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Walls, Jr.[edit]

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

This has been an unreferenced BLP for ages, but it's also an article on a subject of very dubious notability. Walls is the mayor of a town of about 5,000 in Maryland; he fails WP:POLITICIAN, and his article reads like a political résumé. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The mayor exists, but does not yield any significant coverage noting notability. The only significant coverage is by The Washington Post that mentions he got arrested for soliticing a prostitute. TangSing (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO#Politicians. Specifically, see Footnote #7, which states, "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." That does not appear to have occurred for this subject. — Satori Son 03:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN Brumak (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, anyway an unsourced BLP. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In a quick search, I found two articles that are substantially about Walls and go into a reasonable biographical depth. [41] [42], which should me more than enough to pass WP:BASIC and write a fair article. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per research found by Sailsbystars. One of the articles is only about an arrest for solicitation, but the other is a moderately serious profile. Ray^Talk 23:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a negative one-event article in the Washington Post and a puff piece in a local newspaper cut it for "signficant coverage in reliable sources". --Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 10 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) 16:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alisson gothz[edit]

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

This biography of a Brazilian visual artist reads like an advertisement and desperately needs to be rewritten. But I'm not convinced rewriting this article would be worth the effort; the subject appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting subject, but issues with WP:V and notability. An "artist statement"? Sounds more like self-promotion. Brumak (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gotta agree with nom. I doubt the pages notability and verifiability, and I think it fails WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 8 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 to Andy Panda. Merging is left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 12:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Mechanical Men[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in a reliable sources of this story, does not appear to meet ~~wp:BK~~wp:GNG^{wp:BK does not apply to comics}. I asked for notability advice at wp:COMIC, but received no reply, so I am nominating it for deletion. The only source provided is a user edited database, which is not a reliable source Yoenit (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to delete unless some one can come up with a source pointing out something that makes this singular issue notable. Wikipedia isn't an indexing site, so I can't see that as a good reason. Are there any others? - J Greb (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I know of Charlie Has Sleeping Sickness from the same issue. Furthermore a bit of searching in the creators history turned up The Haunted Inn, among a lot comic related articles which appear to have better notability.Yoenit (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those two also seem to only be indexes of individual issues or done-in-one stories without any indication that the material is notable. - J Greb (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per WP:Notability: Criteria 5. "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes." Coverage notes tells us "Though the concept of "book" is widely defined, this guideline does not yet provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga); magazines; etc." Additionally, verifiability and reliable sources are required for material that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and quotations. The article on "Isle" is not likely to be challenged, contains no contentious material and no quotations. I prefer the article be kept and given the chance for development. It was created only a week ago.SingToMePlease (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing out that wp:BK does not apply to comics, I was not aware of that. Unfortunately it invalidates your own argument, as this means wp:BK is no longer relevant and notability is determined by the general notability guideline. Independent reliable sources are thus required to establish notability. Yoenit (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm wondering if Wikipedia asks us to apply guidelines so rigorously that the baby is sometimes thrown out with the bathwater. But I leave it to you. I'm inexperienced with all of Wikipedia's ins and outs, but it is very depressing to have your work nailed for deletion within days of its creation, especially since it's a good faith article. SingToMePlease (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if I was to treat this as a book Dan Gormley doesn't fall into the category mentioned and while Walter Lantz might/does, it is in a different field (animation) and he did not write this comic and the individual issue is even less notable still.Tetron76 (talk) 10:44, 8 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) 00:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Andy Panda, where the comics discussion seems to need expansion. This and the related articles are just variations on a single template, and there's no reason for so much duplicate text. Reminiscent of the TV episodes disputes, but individual comics story articles don't appear to have room for expansion covering ratings, reviews, receptions, etc and series articles can handle the appropriate level of detail. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andy Panda does not meet notability itself.Tetron76 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fine issue, and very enjoyable to read. Ah, back when comics cost a dime! But it in no way satisfies WP:N. Also, linking to a complete reproduction of the 1950 comic, which seems to be still under copyright, seems to violate Wikipedia's policy against copyright infringement. I do not see how reproducing a complete work as the linked website does falls within "fair use." Wikipedia only has articles about notable works of fiction, and this is so microscopic a part of the complete body of fiction associated with Andy Panda that merging any significant part of it would give undue weight to it. Edison (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- exactly, what are we supposed to merge to the Andy Panda article? Redirecting is fine with me but I really see no material worth merging. Yoenit (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andy Panda. If any salvageable material exists in this article, fine to merge it. Rlendog (talk) 18:05, 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 delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Knight-Percival[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who has not played in a fully professional league. The club he plays for is professional but the league that it's in, Conference National, is not. He fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without significant coverage or fully pro appearances, he clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:36, 12 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. J04n(talk page) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abrams Artists Agency[edit]

