Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 13

< 12 August	14 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 23:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minh Van Dang[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I can't verify any of the claims made in this article. There is no "Minh Van Dang" on the Emmy site, although they list recepients only for the last six years. No images on the Web, and nothing on IMDB. Also, this name not constructed like the name of a real person, certainly not the name of a Vietnamese woman. In Vietnam, "Minh" is a male given name and "Đăng" is a family name. Kauffner (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see notable mentions on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:VERIFY and WP:ENTERTAINER. I can't find an applicable Iris award in a reasonable search of sources, unless the award refers to the "Maui Film Festival." On their site, I see no mention of the subject. A normal search for a four-time Emmy winner would expect to find an entry on IMDB. That the pagecreator is blocked indefinitely for multiple copyright violations and the talk page and history littered with prod and AfD notices sends up red flags as well. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BusterD. I haven't had any luck either at finding sources for this subject. While I'm not absolutely convinced that this is a hoax, it definitely does not have source sufficient to ascertain notability. Trusilver 20:08, 1 October 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. 05:34, 15 August 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Ramapuram, India" ‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Rampur) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramapuram, India[edit]

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

Ramapuram, India page by banned user. -DePiep (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep The user may be useless, the article looks useful to me! No strange things noted in the article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about Ramapuram? -DePiep (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That redirect seems okay to me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied every line from the page to Ramapuram. There may be doubles over there, but this page is irrelevant by now. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without any prejudice against recreation by a legitimate user. I wouldn't normally worry about that, but the user who created it is a sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi, who has on several occasions made horrific messes in geography-related articles. Let him talk and he only becomes more disruptive; having dealt with it before, I'd say it's worth it to just delete and let a legitimate user recreate. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:33, 14 August 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Calcutta Quran Petition[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 12:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that it does not enjoy coverage in reliable sources. Cited sources which appear at first to be reliable are not - Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society, at first glance a scholarly book, is actually published by a publishing house owned by the author of this book, and so is not independent, while newspaper + date is not a citation and I can't find the coverage referred to. This source discusses the petition a little bit, but one source is not sufficient. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep. Most of the sources cited in the article are simply references to the book itself (and are not usable as independent secondary sources to establish notability). However, some of the cited sources appear to be references to newspaper stories — and if the book itself is not notable on its own, the events surrounding the book may well be notable per WP:EVENT. It would help greatly to track down the newspaper reports and get more details from them in order to tell how notable the events have been in Indian society, but I would favour keeping the article pending such work. If the consensus goes the other way and this article is going to be deleted — and perhaps even if the article is kept — I would recommend that at least a summary of the events should be merged as appropriate into Criticism of the Qur'an, Freedom of religion in India, Freedom of religion in Bangladesh, and possibly also Freedom of religion in Pakistan. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We may actually need to have article on the event itself. However, an article on the event that is based on a single book, with the account of the book presented in a way that cannot assure WP:NPOV due to insufficient sources, would be highly problematic. Cs32en Talk to me 22:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 1 August 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, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable in the press of the time. Citing off-line newspapers is not illegal in Wikipedia last time I checked. The article does not give undue weight to the contents of the book compared to the controversy surrounding it, although the lead could be improved. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the offline nature of the newspaper citations that's a problem; it's that without even an article title, much less an author etc., there is basically no way of confirming that the coverage was actually there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That stuff is not online anyway, so if you're willing to go check microfilm archives of those newspapers (likely at an Indian library), the extra inconvenience by the lack of article titles is likely to be small. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's other secondary (though not necessarily unbiased--this is from the opposite POV) coverage [1] though. Also, GB indicates more coverage [2] "Crisis in the Calcutta High Court No sooner did the hue and cry surrounding the admission of a writ petition calling for a ban on the Koran subside, than the Calcutta High Court bounced back into the headlines once again with yet ..." [3] "RELIGION WEST BENGAL CALCUTTA thrives on political and ideological controversy, but last month religion in the Marxist state had the administration in a panic when the high court admitted a writ petition seeking a 'ban' on the Koran and ..." [4] "On March 29, they moved a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, ... The petition which was admitted stated that the Quran fuelled communal animosity by describing followers of all other ..." [5] "An Attempt to Ban the Qur'an In early 1985, a writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court seeking to ban the Qur'an. The petitioners, whose identity was not widely known, argued that since the Qur'an describes the followers of ..." [6] "In 1985 a writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court requesting foi prescribing Koran on the grounds that it hurts sentiments of another community. The writ was dismissed on the grounds that religious books of community cannot ..." FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:52, 13 August 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, BusterD (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally a self-published book would not be considered notable. However, one which generates commentary from high government officials in at least two countries, and inspires rioting in which people are killed, must certainly be considered notable. I think we need to assume good faith about the offline references. I wish at least something could be found at Google News, but considering the time frame of the events it's not totally surprising that nothing can be found. ~~At the very least, the information should be merged to co-author Sita Ram Goel rather than deleted.~~ (striking the suggestion for a merge; my !vote is "keep", see below.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are plenty of snippets (see my post above) from the press of the time, and even commentary several years after in various Indian publications archived in Google Books. If you consider that GB gets most of these from US universities (the above are from the University of Michigan, Northwestern University, or University of Virginia, not from some Indian university), it's not unreasonable at all to assume much wider coverage exists. Also, interested parties can consult these at any US academic library via ILL. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not giving credit to your Google Books references cited above. Still more evidence that the article should be kept, with sourcing such as this added. --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see someone said "That stuff is not online anyway, so if you're willing to go check microfilm archives of those newspapers (likely at an Indian library), the extra inconvenience by the lack of article titles is likely to be small. " Actually, it's the other way round: the more inaccessible the material, the more important it is to have it summarized here. Not just the title is necessary, but a suitable quote from the item giving the key information is highly advisable. It's not literally required in most cases, but the point of a wikipedia article is to provide sourced information. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was replying to the lack of newspaper article titles for newspapers that are not available in digital/on-line format. Last time I used a microfilm archive, you couldn't really "search by title" but knowing the date and name of the newspaper was sufficient. Perhaps things have changed with digital archives, but it hadn't made to my back of the woods, by 2008. Anyway, I don't see any project to do that with Indian newspapers, and Google News Archive stopped scanning anything. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:32, 20 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en Talk to me 12:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are the references not indications of notability per WP:N? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I explained when I contested WP:PROD deletion, a Google Books search for the original title of this book finds hundreds of sources demonstrating obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOOGLEHITS, even GBOOKSHITS, is not a good argument. A great number of the hits are only trivial mentions of the book. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two sources in the article, and these do not report on the book in a substantial way. The information is not sufficient to write an an article that would be verifiably unbiased. Cs32en Talk to me 22:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the other sources found by Google Books? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the third page of the sources that you have linked to, there is a text that may discuss the book in some length. The author calls the book "comprehensive" and "important", while another source says the author "forced his conclusions" in a "high-handed manner". If someone can access these sources, then we may be able to write a good, or at least, an unbiased article about the book. Right now, there is a possibility that we would present a book as uncontroversial, although there are indications that it's is actually disputed. I have looked at the sources that are accessible through the link at the top of this page. Most only mention the book in an unsubstantial way only, sometimes only as a reference. The two sources that do offer some details are insufficient to write an an article that would be verifiably unbiased. I say this with the caveat that Google books does not show the entire text of most of these books. Cs32en Talk to me 23:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you've cited is inadmissible for the purpose of attesting notability; it's edited by a guy who translated Lammens's book into English, so it's not independent as there is an obvious financial motive for promoting the book to English speakers. I can't tell how extensive the coverage is in the second, since it's snippet. Also, from what I can see of the first in snippet view, it also contains entire chapters that are just reprints of Lammens's writings, meaning that the coverage you cite may be in the nature of an introduction, rather than an independent commentary, meaning that the source is even less admissible. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 6 August 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, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable; in spite of the large number of GOOGLEHITS cited by Phil Bridger, the book lacks significant coverage that would attest notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger's argument. We're talking about a century-old non-English language scholarly work, mentioned in hundreds of texts and identified variously as a significant work and the most important work of a notable scholar. There also appear to be a fair number of GScholar hits. I have to say that Roscolese's argument concerning Ibn Warraq (the "first source" he criticizes) is singularly off-target; to argue that the notable editor's commentary in a scholarly anthology is intended as promotion for the editor's other work goes far beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion. Scholars and researchers write about what they believe to be important, and it's hardly surprising or inappropriate that content in one work might reinforce the content in another. It's not like a trade magazine touting the products of its advertisers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with your point if Ibn Warraq were a scholar and Prometheus Books were a scholarly publisher, but neither of them quite meet those standards; the author's a polemicist and the publisher's of an anti-religious bent. And again, it's also just difficult-ranging-to-impossible to tell if the material in the first source is even a separate commentary on the book, or just an introduction to an excerpt from it which we know to be included. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 9 August 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, BusterD (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable work, being discussed in detail in Historians of the Middle East published by the OUP, for example. Warden (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is however the only source I saw which provides anything approaching significant coverage - are there any more that you've found? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an old book, but once notable, always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 18 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Everly[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, subject doesn't appear to be notable outside of being the subject of a popular song and her marriage to Axl Rose which is already documented Rose's article and needlessly repeated in Everly's article. Pinkadelica ^♣ 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I only saw one notable source on both Google and Yahoo here, I didn't see other sources that could help a biography. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content the nom removed as a copyvio (I'll take his word for it) suggests she may have some independent notability as a model, having been signed by a major agency in the early 1980s, featured in major brand ad campaigns, etc.[7] Given that all of this would predate the WWW, we shouldn't expect to find anything about this without some digging in some 1980s magazine archives which may not be online.
Regardless of whether that can be verified (I don't know) or would establish notability, the subject at minimum poses a problem in that she's relevant to several separate notable subjects (her father was one of The Everly Brothers, her mother Venetia Stevenson apparently merits an article too, she was married to Axl Rose, and the song Sweet Child o' Mine was written about her), which means that there's no one single redirect target. That's not a "WP:INHERITED" argument (though I would expect coverage about her in any Axl Rose/Guns N Roses or Don Everly biography), it's just that readers should be able to find all of this out about her from any of the references to her in those articles, and I don't think it makes much sense to repeat the same things about her everywhere she is mentioned instead of maintaining this as a "hub". Maybe someone can come up with a clean solution that doesn't require a standalone article, but outright deletion would seem to just cause an informational gap or discontinuity. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to take my word that the content I removed was copy-vio'ed. The content that was in the article was almost a direct copy from the subject's biography featured on her official website: official biography versus content I removed.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Mississippi and the Face of Emmett Till[edit]

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

non notable student play, I can find no references to satisfy the WP:GNG, e.g. no professional productions or reviews in major news sources. PROD declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as I pointed out when de-prodding this, the play's name was shorted to "The Face of Emmett Till", and under that name, has been more widely performed, for example, [8] and [9]. White people never understood the impact that photos of his face had, because they didn't read Jet. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.
Delete: I'm seeing nothing relevant under that title either, except WP:ROUTINE announcements of performances of the play. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 58 results in Google news archive search. The play is performed in many places, and is discussed for Black History Month. The Nashville Scene article Bearian found is detailed coverage. Most of the rest is hidden behind paywalls. Dream Focus 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also performed at Grambling State University according to THIS STORY reprinted from The Gramblinite by Black College Wire. It's just a stub, let's see what happens. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 19 August 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) 22:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Atheists & Agnostics[edit]

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

Not a notable organization; as laudable as its goal may be, it does not meet the requirements for notability--it's small and has generated no significant coverage beside the one article linked in the references. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability established per WP:ORG and/or WP:NGO. (I was just about to add this but Drmies beat me to it). Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless someone can show that there's been significant coverage in, say, Urdu, it just does not appear to meet our notability requirements. LadyofShalott 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bulleted list item
--HaroonMalik (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)I have added more news articles about the group let me know if it fulfills the requirement of significant coverage--HaroonMalik (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HaroonMalik (talk • contribs)

Delete - I didn't see notable sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 16 August 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. — Joseph Fox 00:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Død Beverte[edit]

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

Subject does not pass notability (music). Page is for promotion and therefore prohibited. The infobox used to list the "official website" for this artist but following the link reveals it to be link spam for a merchandise sales page with no content related to the subject. I have since removed the link. Even though it may seem quite obvious that the subject is not notable, I have to go through each of the references and demonstrate why they do not establish notability, because I am sure that this deletion nomination will be vociferously challenged: ref numbers are from this stable version

linked content makes no mention whatsoever of the subject
Mega metal magazine may or may not have ever mentioned the subject, and mega metal magazine may or may not be a real publication. ref does not provide a link but you should check out their website to find out for yourself. this certainly does not pass WP:RS.
link in ref is broken. same as above, not WP:RS, does not establish notability. I looked around and wolfhoundmetalradio.org is a real website, but I was unable to find any content related to the subject.
Allmusic.com is a questionable source for metal info, it seems that the consensus is that it can be used for track listings and discography, although there is much disgreement about this because such content is often inacurate. Allmusic in this context cannot be used to establish notability. regardless of the source. The only content on the page is a track list and very very skeletal details. There is no commentary or content that relates directly to the subject, certainly not enough to establish notability.
the brief bio they give is labeled as "user contributed text" there for cannot be used to establish notability. This label actually disappears very quickly on my browser but look at the source of the page.
Discogs also give no information whatsoever about subject, only a track listing for an album that it says was released Sept. 11 2011 , i.e. not yet. This is also user-submitted content so not RS.
This is a self-published press release so clearly can't be used to establish notability.
Not RS and doesn't provide any information about the subject other than name, genre, and formed 2011.
broken link, no other details of the source. I was not able to find any publication by this name, "Holy Crap!" but no date or page or issue or other details or given so that likely also leads nowhere.
Someone on the website headfullofnoise.com appears to have written a review of an album by the subject. That someone is named "Zombiegoats". That some anonymous blogger has an opinion about this album is interesting but it doesn't establish notability and its not a reliable secondary source.
a paragraph about a song by the artist one can download on Jamendo.com doesn't establish notability because it is user submitted content
also user submitted content, and just another track listing for an album to be released in the future.

