Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 19

< 18 August	20 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. Courcelles 22:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Romano[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORT. Someone who attempted (but, by implication, failed) to qualify for races can be presumed not to be notable in the sport; and there is no other suggestion of general notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searching came up with South American Formula 2, something called "Super Stock", and a few participations in the Mil Milhas in addition to the IndyCar DNQs.[1][2] —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to have attempted to become professional, but didn't. Unable to uncover reliable sources for WP:GNG either. Fails WP:NSPORT. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He failed to qualify so he certainly fails WP:NSPORT. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:39, 26 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 Ecuadorian Army. Courcelles 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General de Ejercito del Ejercito del Ecuador[edit]

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

Article currently contains no sources at all, and there is no indication of any sort of notability separate from the notability of the Ecuadorian Army. Might be best merged into Ecuadorian Army, provided a suitable source can be found. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; maybe a hoax. No references found to support notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ecuadorian Army. Not a hoax, [3], but probably doesn't merit an article on its own. The equivalent information has been in the es.wiki for quite some time [4] FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is no material about the ranks in the Euadorian army, and in particular, no mention of that rank aside from the infobox identifying the current commander. A redirect there with no merge of any text is going to leave a reader completely clueless as to why he or she has arrived at the Ecuadorian Army article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then add something about the ranks; don't tell me sources aren't available. A better solution was if an article like Military ranks of the Colombian Armed Forces existed, but that takes some artwork skills. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Ecuadorian Army. General de Ejercito del Ejercito del Ecuador is Spanish, meaning "General of the Army of the Army of Ecuador, so not likely to be a hoax. But English should be used. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:50, 26 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 22:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Horne (radio)[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced BLP, questionable notability (appears to be a local radio presenter without much national/international coverage) and the subject would like it deleted (ticket:2011080210012886), especially since he believes it's largely inaccurate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a case of the subject having used wikipedia for self promotion and now due to recent circumstances it has 'got away from him' and he wants to contain the PR damage. Agree with above - person of little note - Delete [[User talk:Todayradio| —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JDDJS (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N. Sources don't establish any notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:53, 26 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. Passes WP:GNG per sources from Cbl62. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Skrine[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS#American_football.2FCanadian_football. Has not played an NFL game. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Has been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media. Not just passing references, but coverage focused on him. See, e.g., [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Cbl62 (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cbl. Let's get those references in the article now.--Giants27(T|C) 16:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few of them. Cbl62 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was twice named All-Southern Conference, drafted in 5th round, and has significant coverage to pass WP:GNG —Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Strikehold (talk) 20:52, 23 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. Passes WP:GNG per sources from Cbl62. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bosher[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS#American_football.2FCanadian_football and WP:GNG Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found a few articles about him from The Palm Beach Post ([13], [14], [15]), but I'm not sure if it is enough for him to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bosher was one of the best players in the nation at two different positions during his college career (K and P). Google News Archive has 931 articles for "Matt Bosher". Strikehold (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. The number of Google hits does not determine whether someone passes WP:GNG or not. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not prove it, but it is strong evidence. See Cbl62's response below. Strikehold (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in the mainstream article, and not just passing references in game coverage. See [16],[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Cbl62 (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per the sources found above.--Giants27(T|C) 16:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple all-conference selections as both a punter and kicker, plus significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 23 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 Poptropica#Islands. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Poptropica islands[edit]