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

Unable to find any in-depth coverage of this agency. ^Bongo_matic 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Agency is old and has found out several notable artists, but the article is not well written and not properly sourced, if someone inside it could give us some guidance, but respecting WP:NPOV the article could be really relevant. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 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) 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what is needed is sources, which are very scarce and difficult to find, implying a lack of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 22:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an important talent agency, we do have articles about the other comparable ones, and there is ample coverage of the agency in the industry trade publications (behind pay walls, mostly, but it's there).--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References needn't be available online to verify claims or to demonstrate notability. So please provide them. Note that "A was signed by agency X" or "said B, an agent at agency X" are not demonstrative of the notability of agency X. ^Bongo_matic 23:55, 2 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) 00:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found references to their clients and agents winning awards in all departments, but no mention of agency awards listed in similar articles, only line mentions in lists of donors. Dru of Id (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't know much about Hollywood, but I've heard of this agency. Sources on such a subject are understandably scarce, but it appears to meet WP:N Brumak (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Notability is not a gauge of their success in advertising themselves or how well placed their offices are for people to drive by, both of which contribute to "I've heard of them." As yet non-notable company of award-winning agents who represent famous people, any number of whom may have (edit) entries. Unless and until the company wins major company awards in their field and receives sufficient coverage in independent third-party reliable sources, or Wikipedia guidelines change, fails WP:N & WP:GNG. Dru of Id (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abrams Artists Agency fails GNG because no third-party, reliable sources provide significant coverage of the agency. Goodvac (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, I can't find sources providing significant coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news search pulls up nothing useful. Google regular results come up with just as little. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:39, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volta vodka[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Please see Talk:Volta vodka for an earlier (2007) discussion about a speedy SPAM tag. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 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) 00:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The product exists, but that doesn't make it notable. You can find websites selling it, but no wp:rs talking about it. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This should be associated with Pinnacle Alcohol company, not its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hustler (drink)[edit]

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

Non-notable product, no real-world content. Original creator appears to have made no other edits, but WP:SPA or not, the product still isn't notable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this page seems like an advertisement for the product. It is non-notable, and does not deserve its own page. -Schlitzer90 (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria--יום יפה (talk) 14:43, 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) 00:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any evidence that this is a notable product. Robofish (talk) 16:27, 15 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} 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Spencer (actor)[edit]

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

Delete. Does not meet criteria for notability according to WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overruled! ~~if his acting in that show can be verified by a single reliable source (IMDB doesn't count), Delete otherwise.~~ (Verified by the press release the Dru of id found.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:47, 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) 00:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this count? Dru of Id (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That verifies the content (e.g., it's reliable enough that I'd support the redirect), but as a press release, it's not "independent of the subject" (see the 4th bullet point at WP:GNG) and doesn't help demonstrate notability. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything to establish what I'd recognize as individual notability for him; maybe next time... (signing) Dru of Id (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - very young, and not many credits to his name yet. Bob talk 09:29, 8 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) 04:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham al Hussein[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Despite the three names, the CSMonitor source and 1 book source which quotes CSMonitor are all I can find mentioning this individual during this event, the Hudson.org mention I've left in the text likely exists too, but still is unlikely to provide significant coverage of this terrorism-associated diplomat. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 2 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, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing notable about him is the "linkage" to a bombing, which is not properly cited, and a serious BLP issue. Without that, I don't think he passes notability as a politician (not elected) or anything else. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:59, 8 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Higham[edit]

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 2 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) 00:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidently not notable. Brumak (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fronted a notable advertising campaign, there is documented charitable work noted by a major source, various TV work, in addition to her newspaper modeling -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Added various references. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to be a famous model--Effingcrazy (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither was Albert Einstein. It would help to address the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- please see WP:JNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems borderline, but notable enough per GNG. It is a bit ironic that we don't have a freely licensed photograph though. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Striking, apparently banned editor--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 14 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} 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Kirby[edit]

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 18:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently current, not "former", model. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 2 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) 00:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to be notable - only minor television apearances. –anemone projectors– 11:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topless darts...how do you explain that to someone non English...? How about topless NFL football, it might sound fun, but then you watch it and its terrible...so the only people who will participate or present the show are those with no future or past of any note. Szzuk (talk) 18:32, 17 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} 14:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Mizzi[edit]