I wouldn't have gone to so much trouble to prove not-notability if the user(s) editing the page hadn't gone to such great lengths in their attempts to establish the illusion of notability. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great lengths like lying? with your second to last "#" you fail to mention the article itself is not user-submitted. For your sick kicks I found you a press release on the site: http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4370/20901/Dethcentrik-releases-first-music-video-single-from-Crucified-Babies . Notice it even says "press release." "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." The link you so willingly attempted to discredit as user-submitted was staff written. I don't want your lies to go unoticed by others reading this AfD BusyWikipedian (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Metal lunchbox has said it well. No notability outside his band which is also not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (2nd nomination)). duffbeerforme (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If user were so confident that claim were in good faith, user would not frequently vandalize page and harass users Talk:Død Beverte. False claims about user submitted content are a violation of Wikipedia's policies, authors' names are give, the author is the owner of the site. Head Full Of Noise. "User submitted content" claims are flat out lies, please read the articles fully, and don't make up parts you refuse to read. AllMusic is one of Wikipedia's most used third party sources, more lies to discredit page. Claims that sources are not reliable are made on the fly. This deletion discussion relies on lies and persistent vandalism to intentionally debunk it. Self published sources are allowed for use... 174.24.62.44 (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC) — 174.24.62.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps we could cool it with the accusations. I already talked to you about this. Any editor can look for themselves to evaluate the truth of what I am saying. I think I've made it pretty clear so I'm not going to argue with you. As for self published sources see WP:SPS. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that by "user", the anonymous editor means Metal lunchbox, I have looked at all of Metal lunchbox's contributions to the two linked pages (the article and its talk page) and I can't see anything that could remotely be regarded as vandalism or harassment. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I personally know the artist, I have to stick with Wikipedia guidelines. The fact remains that this guy just does not pass WP:N. The sites and sources given are all trivial at best. Most of them are user edited sites with no paid staff, and the radio interviews are from non notable sources as well. (i.e., the shows themselves are not notable) The other sites are nothing more than a track listing and cover art. The Undead Never Die (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of third party sources. There is no reason to delete an artist with this amount of coverage. Many of the reasons the editor wanting to delete the article gives are intentionally misleading. I'm sorry, but the "paragraph about a song by the artist one can download on Jamendo.com" states "As Reported by: Jason Fisher" and if you read info about the site you will see he is the owner of the site. And I'm sorry but a user-submitted content label that suddenly disappears? I didn't see it. The only things found written by the source itself do satisfy Wikipedia:SPS.BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — BusyWikipedian (talk • contribs)[reply]

from the source, "Død Beverte is the only original musician of Dethcentrik, a band from Colorado, and his main project. Død has released one solo album, and is often himself synonymous with Dethcentrik, and he also took part in the underground supergroup Divine Punishment. User-contributed text is available under the Creative Commons By-SA License and may also be available under the GNU FDL.. ." even it it were written by a reliable secondary source (it isn't) its just a single sentence which does nothing to establish notability. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for self-published sources you should read the guideline, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "I personally know the artist." Which means you're admitting you're a conflict of interest by admitting that. I really see nothing listed that isn't reliable as a source. I see plenty of sources that are in-depth, reliable, third party opinions. BusyWikipedian (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a particular set of standards for defining reliable sources that you should familiarize yourself with. It isn't always clear cut, but see WP:RS for a set of guidelines you can use to evaluate whether or not a source is reliable in the sense that it should be included on Wikipedia. In general blogs (WP:BLOGS) and webpages of user-submitted content (WP:USERG) are not acceptable. The WP:verifiability policy is a little more strict on Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) which is what this article is. Regardless of the sources, the article is about a musician (WP:MUSICBIO) but according to the article that musician hasn't released an album or made any performances or had any impact on the world whatsoever. You should also know that notability is not inherited, if Dethcentric were notable then the subject of this article would not inherit that notability by association. The number of the sources cited is just a mask for the subjects lack of notability. I think that if you familiarize yourself with some of these guidelines your work on Wikipedia will be more constructive. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to user-submission accepting pages, it states "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Jason Fisher is listed as the President of The Gauntlet, and therefore articles written by him are by staff. You also so ignorantly claim: "according to the article that musician hasn't released an album." The discography lists releases of a single and an album. And that itself is verifiable on many sites: http://www.billboard.com/artist/d%C3%B8d-beverte/discography/songs/1680099#/artist/d%C3%B8d-beverte/discography/albums/1680099 , http://www.allmusic.com/album/crucified-babies-r2184185, http://www.iodalliance.com/album/crucified-babies/360864 (the IODA is part of Sony Music) I also looked for archives and evidence that the broken links in fact existed, and so far have this: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CD52F1D9E7E6CEBB , http://www.google.com/#q=%22D%C3%B8d+Beverte%22+%22Deep+Six+Radio%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&prmd=ivns&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=af5f4f3fbb50940f&biw=1920&bih=926 . BusyWikipedian (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The album is not released yet (sept 11, 2011) and the "single" is just a single self-produced track uploaded to an empty jamendo profile. I think any reasonable person would say that is not a significant discography. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 20:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment directed towards BusyWikipedian. I know I admitted to what would appear to be a COI issue, however, I have never edited any page related to him, his band, or his work. The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Two of the "references" are links to pages that don't even mention Død Beverte, and none of the others can by any stretch be regarded as third party reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, and I concur with the nominator's assessment of the references in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 18 August 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 per CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Real U[edit]

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

Deleted a year ago as non-notable. Being the 65th most watched South African on YouTube is hardly notable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Totally non-notable, I don't understand how the article is back. --Pstanton (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page is promotion for a non-notable subject. A look at the refs and external links gives a clue. one ref being "Facebook Update:". Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Subject doesn't show up in reliable secondary sources. Internet search suggests that subject exists but as we all not mere existence isn't enough to pass notability. Most remarkable thing about the subject is that some songs of his were played on an internet radio show that he made in 2009 which apparently is just a facebook page and a broken link (radioshawty.tk) now. recreation of this page should be limited. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - I didn't see any notable coverage on Google and Yahoo, specifically sources that could help a biographical article. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 16 August 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. WP:SNOW: Lacking a stated policy-based rationale for deletion, and with the level of keep support present, there is no foreseeable chance that this will close delete. Let's move along. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (film)[edit]

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

Yes, it's under construction, but let's nip this in the bud. There's absolutely no reason why this film, unlike any other film, should have an "accolades" article as a seperate article. I don't think any film needs this disctinction. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the award list at Sense and Sensibility (film)#Awards and accolades? It's huge. I was about to begin expanding the film article, but realized the awards section was too unwieldy not to place in a list. It received 7 Oscar noms, 12 BAFTAs noms, and I'm just getting started. Ruby2010 comment! 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I intend to take this article to FL when finished, so it won't remain a stub very long at all, if that happened to be one of your concerns. Ruby2010 comment! 21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? One minute after creation? That's just uncalled for. And by the way, other critically acclaimed films have lists like these. See for example List of accolades received by Avatar. There's even a whole category: Category:Lists of accolades by film. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it matter how long ago it was created? It's not the content, it's the very idea of such an article. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, don't "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" me. I'm replying to your comment that said "unlike any other film", which was not true. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it's less of a nuisance in the main article than the longer accolades lists for other films, it's still long enough to justify a subpage. As Theleftorium noted, the statement in the deletion rationale that no other film has such a subpage is incorrect. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This really shouldn't have been AfD'd a minute after it was created (with an "under expansion" tag, to boot!). Perhaps it would be a candidate for future merger if it wouldn't be very detailed, but judging from the author's other work this has real potential to become a FL. Them From Space 22:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author's justification (that the parent article is too long), not to mention their previous work (e.g. List of accolades received by The Young Victoria), makes this article perfectly valid and worthy of becoming featured content in the future. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deletion nomination is preposterous (not to mention slightly rude, putting it on right at the start of creation). Article is obviously deserved of a list and has the potential to, with work, become featured. Atomician (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and close. Meets WP:SAL, WP:LISTPURP, andd WP:LOW. Sense and Sensibility is a notable film. While a list of accolades are just fine for a film article, just as it is in Gone with the Wind (film), that the author felt the section overburdened the parent film article per WP:SPINOUT and began a seperate accolade list is just fine. It's the way we do such things, and we do not "nip" improvements in the bud simply because they are ongoing. It would have behooved the nominator to have let author User:Ruby2010 continue work on this list article for this notable topic. I would suggest he remember WP:WIP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see nothing wrong with AFD'ing an article immediately after creation, provided the rationale is about the whole concept of the article, not the content. Isn't it better to let potential editors know right away that WP would prefer to have them focus their attention elsewhere, rather than tear something down after considerable effort has been put into it? (To be clear, I am not writing this in support of actual deletion of this article, only of the process and timing.) Ma^t_chups 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not especially because it's essentially impossible to judge an article's worth without first having let the editor complete it. It's like tearing down a building when the builders have just started making it saying it's not worth building, you can only tell once it's done whether it will turn out to look good or be good. Atomician (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no policy has been cited by the nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 14 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Vaillancourt[edit]

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

As far as I can tell this article has never had any credible assertion of notability other than by inheritance (playing at venues where famous people have played) and the references are the subject, his website, his MySpace and - well, you get the idea. He's currently working on an "online cooking show" (i.e. YouTube). Guy (Help!) 20:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Updated most of the sections on the page and added references on August 19th. --FFedits (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - As evidence by the additional links, he has had national airplay and tours nationally yearly. In addition, his music has been on compilations in several countries. Please advise as to what additional resources you would like added to verify notability. Jheditorials (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of musicians, notability for wikipedia requires musicians to be unique among their compatriots. What has this musician done that no other musician has done?Curb Chain (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. No independent evidence of notability. Gillyweed (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Independent references added on August 19th. --FFedits (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - These so called independent references do not prove notability. For example, they are marketing material (apparently prepared by Vaillancourt) or even written by Vaillancourt, in the case of the 'Our Midland News'. This material is not independent nor does it meet WP:RS.Gillyweed (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What type of additional references would you like to have added to verify notability? Jheditorials (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable independent sources. There's not really even an assertion of notability, beyond an attempt at inherited notability ("playing several legendary places, such as Eddie’s Attic in Atlanta and CBGB’s in New York"), which, like everything else, is sourced to his own website. cmadler (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Independent references added on August 19th. --FFedits (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - See above question. Jheditorials (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any notability even if 3rd party sources are cited.Curb Chain (talk) 11:23, 20 August 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.

Isoje Chou[edit]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator and merged in accordance with WP:Merge. Safiel (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NASA IV&V Educator Resource Center[edit]

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

I have merged the entire contents of this article into Independent Verification and Validation Facility. The educator resource center is certainly not notable enough for its own article, and can be covered sufficiently in the article on the facility. The current title is not a plausible redirect and since the author recreated the article after a previous Speedy Deletion, I have taken it to AfD. Safiel (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is merged, a redirect from the original article should be kept as the history is required for attribution purposes, i.e. to ensure we have a visible record of who wrote the merged content (please see WP:MERGE). January (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point well taken. I will go ahead and withdraw this and redirect instead, noting that you have already made the appropriate attribution on the destination page. Safiel (talk) 20:21, 13 August 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} 18:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stormwind (band)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, previously deleted, tagged as unsourced since February 2008(!), assertion of notability by association only. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wholly unremarkable band that made some albums, played a few shows in Sweden. I was unable to find any media coverage. The article itself makes no claims which suggest it passes any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources support existence, not notability. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzGCurb Chain (talk) 12:08, 20 August 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} 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian-New Age dialogue[edit]

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

Essay Jac16888 ^Talk 17:57, 13 August 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}}.

I oppose deletion. The article is well written and is a balanced examination of the relationship between Christians and New Agers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothand (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can we stop the process of deletion. As per the instructions, a paragraph addressing the complaint of the person who suggested deletion was added and noted in the edit summary box. Then the deletion notice was deleted as per instructions. But now it seems to have come back in a different form. How do we get this settled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian-New Age Dialogue (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Guide to deletion for an explanation of the process. Basically, a discussion will take place here on whether the article conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read this article several weeks ago and found it well-written, neutral, and dealing effectively with the difficulties of dialogue among religious/spiritual groups with opposing, even conflictual points of view. To me this seems a highly relevant topic, one worth keeping rather than deleting. Not sure why the deletion was suggested. NML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.125.214 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. As well, at least two of the three accounts voting above appear to be the same user and I'm filing an SPI. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IP 202.124.74.156 Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, and that the article was written by what it seems to be sock/meatpuppets. Conflict of interest might also be involved (might). Rabbit fang 03:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH Concept does not exist except where constructed for this Wikipedia article out of disparate sources. --Jayron32 04:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH. Marokwitz (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete. I want to make very sure I am properly identifying myself here. My account name is Christian-New Age Dialogue and I am the one who wrote the comment yesterday re "How can we stop the process of deletion." Please do see the defense I made last night re the thoughts that there is sockpuppetry involved. I responded very fully to those thoughts on the proper page. So please, before you think about deleting the because of a sockpuppetry violation, see what I wrote. I think that will put that whole thing to rest. But re the more important issue of content, I am very, very surprised that some comments have been negative. While I would be very happy for any suggestions of improvement, I do think this article is a valuable resource for anyone involved with ecumenism. I, by the way, didn't write the piece but I did assist the writer with editing, etc. And I know she spent many, many months researching the piece so it could be both informative and unbiased. I don't mean to be longwinded here, but I'm simply very saddened at this turn of events.--Christian-New Age Dialogue (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Christian-New Age Dialogue[reply]

Please don't delete. "I just noticed that this page is up for deletion -- and I can't for the life of me imagine why (!?). Though I'm quite familiar with both the terms "Christian" and "New Age", I'm not a practicing "Christian" -- nor am I much of an adherent of "new age" principles. That said, however, I find any discourse of the two subjects fascinating and invigorating to my spirit and intellect. Similar to political discussions that can be anywhere from far right to far left, open discussion of the theories involved help all parties come to their own personal feelings about the issues involved. Knowledge, after all, is power. My own spiritual practices are more of an amalgamation of various spiritual practices with a dash of free-will thrown into the mix. This is why I'm SO fascinated with any discussions between folks of different faiths, beliefs, and paths. Without lively discussion, how can people come to their own conclusions -- conclusions which, as a result of the discourse, may be moved along into new depths of richness and knowing? I sincerely hope that Wikipedia will allow this page to remain -- thereby encouraging a (possibly lively) discussion between folks interesting in both Christian and New Age dialogues. Thanks for your own input! That's what it's all about! [Michael Walker, Washington, DC, http://dreamwalkergroup.com] --DreamwalkerGroup (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging dialogue is a noble endeavor, and I wish you luck with it; however it is not part of Wikipedia's core mission. Wikipedia isn't a free-for-all, it is a website with a narrow focus, and that is to write a quality encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more information about things Wikipedia isn't, and Wikipedia:Five pillars for Wikipedia's cornerstone mission and philosophy. Good luck with your endeavor to encourage dialogue, but please respect the mission of Wikipedia as well. --Jayron32 17:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent forum presenting the many aspects of Christian thought and New Age Philosophy. What better way to understand one another than to participate in dialog. It would be a shame to delete this bridge-building quarterly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.161.168 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as per WP:SOAPBOX (as per items 1,2,4,5 in part) nor does it appear noteable WP:N.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to understand why there should be any objection to the lucid entry on Christian-New Age dialogue. To say that it is "unclear" or "reads like a religious pamphlet" indicates either lack of reading comprehension or biased bigotry. Whatever one's view, Wikipedia should be a forum for dialogue, not a target for censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.196.121 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, Wikipedia is not a forum for dialogue; its scope was defined almost a decade ago, and "dialogue" was not one of its missions. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more info. --Jayron32 17:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original essay. I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but it is simply neither encyclopedic as a topic nor in its presentation. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not censorship, this type of work doesn't fit within the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for an essay.Gee totes (talk) 04:05, 20 August 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} 18:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Wong (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable: hasn't yet played in the big leagues. HVB648 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability criteria for ice hockey don't, in fact, require playing in the NHL. That being said, Wong doesn't yet fulfill those criteria. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 05:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that could potentially save this article is something in his college career--and unfortunately, being runner-up for national college rookie of the year leaves him just short of the standard in my mind. Also of note, he plays in the ECHL now. Blueboy 96 14:30, 14 August 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts of mixing the inefficient and medium martial arts methods

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

The result was withdrawn Safiel (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Hale (vocalist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:Band which states that members of a notable band do NOT qualify for a separate article unless: 1. They are notable apart from the band or 2. They were members of two or more notable bands. This individual fails on both these counts and thus does not qualify for a separate article. Unexplained PROD removal by article creator. Safiel (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom has obviously not researched this well enough, as this artist clearly qualifies for BOTH reasons stated. Yes, he was notable apart from "the" band and yes, he was part of many notable bands. In case of doubt, here are some pointers to start with: [[10]], [[11]], [Google books] and [[12]]. This guy did world tours when Michael Jackson wasn't even born yet :) --DeVerm (talk) 17:12, 13 August 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} 18:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Massa[edit]

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

Promotional article for a not-yet notable candidate per WP:TOOSOON. Not yet held any elected office, non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement with Gurt Posh and Hirolovesswords. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 13 August 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Director Area[edit]

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

Non notable. A web search pulls up trivial references. The general subject can be fully covered under the existing article Director telephone system. Note that I had previously redirected the article names to Director telephone system but the original author reverted the redirect, so now I will take this to AfD. Safiel (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also nominating Birmingham Director Area under the same criteria. Safiel (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also nominating Edinburgh Director Area under the same criteria. Safiel (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Zero secondary sources. Plus it is not encyclopedic content. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought it might be a nice idea to type up the Exchange Names as they appeared during the time of Director Areas, obviously others feel differently, the actual Exchange Names aren't covered in the telephone director systems article. Well it will save me the hours of typing up and checking the other 3 Director Areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villaged13 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent some time trawling the articles for deletion on here, and leaving some comments on them, I still can see any valid reason for deleting this item or its Edinburgh and Birmingham companions, other than censorship by the few on behalf of the many. The articles were intended purely for their historical value as part of the rich heritage of telecommunicatiosn history of the UK. The Director codes haven't been published since they became completely redundant in 1969 at the completion of all figure numbering, there are numerous references to all figure numbering and Director Systems (the equipment) and Director Areas (the areas served) but nowhere is there a list of what the Telephone Exchanges were. The only reliable source for the information is the BT Archive in London, but not everybody who might want to read about old telephone numbers can visit there. My final point being that elsewhere on wikipedia it is claimed that Edinburgh was given a Director Area for purely political reasons, another claims it was so the numbers would map nicely round the dial, in 1950 031 was 9 years away and not in the planning stage, at no stage is there any citation to these claims, both of which are untrue, however we're drifting away from the point which is pure censorship a few deciding what the majority should be allowed to read on here. Villaged13 (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic, possible copyvio. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright violation on the material I have entered. UK copyright expires on published literature after 25 years from original publishing the youngest document I have sourced information from is from 1977Villaged13 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - According to Copyright law of the United Kingdom, it's 70 years from date if publication for a work if teh identity of the author is unknown. So your assertion that the earliest document is from 1977 places the expiration of copyright in 2047. On the other hand, from reading the article, it is unclear what you have transcribed from the original documents. Is it just the list? If so, there may not be any copyright issue as that would appear to be information rather than creative text and might not fall within the purview of copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reply to above; A telephone dialling code booklet is set of instructions for a particular area at a particular time, it is therefore a published edition and is copyrighted for 25 years from the end of the year it was published. There are some illustrations in these books (example an elderly lady has tied a burglar up with her knitting and has the telephone receiver in her right hand, in her left hand is a large card with 999 printed on it, with the caption below make a note of the number you are calling and refer to it whilst dialling) these illustrations can be referred to, but must not be copied without consent of the copyright holder which may be the service provider, or the original artist if they didn't waive their copyright. I hope this clears the matter up for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villaged13 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Villaged13 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Null That was really interesting though! Didn't know that. Thanks! Perhaps you can rewrite on the complete subject (rather than local) as a good historical piece? I think that would be very interesting enough for the wiki police to allow it to stay :). --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - considering we have articles such as List of United Kingdom dialling codes, an historic list of dialling code equivalents would seem to be perfectly acceptable as a list article documenting information from a past age of telephony. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CSD as copyvio - not written properly to establish notability on its own, and it is stated clearly that the pertinent items are taken in their entirety from one source. MSJapan (talk) 15:17, 19 August 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cruiserweight (MMA)[edit]

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

I don't know the WP:N for weight classes but an unoffical weight class not used by any professional promotion and is sparsely contested in the amatuer ranks does not seem to merit an article. A goggle serach of the article's topic brings up existing debates on the need for the weight class. Right now is this article nessecary? MattParker 119 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable weight class. (I'd even be willing to argue against having articles about any of the individual weight classes.) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to see how an article about a weight class that no major MMA organizations use is notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure if about weight class notability in general, but I do know that a weight class than nobody uses is pretty meaningless. Jakejr (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion had apparently not gotten listed here at the main discussion log, I've corrected that. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep This is the best sourced article of any of the weight class articles for any fight sport that I've looked at. The subject is verifiable and notable, even if it isn't actually used much. gnfnrf (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is this listed as the third nomination? I can find no record of any previous AfD nominations. Jakejr (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think MattParker 119 (talk · contribs) listed as a "third nomination" in error. The article was prod'ed twice. First here and was removed by an admin because no reason for the Prod was stated. MattParket prod'ed it a second time here but the same admin removed it saying it had already been prod'ed once. This would be MattParker's third attempt at the deletion process. At least, that's what I've figured out. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:08, 16 August 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 A7. ... discospinster _talk 17:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coby Dean Rees[edit]

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

Created by new user of the same name, no notability, seems like an experiment or test page. SarahStierch (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no need for discussion on this one, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No article, no sources, looks like a sandbox test. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 13 August 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 HP 2100. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HP 2000[edit]

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

Delete not WP:Notable. LES 953 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The family of computers is certainly notable but seems to be the same as HP 2100. Borock (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that an argument for deletion rather than merger, say? Warden (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding the material correctly the proper name of the series seems to be HP 2100. Borock (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The HP2000 series was a best-selling line of computers with revenues of over $100M when that was worth something. See The HP phenomenon. Warden (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HP 2100 --DeVerm (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Obvious merge: How this could be considered not notable is lost to me, but had as much time been spent reading the article as spent writing this nom, the overlap with HP2100 should have been obvious. Suggest SNOW close. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~HP2000~~HP 2100. There's not material here to actually merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HP 2100 since HP2000 already goes to HP 2000. Perhaps delete first, since it is not clear the information here is accurate. http://hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=411 at least seems to impy the "2000" was the time-sharing system, which was built around the 2100 minicomputer itself. And BASIC hardly made them unique, see RSTS/E for eample that had a popular BASIC environment. It certainly was historic, but a merged article on the hardware and software (with sources) would make more sense. W Nowicki (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge -- without deleting the history--we cannot delete the history for a merge because we need to msintain attribution. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree if there is no content to merge. Why? I suppose it might be quicker, so probably minor point. W Nowicki (talk) 19:45, 20 August 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} 18:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Building Cisco Multilayer Switched Networks[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE] wiki is not a how to. LES 953 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not even a "how to", it's a sale piece for a "how to" course. Zero reference, zero non-sales content, no indication of notability. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete note the lead does not even match the title. W Nowicki (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the proper title should be 'Building Converged Cisco Multilayer Switched Networks', content related to getting a certain corporate certification is not encyclopedic.Gee totes (talk) 04:31, 20 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CiscoWorks[edit]

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete. Not wp:notable, and is just sales material; so there would be no article content once sales material is removed. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. One of the most popular, if not the most popular, Network Management Systems of all time. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so but the article does not mention it. It does not need its own page. A mention at the Cisco page is all that is required or, as other editors suggest elsewhere. a generic Cisco routers page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: was not helpful for my project and research ,seemed to be an advertising gimmick! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machismo500 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Non-Notable product, no references nor in-line references. Written in only marketing bullets. Non-informative, technically vague, seems marketing once again. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. 99.202.38.179 (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I didn't see any notable coverage on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Stub. Plenty of coverage in technical publications available on the Internet -> WP:NOTABLE. A proper article can be written. For example see:
Cisco flips the switch on CiscoWorks 2000. Musich, Paula, PC Week. Vol. 15, no. 39, pp. 113-113. 28 Sept. 1998 .