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She was fairly notable back in the day, I seem to recall, but she hasn't really done anyting significant for years. This article has few strong references, most seeming to give her a passing mention more than anything. If the article can be improved then it should be kept. Oh, and the domain name mizzy.co.uk is currently up for sale. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Retro. Page 3 legend in the UK. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 2 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) 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gnews comes up with quite a few reliable sources for her. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:46, 14 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Strutt[edit]

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any "former" about it, and there are GNews hits, so some WP:BEFORE needs to be done here - sorry I don't have time to do it myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a pretty unremarkable adult model. I'm not seeing any particular indication of notability here. Robofish (talk) 16:03, 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) 00:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Brumak (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be significantly improved. Nothing of value or notable here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:54, 12 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} 03:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Jane[edit]

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 2 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, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N Brumak (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Brumak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 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) 16:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Airlines fleet[edit]

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

When all the non-notable fleet list is ignored it is a duplicate of the information at parent article Frontier Airlines. The non-notable list has been removed previously as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but it has been restored again. Listing individual non-notable aircraft is not encyclopedic and best left to enthusiast sites MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how is it that the the Delta Air Lines fleet page can stay? It looks like another list to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.47.137 (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate I don't know what a "non-notable fleet" is, this sounds like a content issue; and I don't see indiscriminate information. Fleets are routinely discussed in articles about airlines, and this article is marked as part of Frontier Airlines. I do have a problem with possibly hundreds of missing references, and no reason at this point to think that this problem will ever be corrected. I propose moving this file to the incubator to provide an opportunity to add references. Unscintillating (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry non-notable fleet refers to the listing of individual aircraft rather than types of aircraft (the Delta article refered to by another editor is a list of types not individual airccraft), it is rare that an individual aircraft is notable enough to be mentioned, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N#NNC shows that "notability" applies to articles as a whole, "prominence" is used in WP:DUE/content issues. I've not before seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations, it is not marked even as an essay, but in other places it both says that it is a guideline and also says that it is an essay. Even then, I don't see that it addresses notability issues to be considered at an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Southwest Airlines page has some individual aircraft listed under the special liveries section: Southwest_airlines#Special_Liveries - why is this list not considered a non-notable fleet? It is listing individual aircraft as opposed to a type of aircraft. Basically every Frontier Airlines plane has a "special livery" since every one is different, which is why each aircraft is individually listed on the Frontier Airlines fleet article. That is very similar to the individual aircraft listed on the Southwest Airlines special livery section. That section on the SWA page even has airplane registration numbers listed with links to photos of the planes themselves. That is not unlike how the Frontier Airlines fleet page has plane registrations, name, and a place for photos. In regards to Unscintillating saying the article having "possibly hundreds of missing references," it looks like an editor placed a reference at the top of the "Current Frontier Airlines tail art" section that links to a webpage on the Frontier Airlines website that verifies the legitimacy of the article's content. 69.166.47.137 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy noted in WP:V that readers of Wikipedia can verify the facts in articles. If these facts cannot be verified, then the material should not be in Wikipedia. See WP:BURDEN. Are you saying that every fact in this article is sourced by that one reference? Unscintillating (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the tail art segment can be sourced by one reference. Or would you rather have every single tail referenced to the same page, generating 70+ references? Why don't you take a look at that reference yourself? http://www.frontierairlines.com/frontier/fun-stuff/animal-tales-continued.do 69.166.47.137 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count 57 photos of tail art on that page, the fleet seems to be closer to 100. Unscintillating (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an editor has recently referenced almost all the planes with individual links. They even included the older, retired planes, which Frontier still maintains images for on their website. I believe that link I gave you above only has the current fleet which is why you only counted 57. 69.166.47.137 (talk) 01:32, 4 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, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems relevant and sourced now. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a fork, it is a sub-article of Frontier Airlines, pretty clearly added so that specialized detail would not bog down the readability of the main article. Nicely done and a credit to Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was thinking I had opened a delete, but this article is so well sourced and full of data, it is hard to argue a merge. I suppose all the data means something to someone Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:50, 12 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) 03:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Transit Commission ETS trolley bus[edit]

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

Unsourced information and barely any encyclopedic information. It severely lacks notability. Page should be deleted and its information can be simply kept in another related page. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 2 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, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Complete lack of sources and attempt to demonstrate notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At most, I could see a brief mention at History_of_the_Toronto_Transit_Commission#The_lean_years:_1980s_and_pre-amalgamation_1990s Wickedjacob (talk) 01:48, 15 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.