Duffy, Jim. CiscoWorks gets Windows version. Network World. 9 Jan 1995. Marokwitz (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not WP:NOTABLE not Prose refs are press releases not WP:42 coverage. 74.82.64.144 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 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 Already speedily deleted per author's request. Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Gate employees 2[edit]

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

I created this article by accident while I was trying to make a template. I am the only editor of this article and I wish for it to be deleted. Starship.paint (talk) 13:33, 13 August 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 Speedily deleted, creator's request. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Gate employees[edit]

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

I created this article by accident while I was trying to make a template. I am the only editor of this article and I wish for it to be deleted. Starship.paint (talk) 13:32, 13 August 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. Article passes WP:GNG. Who it's written by doesn't matter, COI is not a reason to delete. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko Gear[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating. Vanity article written by company founder. No assertion of notability (which would qualify it for A7 speedy, but admins seem to be very reluctant to speedy these useless articles for some reason, so I'm listing the article instead). Miracle Pen (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ These two articles in reliable sources mean that the topic may be notable: [13][14] !Voting delete because the article is qualifies for A7 at the moment, and seriously needs work to save it. Perhaps a candidate for rescue? Quasi human | Talk 16:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources, discovered 2 other companies sharing this name. Article now serves a disambiguation function also. Trilliumz (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, thanks for your diligence, I don't think that's the way disambiguation pages are supposed to work: instead of being a useless article about a non-notable company, it's now a useless article about three non-notable companies. Miracle Pen (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is an improvement, this was an article about the Australian company which showed some signs of notablality, if the other two companies are notable, individual articles can be made for them, and a disambiguation page made then. I have removed the other content (retained the relevant stuff) to avoid confusion, and so that this AfD can decide on the notability of the Australian company alone. Thanks for your work, I'm sorry to have to remove so much of it. Quasi human | Talk 10:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment- i have no vote on the article itself, but I just wanted to point out that WP:SPEEDY covers why admins are unwilling to speedy delete the article. Specifically: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." Umbralcorax (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first result in a Google news archive search is http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/small-business/gecko-gear-makes-the-case-for-quality-iphone-accessories/story-e6frg9hf-1225941986108 which confirms notability without any reasonable doubt. If an article has a problem that can be fixed by editing, then fix it, don't try to delete it. Dream Focus 15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does a 700-word puff piece confer notability? Miracle Pen (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to keep - no, but two >700-word puff pieces in reliable sources (The Australian & The Age) does confer notability, see WP:GNG. In response to Dream focus, I was afraid that what was wrong with the article could not be fixed by editing. Even after going through the sources, and trying to add to the article, we are left with a 5-line stub, just about enough in my opinion, but barely. Quasi human | Talk 11:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the Australian is 677 words, the article in the Age is longer but only mentions Gecko in passing. Miracle Pen (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the 677 words, my mistake, but the mention in The Age is hardly in passing, the first several paragraphs are about the company, and it mentioned again later in the article. Quasi human | Talk 12:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added two more RS to the list, Macworld and Brisbanetimes.com.au. Macworld calls this "a leading accessory brand in Australia" that has grown past being a local company to worldwide distribution. "Best case scenario" article from Brisbane.com.au also goes beyond a passing mention (WP:GNG), explaining the design and quality concerns for manufacture in China from an Australian perspective. This article adds overall geographical balance to the encyclopedia by describing the growth of a non-US startup as it works with its offshore / Chinese manufacturing partner. Trilliumz (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trilliumz (talk) and Dream Focus remarks and sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:10, 17 August 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) Cerejota (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of US national Golden Gloves super heavyweight champions[edit]

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

This is one of ten articles with title of the form "List of US national Golden Gloves (weight) champions". None has ever been referenced and all have been flagged as unreferenced for over a year. Without references there is no check on their accuracy, and unless references are supplied the articles should be scrapped. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick review of several of the listed fighters does show that the article appears correct and noteworthy. I have added a link to the official Golden Gloves website to the article for source verification purposes. The article will still need further attention regarding (WP:VERIFY) .--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that does help. However, this was only one of a dozen similar lists, as can be seen here, so they all need similar attention. I question whether they are all worth while, since they are all just sublists drawn from List of US national Golden Gloves champions. Some of the others (though not this one, as it happens), have a very large proportion of redlinks and a quite a lot of wrong links. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, with a view toward merging it and the others in the next few days (see below). If the resulting improvement is deemed to be insufficient, the matter of deletion can be revisited at that time. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see at least four issues that need to be addressed: naming, organization, sourcing and presentation.
Naming. The lists should refer to the event by its official name – National Golden Gloves – rather than what appears to be a made-up descriptive name.

Organization. The way in which information about National Golden Glove champions is organized is sub-optimal. There are 13 lists (the chronological one and twelve lists by weight class), when really there is a need for only two: List of National Golden Gloves champions by year and List of National Golden Gloves champions by weight class.

Sourcing. The lack of references is a serious problem, but it does not appear to be one that cannot be corrected.

Presentation. Placing the information into formatted tables would significantly improve the appearance of the lists and their ease-of-use.

I will work on a sandbox draft today and tomorrow and, if there are no objections, move it into the mainspace and redirect the weight-class lists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:42, 18 August 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} 18:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Leadbitter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played at a fully-professional level of football. Lack of any significant independent coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 12:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 12:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, doesn't currently meet WP:NFOOTY. Adam4267 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No professional appearances, no significant coverage, does not yet meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 10:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No appearances in league football yet. Tedaram (talk) 21:04, 17 August 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) 00:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King Chilla[edit]

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

Non-notable under WP:MUSIC; unreferenced BLP; major WP:COI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found to indicate suitability for an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable & unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any biographical sources on Google and Yahoo aside from music download and social networking pages. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 16 August 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. The assertions of notability without no poklicy based arguments have been discounted. Happy to userfy or review if better sourcing merges Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Walkes[edit]

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

Author/mason of questionable notability - possible WP:NOTMEMORIAL issue. Google news search for "Joseph A. Walkes, Jr." (the name he was published under) shows little coverage - regular search mainly shows links to his books (some self-published, some published through the Masons, no indications of notability, just existence) - no real discussion of the person, just simple listings. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Only references are to a memorial site from an organization the subject founded. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Walkes is well-known, but he is only well-known in Masonic research circles. Generally speaking, "fraternal accomplishments" by themselves are not enough to meet GNG or any of the specialty notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (basis Article claims coverage in reliable sources) (also this is a false complaint issued by colluding persons seeming to collude and who are not experts and seem to have a personal vendetta)

Joseph Walkes is just as notable as everyone under the CATAGORY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_known_for_their_contribution_to_Freemasonry

He is just as notable as the guy in this link who is living: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Brent_Morris

Therefore, being that this person is just as notable as EVERY OTHER person in that Category for People know for their contribution to Freemasonry - MSJapan issue is resolved. And it is a shame that you two colluding in deleting the Phylaxis Page, but allowed the Philalethes to stand. I personally find that to be racist and prejudice against Prince Hall Freemasons, and it's unfortunate even more that you call yourself a Freemason MSJapan and doing things like this. Odd . . .

As for MikeWaz, it's unfortunate that the only criteria you are using is surface google search. If you were to do a deep search on books that quote Walkes - he would appear next to every time Prince Hall Freemasonry is referenced. I have every book written about Prince Hall Freemasonry and since 1980, Walkes is referenced in everyone of them. You can't talk about Prince Hall Freemasonry without talking about what Walkes did with the Phylaxis Society and his books. I'm an expert in Prince Hall Freemasonry - I know who is notable and who is not - Gray and Walkes are notable.--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to demonstrate that Walkes meets the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Notability Reasons

I've read the notability criteria and I can produce all of that stuff for this article except significant coverage if GOOGLE lol is the only means for determining significant coverage. People who actually read books about Prince Hall Freemason know Walkes. But if he is deleted then I will go ahead and nominate persons equal to Him such as the ones cited. Otherwise Wiki would be guilty of prejudice.--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, significant coverage is an automatic disqualifier, so to speak. The article currently cites no independent sources; all the sources are from the Phylaxis Society, which Walkes founded. Without secondary sources, the subject fails GNG, and thus is not notable. No notability, no article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, according to the rules I have seven days before it is deleted. I see I went about the article the wrong way. I modeled the page after authors and I didn't think much this page being tested after I looked at Brent Morris and others, but according to the criteria at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia I can cite enough journals to demonstrate the permanent impact Walkes had on Prince Hall Freemasonry that will prove notability that way instead through google.--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would consider "founder of the Phylaxis Society" to be sufficient notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 1 August 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, 6 August 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, BusterD (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i think this is a good article and i think it should be kept. Tony (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I've heard this Man's name before, couldn't really tell you much about him but isn't that supposed to be the whole point of wikipedia? Why should a few people "decide" what millions of people around the world can and cannot see on here?Villaged13 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)— Villaged13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep RW notability looks likely, ability to meet wp:notability looks likely, and article sourcing comes close to doing that. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PEOPLE. No evidence of notability (see WP:PEOPLE to understand what this means on Wikipedia) via any independent reliable sources discussing the subject or his writings (please carefully read WP:BASIC to understand what this means). I did a Google search but found only stuff from Masonic sources and/or the Phylaxis Society, and sites selling Walkes' books. If anyone is aware of sources which would suffice to establish Wikipedia notability, please add them ASAP. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:06, 21 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agena (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication article topic passes WP:GNG. Zero independent sources. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Isn't notable per WP:N, because it lacks any independent sources. The only reference I can find that isn't by the authors page or related to the author is the following: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Agena . I personally don't think that counts as enough sources. The author also seems to have edited the page many times. (same text, I wrote on the last nomination that got closed because of pointy behavior) snaphat ► 00:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

although the discussion proposing the deletion of this article confuses me:

1) the Agena (programming language) article has been kindly set up by an editor who is interested in languages, and who I do not know,

2) frequent editing is not an indication of bad quality. Quite the opposite: we are online, thus wysiwyg, and we do not write articles over and over again on typewriters any longer before they are being sent to our editors,

3) I could write lengthy chapters on the language - but I will not, and finally:

4) Agena is being or was used in science and architecture projects. Projects not mine.

5) An independent link has been added to the Agena article: http://lua-users.org/wiki/LuaImplementations & http://code.google.com/p/luafltk.

Thank you.

Agena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agena (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion was simply because an author of some other language tried to get all articles deleted that he didn't find notable after his own language got delete. It was re-opened because there was legitimate discussion regarding the notability of the subject by other editors. Personally, I don't believe the article passes WP:N. Adding multiple independent 3rd party sources will go a long way to alleviate my concerns and anyone elses. The point I was making regarding frequent editing of the article is that that it may signify a conflict of interest- nothing less, nothing more. snaphat ► —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello,

thank you very much for your response.

Of course, articles on Sophie Scholl, the Caliphate of Córdoba, Lua, etc. are quite more significant than any notice about my interpreter.

I found an article on another assertively `rare` language which is not on the deletion list, and will try to adapt the Agena article to it. If the Agena article is deleted, however, I will not complain. And surely, I will _not_ complain on other articles about subjects which I deem `rare` (for I might be terribly wrong) but which will pass the review positively. It just seems that somebody seems to be severely aggrieved. I am still very grateful that at last for some time, there had been an article on my programming language on Wikipedia.

Yours faithfully,

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agena (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that just because another rare language isn't up for deletion isn't necessarily because it is notable or that the article is written well. It may just be because no-one nominated it. Also, no-one is aggrieved. People just noticed the article and are following the policy of Wikipedia. Personally, I don't care if the article stays or not since you found some form of 3rd party reference. snaphat ► 22:54, 3 August 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, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are independent sources, The article is synthetic, well written and objective. I would definitely keep it. Mrtno (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article again, and I don't see any. Please familiarize yourself with WP:N, and point them out. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided I don't care enough to vote delete anymore, because author added a few sources. snaphat ► 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are we looking at the same article? Current version has no references and the following external links:

* http://agena.sourceforge.net/

* http://lua-users.org/wiki/LuaImplementations

* http://code.google.com/p/luafltk

* http://download.famouswhy.com/publisher/agena_info

I don't see how any of these qualify as WP:RS or even independent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:48, 7 August 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, BusterD (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of rw or wp notability. Zero references. Article has existed for plenty of time for those to be included, if they exist. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author can provide more concrete references that indicate "Agena is being or was used in science and architecture projects". —Ruud 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked and couldn't find any reliable independent sources. The links don't count. The homepage naturally isn't an independent source. The LuaImplementations page is a wiki that can be edited by anyone so isn't reliable. The LuaFLTK page isn't reliable either (for the same reasons a blog isn't a reliable source). The FamousWhy page isn't independent. Until one reliable independent source is found, this article should be deleted. ALK (Talk) 18:03, 18 August 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. Double-checked in grove; no painter with these dates DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Baptist Stella[edit]

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

unsourced Biography Sehmeet singh Talk 10:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just being unsourced is not a reason for deletion, but I suspect this is a hoax: I have searched and found no mention of this painter online or in the Oxford Companion to Art, which has Jacques Stella who spent some time in Florence but whose dates are different. Also the phrase "baptist painter" is meaningless - the name "Jan-Baptist" is a reference to John the Baptist, but that does not make him a "baptist painter", and the link is to the Baptist denominations which did not exist before the 17th century. JohnCD (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - not much information, should be deleted. Tony (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too can find no sources to establish this guy's existence, having tried Google Web and Books searches for the birth/death dates and for "Giovanni Battista Stella", which is a more likely form for the name of a Florentine painter. I don't know whether the article is a hoax, but it appears to fail WP:V. Deor (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, no claim to significance tagged as such. Quasi human | Talk 13:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero references, one sentence article. Even the text has no indication or claim of notability. No inidcaiton of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 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} 18:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gascan Ruckus[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:BAND; have received some airplay on one BBC regional station but not yet nationally; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, though there are some passing mentions on BBC festival reviews. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation with more sources. This looks like a reasonably credible band (and certainly not anything like the Bringers of darkness or any of the other 100,000,000 bands like them pursuing Wikipedia articles), but I can't see anything that passes WP:MUSIC. The best claim I can find to notability is the tours of Ireland, but without any coverage in third-party sources about this (other than a few articles listing them amongst all the other acts at a gig), it's not really enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable band. Keb25 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 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. Speedy deleted A7 - no need to waste time on an AfD here Black Kite (t) (c) 09:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giblets fc[edit]

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

Extremely non-notable local amateur team, article created by one of the players ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 13 August 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 an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lex kogan[edit]

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

Promotional article about a clearly non-notable actor. Sole reason for the article appears to be promote this actor and/or the "therapy" he promotes. No references, or other evidence of notability. BBoth speedy delete and prod notices were removed with the only explanation being this article "has merit". Clearly fails WP:GNG and is an example of WP:SPAM Palltrast (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is from the same author and part of the same promotional campaign:

I will note the author's contribution at Talk:Lex kogan "is this promotion or pollination?" which to me clearly indicates the intention at promotion. Palltrast (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - the article creator isn't allowed to remove the speedy tags. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACTOR; IMDB shows only one appearance in one episode of one show. Fails WP:GNG; Google News finds absolutely nothing about him. Also delete Ibogaine Underground for lack of any verification or sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Delete Lex Kogan article as failure of WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Is a BLP violation as unverifiable in any reliable source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ibogaine Underground as promotional spam. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Like Kogan, is also unverifiable in any reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I didn't see any biographical sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 17 August 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} 18:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aleks de Carvalho[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A guitarist and songwriter. If this is familiar, it is, because it was deleted two days ago. It's back and it's is still a copyvio. The speedy delete was denied. Bgwhite (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio. It was previously tagged A7 and G4, neither of which apply. (Previous deletion was a speedy, not an AfD outcome). Thparkth (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the article severely in order to eliminate that concern and allow this discussion to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no longer a copyvio, now just a routine bio of a non-notable performer. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see notable sources for a biography on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 16 August 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 Userfied. You asked for it you got it Toyota. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Del Zamora[edit]

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

Not a single reference in entire article. 95% content is provided by WP:COI user (User:Del Zamora). WP:BLP Srobak (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the entire thing should be deleted, but most of the self-serving content could go - every bit part he's ever had. Interesting that he's left out his full name and age! Ravenscroft32 (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Del Zamora (sigh) so I might use a sandblaster on the thing. I looked at this actor's rather healthy career, and his having significant roles in multiple notable productions[15] and am of the opinion that WP:ENT is met. Many spanish sources speak toward "Del Zamora",[16] as do many English language sources,[17] so I feel WP:GNG is met. That said, and the apparent COI of it being written by User:Del Zamora aside, I have rarely seen an article that is in such a poor state. I would have suggested userfying it back to author, but the author has major COI and sadly does not (yet) have a grip on style, tone, formatting, or sourcing. I am willing to spend the requires hours in fixing this one, and will check with the nom before returning a corected version to mainspace. And Del... stop writing about yourself and go read WP:A Primer for newcomers and its related WP:Wikipedia is not about YOU. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am Del Zamora. One more thing. I have a serious stalker, and I mean serious. You need to lock down my page, after you do the edit. She is sabotaging all sites that I am connected to, with nasty posts, etc. I would keep as good an eye on this article, as you are doing now. Reviewing articles. I'm cool with that. I realize that this is volunteer work, right? Okay. I need your help. I could write it like an unbiased without COI (getting the drift, see?), but I always think someone would think something was not right. So, any help. If you live in LA, I'll buy breakfast. Thanks. Del Zamora
- Del, take another look at WP:PRIMER and WP:COI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Del Zamora. I had no idea about this process. There is one writer, who said he would sandblast the article. That is okay with me. I am an actor, so our natural tendency is to not be objective. We always have to sell, sell, sell. I now understand your objective. Realize I am a working actor, however I only make an average of 15k per year (due to being a Latino actor, that is what we make, because the Anglos always take the lead Latino roles, leaving us the smaller roles, you complain about. Talk about fulfilling a prophecy. I have done quite a few lead roles in movies, however I never made much money. 15k average per year. I just bought a car, a couple of years ago. I have struggled and do this full time. I am a neophyte in the cyber world. To punish me for that is just cruel. How are poor people ever supposed to learn, if you delete every mistake? Correct the mistake. Inform, the way the 2nd individual did. I never knew where there were policies, or that there were COI policies. I saw some mistakes and omissions, and started contributing from there. Never read the policies, as I was told, to just post. So, now I know. I never had my own computer, until a couple of years ago, after I had a roommate. So, I am behind the curve on Wikipedia, Twitter, etc. I do not know the rules. I appreciate any help. I do take exception with the comments about my writing. I wrote this article as a pr piece. If you wish to see my professional writing, then search; "Frida's Story: Artistic Choice or Cultural Catastrophe?" - Los Angeles Times, August 10, 1992 & "Where are the Latinos in Film, TV?" - Los Angeles Times - May 20, 1996. Not just anyone writes for the Los Angeles times, twice. In any case, go ahead. Butcher it up. Do your thing. I will protest and so will the Latino community in the Southwest, if you delete the page. They will cry racism, and so will I. I have an extensive FB following, write for numerous papers beside the LA Times, and am considered a community leader in the Southwest of the USA. I vote on the Emmys. I have worked for 30 years in the biz. Why you would want to delete this account is beyond me. I did not set it up originally. It was set up by someone else. I do hope that you leave in the articles I wrote for the LA Times. Remember, there are no small roles, only small actors. And I might add small minds. Several hundred actors audition for each "small role". When you win the role, you don't think of it as small. But, I know how you think. If your not the lead actor, then you don't matter, right? That's why they shot the scene that took all day to shoot. That's why the scene was written, no matter how small. Because it does matter. It mattered when it was shot, and if it made it through the edit process, then it really mattered to the storytellers. 80% of what is shot, is left on the editing floor. But, you're not film makers, so how could you ever understand this. Not meaning to cut you down. Just returning the tough talk you give me, as contributor to the piece. I just had 3 Guest Star episodes in TRUE BLOOD on HBO. I think that alone warrants this article staying up. Do what you will, with the edit. I now understand that it is the people's article. Not mine. I really will appreciate it, if you kept it up. Deleting it, is not the answer for anyone. Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del Zamora (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the fellow willing to "sandblast" the article, what I intend is to correct the formatting and style and provide the sourcing I have found through my reserach, and to (sorry) remove some of the content that reads more like a resume and less like an encyclopedia aticle. What will return will be decent. And while it may be gone temporarily, it will not be deleted per'se, but moved to a sub-page where I can work on it and improve it so it can return. As a southern California actor myself, I understand your perspective. As a volunteer editing Wikipedia for over three years, I understand what is required. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Del Zamora. One last thing. Once you have adjusted this article to your objective format, I will not contribute anymore to it. I had no idea, that was a COI. Now I do. I may submit a correction, if I see something wrong, or correct something this stalker might say. Other than that, I will never again contribute to Wikepedia. I hope this satisfies your blood lust, to delete this account. All you had to do, was check with a couple of keystrokes, like the other person did. Knee jerk reactions to delete should always be questioned, and if you are a contributor, and/or administrator, I find this request to delete this article, quite reckless. Investigate, before you request delete. Someone should keep tabs of these false, unfounded requests to delete accounts. How mean can a person be. Really? Okay. I promise not to soil your landscape ever again. I promise. Thank you.
- We do not have a bloodlust. Del, if someone like your real life stalker vandalizes the article after its return, Wikipedia has processes in place to repair any damage. The reason it is up for deletion is because of its formatting and style, and those issues can be addressed. Please compare how it is writen to other similar articles. Youve left me a lot of work, but I AM willing to undertake the task. And if in the future, you feel the article might benefit from additional information, and can offer the reliable sources to suport the addition, you need only ask someone like myself to check into it. And Del, you are always welcome to edit Wikipedia, just don't write about yourself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Copy that. Will follow all of Wikipedia's policies. I am relieved that policies do exist. Thank you, thank you for your help. Sorry, I made such a mess for you to clean up. It will not happen again. I want to thank you for your patience, professionalism, and most of all, your help. Not signing the post now. Learning as I go. Nothing has to be repeated to me. Once, and I learn. I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del Zamora (talk • contribs) 20:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple basic quick notes about replying here: New comments are headed with a " * " which will "bullet" it. Responses are imdiately preceded with either a " ** " or " *: " which will indent it. Also, a user's comments should be signed. That is done automatically by adding four "tildes" after the final period (upper left corner of your keyboard), done as " ~~~~ ", which will then "sign" your comment as "Del Zamora" and add a time and date stamp (as you see at the end of my own responses). And that no one else has responded pretty much means that others recognize my wishes to re-write your article, and I expect that in another couiple days it will moved to my workspace as requested above. The resulting article will not be as all encompassing as the one you wrote. And everything I do include must be verifiable in outside-of-Wikipedia reliable sources. If you have evidence supporting the personal background listed in the article, or links to any articles that speak specificlly about you, please drop the list and links to me on my own talk page. And trust that I am myself quite aware of Wikipedia's concerns toward COI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:48, 19 August 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Reiser[edit]

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

Non-notable. --NilsTycho (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. From what I can find, this person has played in Women's Professional Soccer, which is a fully professional league, and that would mean she is considered notable under WP:ATHLETE. The article had been vandalized with some nonsense claims which I have removed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can find to date she has been signed by Chicago Red Stars who play in the (fully professional) Women's Professional Soccer initially as a developmental player, then promoted to the first team squad, but has yet to play a competitive match that I can find. I have only managed to find an exhibition game - all others she appears to have been an unused substitute (and therefore does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL under that criteria. --ClubOranje^T 10:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to our article on the team, the Red Stars play in the Women's Premier Soccer League, which is not fully pro..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Learn something new every day! I wasn't aware they had switched to WPSL - thanks--ClubOranje^T 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet to make her pro debut, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per me above, still unable to find evidence she has started in a league game for Red Stars, besides which they only play a semi-pro league, therfore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Some coverage of the girl, but mainly general sports journalism hyping the move of a local girl to a bigger club. --ClubOranje^T 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is way beyond WP:ROUTINE. Also won NCAA awards etc. to pass notability guidelines for amateur college athletes. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ultimately fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG until she plays in a WPS game. Did not win a national individual award in college, so also fails WP:NSPORTS#College_athletes. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 19:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes ~~ATH 4.1 C.2~~ NFOOTBALL by meeting GNG - [18][19][20] ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong sport. Plus WP:ROUTINE anyway. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, try reading carefully WP:ROUTINE ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS interprets WP:ROUTINE: It excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. The first source is a WP:RSOPINION and third WP:SPS. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:31, 19 August 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. I've moved the article to Residential care as well. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care of residents[edit]

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

Essentially unreferenced synthesis. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unsure~~ It seems like this could be a useful article about residential care (which seems to be the preferred term at Google; the author of this article made "residential care" into a redirect to this article, but I found almost no examples of usage of the term "care of residents"). The article is well organized, concise, and factual. We do have a comparable article on Home care. But this article as it stands is entirely unsourced. Let me see if I can find any sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added sourcing and am continuing to do so. I think the article has encyclopedic merit. Its name should be changed to Residential care (an administrator will have to do that, since Residential care currently exists as a redirect to this article). --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very sourceable topic. I know books I have used to source other related articles would just as easily be able to source this one. (Note to Melanie N. If you want to boldly move this, you db-move)Tatterfly (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tatterfly. Unfortunately I can't move it to a name that already exists. That's why I said it needs an administrator, to delete the existing redirect page Residential care so this article can be moved there. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the full explanation on my talk page. I will do this if the article is kept. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment the original issue is that this is a synthesis of topics already covered by their own article. Each " section" already has an article. As such, this is an unnecessary synthesis of those topics. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as an article with surmountable problems. The OR and synthesis can be cleaned up. It doesn't have to be done in just 7 days either. Given the length of this article, I see that as a project that could take months at least. The format is laid out so well, I could see the problem as very solvable. Tatterfly (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , but change the title yo Residential care the present one is awkward, and not what anyone would normally say. It's not a synthesis, but a summary. There will certainly be enough references, considering that multiple textbooks have been written about each part of this. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 17 August 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 clear consensus to delete. Strong arguments to keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse stereotypes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced synthesis. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it has loads of notability. It just needs to be properly ref'd. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article, as nominated, contained an excellent reference, and so the nomination is blatantly false. Warden (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as completely unencyclopedic and a great reason to expand WP:NOT. We really don't need to make Wikipedia a list of Mulsim stereotypes, Tough-guy stereotypes, left-handed dwarf-wanking stereotypes, etc. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these articles don't exist because they don't meet WP:GNG, while this one does. Each topic needs to be judged individually, not based on others or what Wikipedia does not have. What you are saying here is that a policy favoring deletion should exist, not that one does already. This is all just a personal point of view. See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC before you judge an article as that. Tatterfly (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about common sense here - not what the rules say. This is was an encyclopedia. Toddst1 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a hater. WP:idontlikeit is not a valid reason to destroy other people's work. Dream Focus 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there big fella. Big leap between common sense and hater. And what's with the agression? Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; or Merge: can it be merged into the Stereotype article? Is there a stereotype article? Otherwise, I generally have to agree with Toddst1 above. GenQuest (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Too short to stand alone, and would benefit from being discussed in context. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been larger in the past. I have started a rewrite which is still in progress and so the article is still being developed back to its previous size. There are many substantial sources including entire books such as Bedside seductions: nursing and the Victorian imagination and so there is no obstacle to developing this topic up to FA size. Warden (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets general notability guidelines. As the list of references shows, this topic has been covered in multiple sources that focus on this topic itself. That alone makes it notable enough for a standalone article. Tatterfly (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep St. Joseph Gazette - Nov 18, 1986 Nurses Urged To Upgrade Their Image] Just click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and look through all the results. It sounded stupid to me at first, but I then took the time to look through the news and do some reading. There is ample coverage for this, it a real thing. Dream Focus 15:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have not examined all of the available sources, but what I've read from Darbyshire in Contexts of Nursing looks like a pretty solid academic discussion of the issue at hand. He cites some sources that might be helpful to build up this article with, as well. I would have titled the article "Public image of nurses" or something similar, but I think this title works well enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Nursing. This doesn't need an article by itself and most of the information presented here is trivial at best. Also, someone take down that picture in the article, or find use for it, because as it stands now will not do. (Not even a real nurse) The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But I think there is a better name, just not sure what. Szzuk (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References are solid. Marokwitz (talk) 08:05, 18 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Grinberg[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I could not find any reliable sources about the subject, therefore, I believe this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I would BLPPROD the article, as it's unreferenced; however, it was created before March 18, 2010. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google and Yahoo aside from Linkedin. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 17 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Colletti[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the notability criteria as outlined at WP:ENT. He appears to have had walk-on/uncredited extra roles on a handful of television dramas and films, however he lacks the significant roles in multiple productions required to have an article. As it stands the article is simply a repository for promotional links and copyvio images. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 03:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Actor's "guest appearances" amount to a dozen uncredited or descriptive bit parts. Currently fails WP:ENT. Lack of reliable sources [21][22] fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG Favoid (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Alliance Against Registration and the Draft[edit]

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

Possibly does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I do believe it met the standards for WP:CSD#A7, so I declined that speedy and am bringing the article to AfD for discussion. NW (Talk) 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the orignal creator of this article, and an active particpant in BAARD (with my wife) 1980-1990, I know the history of its activism on the local level. Citations in media can be found; personal archives; documents; special archives, etc. BAARD did much media outreach during its time. Unfortunately,the article (as it is now) has been edited and dumbed-down user:Episteme67 —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Repeated contemporary coverage available online in the Boston Globe, as well as the Christian Science Monitor, the Bangor Daily News and The Nation. As this group was active over 30 years ago, before the web, there is a strong presumption that other reliable sources exist, especially in alternative publications, which have not yet been digitized and indexed by Google. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Relatively local, but it appeared influential in the area. Briefly mentioned in one book on Boston-area activism and its material is part of a Brown University collection. There may be other unindexed references. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~; 45 news hits, some significant; 5 mentions in books with none of them appearing to be significant. Although I have seen some AfDs pass with only one or two significant coverage articles in nationally major reliable sources (the Boston Globe considered by some as one of them), I have also seen other AfDs fail with the same number of significant reliable sources; therefore, I will not support or oppose this AfD at this time, and reserve my right to oppose or support at some later date and time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Weak Delete, although there maybe significant stories in the subject's local paper (all be it by some opinions a major national paper), the total sum of them don't convince me that it is notable outside of its local area. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per previous statements of notability and its having some references. I copyedited the article and hid undocumented lists of similar organizations and leaders. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The most shocking thing here is that Committee Against Registration and the Draft is showing as a redlink. That's a big "miss" for the encyclopedia. I'm generally in favor of retaining content relating to politics, of retaining non-promotional content retaining to non-profit organizations, and of retaining content of potential interest to historians, so you know where I'm leaning. I'll revisit this for sources when I have more time. Almost certain to be the source of independent media coverage, I would imagine. Carrite (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The draft is gone, but if it is ever forgotten, plenty of people who would fight to the last drop of your blood will be more than happy to bring it back. Think of the terrific crusades we could have then! Similarly, Committee Against Registration and the Draft and anything else about the departure of the American Empire deserves preservation. I'm not to the point of writing new articles myself, but no shortage exists of people who can do it. Ornithikos (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There needs to be a page on CARD. Once that's up, a case for merger might be made. This is a huge omission at WP and it will absolutely be corrected in time. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I forgot to mention the notability aspect. Cullen has it right above, as usual. Adequate independent third-party sources exist. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hagg[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was selected in the 2011 NFL Draft.--Giants27(T|C) 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being drafted does not meet any inclusion criteria. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, drafted status, much like being on an active roster and not playing, needs to be discussed further.--Giants27(T|C) 23:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability of drafted players, let alone players drafted in the 7th (last) round. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 18 August 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. Courcelles 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Holcomb[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was selected in the 2011 NFL Draft.--Giants27(T|C) 19:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being drafted does not meet any inclusion criteria. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, drafted status, much like being on an active roster and not playing, needs to be discussed further.--Giants27(T|C) 23:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability of drafted players, let alone players drafted in the 7th (last) round. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:25, 18 August 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. Courcelles 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neild[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was selected in the 2011 NFL Draft.--Giants27(T|C) 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being drafted does not meet any inclusion criteria. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, drafted status, much like being on an active roster and not playing, needs to be discussed further.--Giants27(T|C) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability of drafted players, let alone players drafted in the seventh round. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the ~~undrafted~~ player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Walters[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 19:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 17 August 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. closing this early as concensus is clear, and all these mass nominations are a bit pointy. (former admin close) Secret ^account 03:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rashawn Jackson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in two NFL games per [23], thus meeting WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Eagles247.--Giants27(T|C) 19:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per comments above --Kumioko (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSPORTS assumes notability for players who have played a game in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawnbrey McNeal[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Priest[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 19:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Smith (running back)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in an NFL game per [24], thus meeting WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Eagles247.--Giants27(T|C) 19:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSPORTS, which assumes notability for players who have played a game in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not fail WP:ATH#American football/Canadian football ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 06:40, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Torri Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in an NFL game per [25], thus meeting WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Eagles247.--Giants27(T|C) 19:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSPORTS, which assumes notability for players who have played an NFL game. —Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not fail WP:ATH#American football/Canadian football ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 06:38, 19 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korey Bosworth[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 19:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his uncle, Brian Bosworth, otherwise delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Johnson (linebacker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He is on the roster for tonight's game.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being on an NFL roster during the offseason is not an indication of notability and exhibition games do not count towards meeting WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We allow articles for all players who have been on an active NFL roster in the past year in general. After a year, it might be deletable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, Johnson has not been on an active roster.--Giants27(T|C) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have only kept players in the past who were on the regular season active rosters, never just for being on an offseason roster. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could just be because of Chris Johnson (running back), but I couldn't find anything that makes him notable, so he fails WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 19:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability based on pre-season NFL appearances. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Be sure to sift out articles about the notable running back of the same name. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damola Adeniji[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 19:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's on the Raiders' current roster. Hasn't caught a pass yet I guess, but according to his Raiders' profile, appeared in their first preseason game. I don't see the urgency to deleting an existing article. --Esprqii (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing in a preseason game does not make an individual notable per WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 20:28, 18 August 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 Brady Bonds and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Bond[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brady bonds, since this is a plausible search term.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 19:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brady bonds as the singular form of an existing article (unrelated to the bio in this AfD). Otherwise, delete. The current bio fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sanford[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been on the active roster, which per previous AfDs, still needs to be discussed further.--Giants27(T|C) 19:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being on an active roster but not playing in a game should automatically make a player pass WP:ATH. Of course, it still needs to be discussed further, which is why I am not !voting keep or delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, drafted status, much like being on an active roster and not playing, needs to be discussed further.--Giants27(T|C) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability by merely being on the active roster. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 17 August 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. A deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Moore (wide receiver)) resulted in a consensus to delete the article, meeting the criteria for speedy deletion per WP:G4. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore (wide receiver)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:01, 13 August 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. Courcelles 01:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Lindsay[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG per [26]--Giants27(T|C) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in an NFL game per [27], thus meeting WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i agree with Eagles247.Tony (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Eagles247. Satisfies WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Eagles247 says it's a keeper, that's a keeper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:ATH having played in an NFL game.—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to time-tested consensus one NFL game is all it takes, and that's a reasonable rule of thumb to be employed, methinks. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not fail WP:ATH#American football/Canadian football ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 06:34, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Long[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 19:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable independent sources provided. No prejudice to recreate if notability is later established.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Time-tested consensus is that one needs to have played in one NFL game and that does not seem to be the case here. Having a simple rule of thumb like this helps us avoid having to spend countless hours parsing sources for vaguely-sort-of-notable-or-not players. ONE GAME: IN — ZERO GAMES: OUT. Carrite (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G4 as a recreation of a page after consensus was reached to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quentin Scott. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Scott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:59, 13 August 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. Courcelles 01:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was drafted in the 2011 NFL Draft, which should be enough to make him notable.--Giants27(T|C) 19:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being drafted does not meet any inclusion criteria. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, drafted status, much like being on an active roster and not playing, needs to be discussed further.--Giants27(T|C) 23:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go start a discussion at WT:NSPORT then. Right now it doesn't cover drafted players. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete guards are rarely notable in college. He hasn't played a down professionally yet. Will he? Maybe so. THEN we create the article, not before.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability of a any player drafted, let alone a late seventh-round pick. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 17 August 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. Courcelles 01:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Bussey[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was drafted in the 2011 NFL Draft, which should be enough to make him notable.--Giants27(T|C) 19:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being drafted does not meet any inclusion criteria. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, drafted status, much like being on an active roster and not playing, needs to be discussed further.--Giants27(T|C) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable independent sources provided. No prejudice to recreate if notability is later established. If he plays, that will do it... if there's notability in his college career, that will do it... but it isn't in the article, and it isn't properly sourced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. NSPORTS does not automatically assume notability of a any player drafted, let alone a late seventh-round pick. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, being drafted usually leads to playing in the NFL, or at least the practice squad. This is too soon to tell. Secret ^account 03:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was drafted in the 7th (last) round, and far from guaranteed of ever playing in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy - Zero games, out. Userfy this so that the work won't be lost in a month when he sees action, if he sees action. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travon Patterson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4. Subject still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 19:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete recreation of previously deleted material.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4, recreation of previously deleted material. Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't yet played an NFL game. Recreation of a deleted article with the song remaining the same, as Robert Plant would say... Carrite (talk) 02:29, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Gamble[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search only turns up mentions in local papers and on team websites, so he fails WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable independent sources provided. No prejudice to recreate if notability is later established.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy - Hasn't played in the NFL yet. Go Chargers! Carrite (talk) 02:32, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan LaSecla[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep College quarterbacks at this level are almost always notable, and this one does not appear to be an exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying he passes WP:GNG? Giants27 above says he does not pass the general notability guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. There is no guideline in NSPORTS granting assumed notability to college quarterbacks. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think starting quarterbacks from mid-major colleges are automatically notable and this is no exception, no sources other than the usual stuff for him to pass WP:GNG Secret ^account 03:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy - No NFL games = out. We need to get this principle across to people so that we don't have to waste time like this... Carrite (talk) 02:34, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Grigsby[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, per available non-trivial sources found in a quick google search.--Giants27(T|C) 18:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable independent sources provided. No prejudice to recreate if notability is later established. Heck, it's barely an article. If I'm wrong, post them to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources other than the usual game stats stuff that I found. Secret ^account 03:14, 18 August 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. Courcelles 01:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORT, WP:ATH and WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable independent sources provided. No prejudice to recreate if notability is later established.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undrafted free agent on an NFL practice squad, has not seen game action. Go Colts! Carrite (talk) 02:36, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hemby[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete I hate it when people put a whole shmeer of deletions because sometimes stuff slips through the cracks that should be kept. This is not one of them. No independent reliable sources provided--no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undrafted free agent on I.R. Has not played in an NFL game. Ouch, bad break. Go Colts! Carrite (talk) 02:38, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Caldwell (safety)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 18:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is getting old... can we have some references? independent reliable sources please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undrafted free agent, has not played in an NFL game. Go Colts! Carrite (talk) 02:39, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Williams (offensive tackle)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 18:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete offensive linemen almost never are notable in college, and Ivy league OLs even less so. He could achieve notability outside of football but there is no indication of that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undrafted free agent on an NFL practice squad, has not seen NFL game action. Go Colts! Carrite (talk) 02:40, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tepper[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete offensive linemen rarely meet notability while in college. There's no indication that he's played in a professional game at this point. It could happen and the season is coming up, but then he'd be an offensive lineman with one game... no prejudice to recreate if he plays.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undrafted free agent who has not seen action in an NFL game. Go Colts! Carrite (talk) 02:41, 19 August 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. Courcelles 01:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Bender[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill offensive lineman who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undrafted free agent who has not seen NFL game action. Damn, I'm getting hungry for some blueberry muffins and a football-drenched Sunday... Yet another reason why the West Coast rules: games start Sunday at 10 AM and run all day and you get to bed at a decent hour. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 19 August 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. Courcelles 00:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brooks (wide receiver)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in an NFL game per [28], thus meeting WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Eagles247. Passes WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NSPORTS by playing in an NFL game. —Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep need to add his college achievements as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes ATH 4.1 C.1 ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 21:13, 19 August 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. Courcelles 00:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Jolly[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 18:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sources provided that are independent and reliable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 17 August 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. Courcelles 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Ruffin (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search only turns up one or so non-trivial hits, so he fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never played in the NFL either, can I have an article too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:46, 17 August 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. Courcelles 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Develin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Appeared in a UFL game per [29] which satisfies WP:ATH.--Giants27(T|C) 18:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears as though playing in the UFL is not notable, I change to delete.--Giants27(T|C) 03:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The UFL isn't considered the highest level of football (yet). Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it really should be. It's as much of a professional league as the AFL or CFL, which are considered the highest level of football. I'd also love to know what qualifies a league as the "highest level of football", which seems subjective to me.--Giants27(T|C) 23:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NSPORT for what constitutes the highest level of a football league. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Well, the UFL is 100% professional, much like the leagues listed, so it should probably be added to that list.--Giants27(T|C) 02:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UFL is not at the same level even if it is professional. There are no independent reliable sources to support notability in the article. Find them, I'll change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played in a league with consensus for automatic notability. Merely being in any professional league is not necessarily notable. Automatic notability is given to leagues where sufficient coverage of the league exists and there is a reasonable assumption that a player would eventually pass WP:GNG because non-routine coverage is likely to be found for any player in that league. This player also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 16 August 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. Courcelles 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thad Turner[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 18:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice to recreate should notable achievements surface.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 17 August 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. Courcelles 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tervaris Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 18:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real noteworthy accomplishments yet. It could happen in the future--then we create the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:38, 17 August 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. Courcelles 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Pemberton[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATH, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 18:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL. —Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete among other things, Wikipedia is not a free promotion site for undrafted free agents (even if they are way bigger than me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:37, 17 August 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. Courcelles 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Vanden Heuvel[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not appeared in an NFL game yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he seems to have left the team before ever playing a game. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATH, WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Eagles247. Plus, he's retired now, which likely means he'll never gain notability.--Giants27(T|C) 18:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article shows no mention of any noteworthy achievements. Likely played in college, but there's no mention of any noteworthy achievements there either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:35, 17 August 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. Courcelles 00:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Branch[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH#College athletes. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS criteria for college athletes. Fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:36, 17 August 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. Withdrawing per satisfaction of criteria 3 in WP:NHOCKEY. (non-admin closure) Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Kytnar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has not reached 100 games in AHL. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This hockey player passes criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY as he has played at least 100 games in fully professional minor leagues (27 in Slovakia with HC Topolcany and 79 in the AHL with Oklahoma City Barons. This apparent bad faith nomination fails WP:BEFORE and was made just 3 minutes after the article's creation. Dolovis (talk) 02:25, 13 August 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. Courcelles 00:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Mendez[edit]

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

An 8-year old footballer. Sources come from his website, football club or user edited sites. Could not find reliable sources. The Prod was declined Bgwhite (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - give the kid about a decade, then we'll reconsider. PS does the fact that somebody born in 2003 (notable or not) has an article about them make anyone else feel really, really old? Giant Snowman 22:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG by a long shot. --Jimbo^[online] 09:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promo spam and per NOM. Article about a kid who has had some serious PR pushing by someone close. A bit of duck-on-a-skateboard hype and plenty of self published and non RS sources. Has not actually achieved anything of note. --ClubOranje^T 11:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo that could aid a biography. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 16 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliSoft Group[edit]

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

Contested PROD: lack of sources to establish notability of this non-notable medical software company. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo aside from this this one and the company's blogs. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Burton-Batty[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. Google results include what appear to be profiles created by the subject, Wikipedia mirrors, and basic fight records. The article was created apparently by the subject. The article cites no sourced and the {{prod blp}} template was removed. Not offering up for AfD. TreyGeek (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article has lots of issues. The bottom line is that he doesn't come close to meeting WP:MANOTE or any other notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 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 smoked. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu-Niat the Camel[edit]

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

Article has no sources to confirm subject's notability, and suspect that article may be a hoax. Google searches [30] [31] failed to turn up any reliable sources ("-wikipedia" removes any search results with "wikipedia" in it). Altamel (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The user name of the article's creator appears to match the name of the doctor who supposedly diagnosed the camel's fatal illness. On a related matter, I am unable to find any non-Wikipedia-derived sources that would establish the existence of the museum described in Al-Fazillah Museum, another article created by the same user (treating the supposed location of the camel's remains). Deor (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources to justify this article. As Deor mentions, the article of the museum in which the carcass is claimed to be displayed in does not have any references either, so the case for this article is very thin.Curb Chain (talk) 05:27, 18 August 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dethcentrik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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}}.

Article does not establish notability. The links are mostly fake. ~~Its not even clear whether or not the band actually exists~~. The links that do go somewhere also look like they were planted as part of a hoax with further links leading to random places. ~~Even if they do exist~~ no notability has been established ~~despite the article being tagged for notability and primary sources since 2008~~. see WP:BAND. This page was deleted before for the same reasons. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not aware what makes a link "fake." Some are broken granted (3), but I was able to click them and see there are plenty of opinions given about the band, and plenty of things written about them by a third party: Terrorizer, Metal Breakfast Radio, Deep Six Radio, and One Step Beyond Radio give opinions about the band, and Inside Heavy, and The Gauntlet has articles written about the band as well. Also, I do not see how a band can be "fake" it exists. Bands that exist cannot be listed by All Music, which provides for MTV, AOL Music, Billboard, and many others, and states that they must receive a commercially available CD to list it.^[1] Also, the band has not been tagged for notability and sources since 2008, it's been tagged that way since apparently tomorrow, and the page was created on October 15, 2010, so that isn't possible. --BusyWikipedian (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~You've got your facts wrong the page was created a while ago, was deleted and was recently undeleted.~~ As for the refs I suggest you take a much closer look. The MTV.com link gives no commentary whatsoever just a picture and 7 track names. That the band exists is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not they are notable and the article does not establish this. The first 3 links are dead. The links to the Guantlet do not go to articles about Dethcentric. RushPR news is obvously self-published so not useful. Most of these pages linked to are about as good in establishing notability as a Myspace page. Take for instance the "Inside Heavy" article which claims to be about a youtube video. The multiple links to the video just goes to the HeavyMetalFreak.com homepage. The AOl link you give proves my point it has zero information about the band, like so many of the other refs its just a track list. There is no reliable source to establish notability but there is an amazing amount of effort that has been put into creating the appreance of notability. There's no Billboard ref. This is clearly an effort to game the system, in this case for someone to promote their not-notable band. That someone got a few websites to repeat what was printed in a press release is not notability. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lie: "You've got your facts wrong the page was created a while ago, was deleted and was recently undeleted" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_16#Dethcentrik . Lie: "The links to the Guantlet do not go to articles about Dethcentric" This one: http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4370/21881/DETHCENTRIK-EP-Tracklisting-Revealed . These were written as well: http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4370/21953/DETHCENTRIK-Releases-Controversial-New-Video , http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4370/21850/DETHCENTRIK-Post-New-Track , Inside Heavy also acknowledges syndicating this article: http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4370/21992/Dethcentrik-Video-Banned-By-Youtube . You are not being honest Wikipedia:Honesty. Billboard doees list this artist: http://www.billboard.com/artist/dethcentrik/1622748 BusyWikipedian (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of lying. doesn't it seem a little bizarre that someone would make up a bunch of lies so that they could lobby for the deletion of some random wikipedia article. The page is advertisement and it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I have no explanation for the dating on the souce/notability tag. I reported it the way I saw it. I had not seen all the records but had seen that the page had been deleted before. Also you did not provide a billboard ref so I said so after you mentioned it. None of this changes anything. The topic is not notable. 07:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep From clicking the links throughout the page, I can easily tell the links do work. The webpage links that I have clicked express a third-party opinion of the band itself. The infomation given on this Wikipedia webpage are correct and functional. I have found no problems with the article, and found it very useful and infomational. 174.24.56.54 (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)— 174.24.56.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thankfully these decisions aren't made by counting votes, or they'd be constantly abused. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability shown for this band. albums not on important label. band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. inclusion on a Terrorizer's sampler cd is not significant coverage. of the other multitude of references they are either trivial coverage (like the mtv listing), are press releases or are not reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Another discussion with me! Wikipedia:Wikistalking? BusyWikipedian (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you are making an accusation, then you better have some evidence. Someone having been invovled in a discussion with you before does not prohibit them from being involved in this discussion. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If user:duffbeerforme assures me he isn't following me maliciously, I will believe him. This is not your place to argue, you're harassing me as a user yourself with all the back talk. I apologize for whatever I may have done to upset you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know you and I am not that interested in you. I'm just trying to maintain wikipedia. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Band includes "inclusion on a notable compilation album." And the write-up qualifies as a third party opinion. The Gauntlet's articles are not press releases, and Wikipedia does have a criteria for cited press releases, and all the cited press releases meet this criteriaBusyWikipedian (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not stalking you, such a ridiculous accusation (stalking based on participating in one afd) is a personal attack. And when I get round to nominating Sektor 304 for deletion it will still not be stalking. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the links do work i tryed most of them it. couldnt have been tagged in 2008 because the article was made in 2010. — 174.24.113.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There is plenty of press on this band, linked (and working) in fact. Many of the sources are very renowned in heavy metal, not to mention as pointed out by User:BusyWikipedian that many of these accusations are false. — 70.48.125.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Have a read of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. How many times have people asked you to do so? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - This Article for Deletion discussion cannot be closed by an involved party. Just because a simple vote count gives Keep a majority does not mean that an involved editor can close the discussion themselves. Also, please refrain from making this discussion about the editors involved- Stick to content and policy. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of third party articles, all of which are credible. There is no reason not to keep this, vandalism does need to be reverted, such as improper tag from "2008."174.24.62.44 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — 174.24.62.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment - understand that not all users coming to this discussion are aware of what constitues a reliable secondary source for establishing notability. I will simply point out that user-submitted content is not a reliable source to establish notability. many of the refs cited such at the Gauntlet are just that. "Create an account here, login, and get added to both The Gauntlet and Metal Carnage in minutes." so a band-listing on that website does not establish notability. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When there are articles written by the author of the site they are third party. Your willingness to overlook this proves you aren't tagging this article in good faith. Lies do not help your case. Stick to facts. I have seen numerous lies posted by you, and you are so defensive it's questionable whether you believe others are ever going to side with you. If you want support: don't lie, and don't be abusive to users174.24.62.44 (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"please refrain from making this discussion about the editors involved- Stick to content and policy" Please listen to your own advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.62.44 (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the other editors here evaluate for themselves where the reason and truth lay in this discussion. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note about single-purpose IPs. 174.24.113.33, 184.99.28.61, 174.24.62.44, 174.24.62.44 and 174.24.56.54 are all reqisterd to Qwest Communications Company, LLC, and geolocate to Colorado Springs, Colorado. None of them has made any edits not related to Dethcentrik, and all but one of them has only edited in connection with this AfD and another one on a member of Dethcentrik. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

184.99.28.61 was me, I apologize. It says I'm logged in then posts with this IP, I check all comments by 184.99.28.61, and re-signed them as BusyWikipedian. Feel free to check the other IPs, they aren't me...

A note about the conduct of BusyWikipedian in relation to this AfD. After posting here and advocating "keep", BusyWikipedian posted a request to BabbaQ to take part in this AfD that could be viewed as canvassing. A little while after BabbaQ had duly added a "keep" to those of BusyWikipedian and several single purpose IPs, BusyWikipedian then attempted to close this AfD, despite being involved in it, and despite the fact that it had been open for less than 15 hours. BusyWikipedian then proceeded to request page protection for this AfD, without giving any reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people reading Wikipedia can see an article they have knowledge about and want to share their knowledge. Sometimes said reader may only read one article they feel they have enough knowledge to edit and really needs to be edited. The band is from Colorado Springs, they are best known in the local Colorado Springs area, and Qwest is a large internet provider in the local region. Sometimes when looking up a subject an article appears about it here. Most articles aren't brought up for deletion. So wouldn't it be safe to assume that most people looking up or finding the article would notice the AfD and contribute to it? And is it that far fetched that some people that have only edited Dethcentrik and member related articles in the past simply want to share what they know or have recently seen and read about them? BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not safe to assume that. Anyone can take a look at the language used (ex. "defensive"), the position taken, and the times of the edits and see that this is obvious puppetry to distort the results of an AfD. see WP:DUCK. It is unusual for someone who has never edited wikipedia before to join an AfD, even more unusual for several of them to show up at the same time. I've never been accused of vandalism, lying or harassment before yet all of the sudden you and all of your socks do so using very similar language. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter much whether these editors are all the same user (sock-puppetry), or if they are all fans who were told to come here to "vote" to keep the article (meat puppetry), or even if they are all just fans who don't understand Wikipedia's rules who all happened by chance on the article. The closing admin will not count the number of "voters", because AfD isn't a vote (thus the template I added to the top). Rather, the closing admin will weigh the quality of the arguments as they relate to our policies and guidelines. A thousand people could all say "keep", but if none of them can answer the concerns raised by our guidelines, then the article will not be kept. One thing that might help the closing admin would be a careful evaluation of the sources in the article, clarifying exactly what each of them verifies (like, if all one source verifies is their genre, that's not a very relevant source for evaluating notability) and their quality (i.e., whether or not they meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Love at First Grind Compilations turn up many Google hits, most notably a review on Undergrind, I have yet to go through all the results. These may qualify as notable compilations. BusyWikipedian (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking up more to add to references. Believe currently listed references are fine: I do not want to be accused of saying something I am not BusyWikipedian (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undergrind is another site that is not a reliable source and that link does not mention Dethcentrik. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not voting, but just a note to the closing admin. Multiple IP address have voted here that have little or no edits outside of Wikipedia. I'd almost suggest doing a checkuser on those IP's because I can bet that they belong to another editor who has voted on this discussion. The Undead Never Die (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to sound rude, but why are you not voting? You are the second user to comment with no voting, just wondering if there's a reason? I personally would never comment without an opinion, it's a curious thing for me... BusyWikipedian (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, conflict of interest as you stated in the related AfD. Apologies for asking BusyWikipedian (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do know for a fact. There is no label and all the links were written by the artist himself BusyWikipedian is the Dethcentrik guy and all of his votes came from his IP address! Slayer8899 —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC). — Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment for Slayer8899 You are a new user with less than 100 edits. Only a checkuser can check where an edit is coming from, so how do you know that BusyWikipedian is the artist? The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we are speculating, what if Slayer8899 and BusyWikipedian are the same person. That's a fun idea. let's get back on topic, a closing admin will evaluate the arguments and will, to some extent, take into account sockpuppetry, meat puppetry, and other abuses of the system. A complaint about those abuses is serious and should be filed at WP:ANI not here. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do know who Slayer8899 is. He asked that I help him fix Elctrikchair's page on Wikipedia to meet standards, and I honestly believed I could. When the page was deleted during it's third nomination I told Andy, as he goes by, that he had failed to mention the page had been deleted three times before. Shortly after he attacked the page Dethcentrik with a multiple issues tag "since 2008." I had made edits and additions for many bands from Colorado to help my cause for Elctrikchair look less one-sided. Dethcentrik was one the article I had made the most total edits to when the member Død Beverte edits I made are included, I think what did intrigue me to edit them was that he told me so many people disliked the band and they were so untalented the name just stuck with me and they were on the Heavy metal musical groups from Colorado list, as was Havok, and he has said something negative about them as well, but to a lesser extent than Dethcentrik. I wanted to add bands, so I also added the band Sektor 304 as a stub because they appeared in source Dethcentrik was in, and I was able to find sources to back every article I edited, generally adding album info. I hadn't looked much at the page for Havok, otherwise I would have seen the page was worded in a promotional way and would have likely re-written it rather than simply adding albums. Admittedly I still believe all edits other than Elctrikchair I have made in good faith, and at the time I was a noobie and I really did think it would be okay so long as I only cited third-party sources.BusyWikipedian (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell based on his actions. hes the only one defending his posts LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence anywhere of notability. Several of the "references" are links to pages that don't even mention Dethcentrik, others are to sources that are not independent, not reliable, barely mention Dethcentrik, or even all three. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**Note: I have just restored four comments which were removed from this page by an editor using the IP address 68.91.153.146. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I noticed that the comments removed include some personal information about an editor. Editors have a right to not have their personal identities revealed. If that editor wishes to have the material removed they should make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and include a description of the offending content, why they want it removed, and a diff link. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The references in the article do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 18 August 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. Nominator's concerns about sourcing appeared have been addressed per improvements in the article. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Savin[edit]

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

This article about a man who supposedly lived to 126 is sourceable only to a single unreliable primary source. Of the four references currently in the article, the first does not mention the subject, the second is a link to a bunch of forum posts, and the third and fourth are actually the same: a translation of an account of a conversation a Russian writer, Voyensky, had with Mr. Savin.

I have searched for more sources, but all I have been able to find is a bunch of stuff about different people named Nicolas Savin, and some passing mentions that all seem to treat the Voyensky account as gospel. I believe these sources, to say nothing of the Voyensky account, fail our reliability requirements because they all accept the astonishing claim of Savin's extreme old age without question. This very dubious article should be deleted because it is not sufficiently sourceable to reliable, secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 07:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being known as the "last survivor of the French Revolutionary Wars of 1792-1802 and the last French officer of the Napoleonic Wars", even if not substantiated, is most certainly notable as far as I'm concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Necrothesp. Any last survivor of a war belongs on Wikipedia. 1779Days (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I'm not entirely convinced but there seems to be enough references now to make an argument to delete on the basis of a lack of WP:RS untenable. Anotherclown (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Someone who lived to 126 during any era can be expected to have received substantial coverage. That this coverage isn't available indicates that either a) this is a hoax or b) this person isn't notable. The two keep votes do no appear to be based in any policy given the problems with the sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I still think that this is a hoax, but this seems to be a hoax from the 1800s and is probably notable. The extraordinary lifespan isn't at all credible for this era. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability. He does not appear to even be mentioned in the first reference, and the others are a blog which does not appear to satisfy WP:V. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, so also fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of references have since been added. The current first reference is Nicolas Savin, dernier vétéran de la grande armée: sa vie -sa mort, 1768-1894 for confirmation of what the books is about, see the WorldCat link, [32].(reprinted from a major magazine of the times, reinforcing that it had significant coverage). That pretty much dismisses the possibility of a hoax, or people's guesses whether there would be significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with appreciation of the improvements since nomination, turning a stub into a decently sourced and encyclopedic article to serve our readers. Improvements since the last delete !vote above show this topic as being NOT a hoax, and indeed covered in multiple independent sources. Historical notability IS notability, and exactly what this encyclopedia is all about. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:33, 16 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Susai[edit]

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

Vanity bio; fails WP:ENT. Miracle Pen (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, poor refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, performs regularly in Australia, and very prominent in Western Australia -- Jennifer G 116.212.203.118 (talk) 12:55, 12 August 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) 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any links on Google and Yahoo that could help the article bloom to Wikipedia guidelines.SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 17 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cloud computing providers[edit]

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

This WP:COATRACK is redundant with Category:Cloud_computing_providers (which has the benefit of WP:N being an implicit criteria for inclusion). It's suffered from WP:SPAM, is far from complete (nor will it ever be — the list is simply too long) and adds little value while consuming non-trivial editor time for maintenance. It also has WP:N, WP:V and no doubt WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues too. -- samj _in ^out 12:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed and only serves as a spam magnet.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 7 August 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, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALL OF Wikipedia is a spam magnet. That having been said, I agree with the nom -- delete. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 18 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Raskopoulos[edit]

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

NN – specifically, though the subject of this biographical article has been involved in notable projects, he is not himself yet a notable figure. References in article simply establish his connection to other, notable things, and do not establish his notability in his own right Seemsruns (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the King of improvisational comedy in Australia. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you have sources to back this grand claim? LibStar (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.expressandstar.com/entertainment/2011/08/03/the-axis-of-awesome-to-play-birmingham-hmv-institute/ for a recent Time Out award (2010) for the Axis of Awesome (Raskopoulos is the leader of the band). They have also won awards in other competitions and Raskopoulos has individually won awards for his comic improvisation. He is currently booked for an international tour. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that being the lead singer of a band as large as the Axis of Awesome qualifies as notability. Sellyme^Talk 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure it's a settled matter that just being the singer in a band (let alone a fairly obscure one as this one is) does not qualify you to have a Wikipedia article. As to being the King of improvisational comedy – if that is an official title that can be referenced, perhaps. Seemsruns (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR, not yet notable separately from the musical group. Cannot find support for biographical details (birthdate, etc.) --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles "No crossing Jordan", Parramatta Advertiser, 7 March 2007 and Jones, Jennie (19 February 2007), "Getting to grips with the issues", Daily Telegraph are independent of the band. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there links to those two references? I don't see them in the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to an independent article http://www.expressandstar.com/entertainment/2011/08/03/the-axis-of-awesome-to-play-birmingham-hmv-institute/ Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice article about the group. However, it adds no support to claims of notability outside the group. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article about his debut solo stage show: http://www.theblurb.com.au/Issue74/Raskopoulos.htm Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:15, 9 August 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, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage in a number of reliable sources, the international tour and individual comedy awards speak to notable achievements beyond the band. Zachlipton (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources...--BabbaQ (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which ones are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though weakly--Google News provides coverage from at least 2007-2010. This one squeaks by. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Participation in a number of notable productions (even if notable only to the millions in Audtralia) meets WP:ENT. Participation in a notable band (even if notable only to the milions in Australia) meets WP:BAND. Article sufficiently sourced, and the sources offered above will allow improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:21, 18 August 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 Userfied as obvious self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram nouraei[edit]

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

Article deleted under CSD A7 and recreated. Since it has some sources I think an AFD discussion is appropriate. Subject may not meet WP:BAND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline,, benefit of a doubt. Possible other angles. Went to jail for making one album? North8000 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 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, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not agree that it has been deleted while this AfD is still open. This article might well be qualified to stay imho --DeVerm (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment What happened? How was the article deleted before this debate closed? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy recreate. Why this deletion? Is it a mistake or a demonstration of contempt towards the insignificant small people?°°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 04:01, 16 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Johnson (engineer)[edit]

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

An interesting bit of 'net history, I haven't, sadly, found reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this engineer and BBS operator. [33] confirms a fact in the article but appears to be essentially information submitted by Johnson. Additional sources, as always, welcome. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't find trustworthy websites which provide background and in depth coverage of the subject of this article, it seems that he plays a minor part in the WME and The Net, but not a notable role, if someone cannot provide a reason why this article should not be deleted, my !vote goes for it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 21:56, 6 August 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, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found on which to base an article.--Michig (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 15:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources that pertain to this Joe Johnson. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:59, 19 August 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 Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

METATYPE1[edit]

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

I'm unable to find anything that shows that this is notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Metafont. AFAIK the software has seen very little usage other than from its authors. Disclosure: I know the authors personally.--Oneiros (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many people create TeX fonts to begin with? I don't think this is much of an argument. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Viewing this AfD again and the sources that FuFoFuEd posted. I will ask Oneiros if he is interested in changing his !vote to keep. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep, since I'm a certified Inclusionist.--Oneiros (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a book reference that is both reliable and independent and is 8 pages long in coverage of this topic. There are bunch of articles in Google Scholar as well, and some don't seem to be from the authors of the software (listed in this article), e.g. [34] [35]. Seems enough for WP:N. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have considered those sources while doing my nomination, but I will see about closing this AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 13 August 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, 13 August 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. — Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabir Shah[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything that shows this journalist's notability. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 August 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, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo that could help a biography. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 16 August 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.

^ http://www.allmusic.com/about/product-submissions

[1] ttp://www.allmusic.com/about/product-submissions

[1]