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

On the main page of Poptropica there is already an area named Islands and is essentially the same thing. MichaelSousa (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see WP:REDIRECT which explains how to make a redirect in such cases. Warden (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - After reading the Talk page, it seems as though it is a (incompleated) spinout from the Parent Article. IMO, the Embedded list does muck up the Article. Does the Stand-Alone satisfy WP:N?? Prolly no less than List of Star Wars Planets does. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Wikipedia is WP:not a directory. AFD is an appropriate venue to discuss a redirect. The existence of other lists that don't meet the WP:GNG does not invalidate the guideline in this instance. (See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Needs independent secondary sources. Dzlife (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you suggest redirecting too ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VGSCOPE #s 1 & 5. This level of detail on in-game elements is inappropriate, and the Poptropica article already contains way beyond what is necessary already, so merging back more isn't going to help. I had a look for sources and they're extremely light (on the main topic) and certainly don't support a spin-out. Someone another 22:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Someone another 22:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Encyclopedias don't list every single level in a game or series. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that difficult to jive with the fact that we regularly list every song on every album of (pretty much) every singer, esp. when the release of these islands shows the progression of how the game was developed, released & expanded. You do have to admit that it is Articles & Lists like these that bring in new, young editors. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poptropica#Islands. It's all virtually there, anyways. –MuZemike 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as excessive WP:GAMECRUFT, item 6. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Poptropica article. The islands in the game are not notable in themselves, but as part of the game. It is the game, not the islands in the game, which meets notability guidelines, so there is no need for an article on the islands. ItsZippy (talk) 20:19, 26 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. Clearly passes WP:GNG per sources. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Berry[edit]

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

Contest PROD (fails ATH 4.1). Never played an NFL game so fails WP:NFOOTBALL Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Has been the subject of substantial non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Not just passing references in game coverage. See, e.g., [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Cbl62 (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per Cbl.--Giants27(T|C) 16:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Strikehold (talk) 20:54, 23 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. This is clearly not an article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrassbands performed at EWOB festival[edit]

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

Previously contested prod. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not a directory of up-and-coming bands. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - fails WP:NOT Zachlipton (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 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) 22:33, 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 redirect to Cott#Products. Sandstein 06:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Charge[edit]

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

Contested PROD; Unsourced; Not even a claim to notability. — Jeff G. ツ 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well known brand in the United Kingdom and justifies its existence through its notoriety- will look for sourcing on the internet.- 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit.James.Dawson.Wiki (talk • contribs)

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

Delete - According to this, it's just a supermarket specific branding for a Cott product. I can find no significant coverage about the product to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 16:55, 18 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) 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Cott per the information provided by Whpq. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another product on the shelf... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge to Red Rooster (drink) as that is what the source says it is. It is effectively a redirect to Cott#Products with perhaps a short comment that ASDA sold it as Blue Charge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:56, 27 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. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Regional Economic Forum[edit]

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

I found this page while looking for a page to wikify, and this appears to be either a copyvio, or a badly formatted page. Either way, I think it should be deleted. It's apparently had two or more opposed CSDs. Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not a copyvio. Check Talk:European Regional Economic Forum for the OTRS ticket notice. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching about, I cannot find significant coverage about this forum / organisation to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 18 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) 22:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Article does not cite substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 06:16, 27 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.

Just typing the following "European Regional Economic Forum" in any search engine would/and still gives plenty of hits. European Commissioner Danuta Huebner, Esko Aho, among others have attended the forum. But oh well, I guess people like deleting articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Absent any guideline establishing "inherent notability" for such programs, there is a clear consensus to delete based on the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice to the creation of a redirect. Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ateret Yerushalayim[edit]

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

Non-notable Yeshiva program. Not covered in any third party sources—all the links provided in the article are yellow page-like entries and/or promotional ones. Article was PRODded but contested after having been deleted. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ateret Cohanim, the notable Yeshiva also known as Ateret Yerushalyim. Marokwitz (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMO, not every school should warrant an article, this one is not yet notable.--Sreifa (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's just as notable as several other yeshivas that have their own pages, including Yeshivat Eretz HaTzvi, Yeshivat Ma'ale Gilboa, Marbeh Torah, Yeshivat Ohr David, Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim etc. etc. And it should not be redirected to Ateret Cohanim, if only because this institution is actually named Ateret Yerushalayim, and Ateret Cohanim is not. Three of the links are independent, 3rd party links, and one of them is from a governmental organization which does a thorough, independent check of all the institutions it lists, so that should undoubtedly qualify as reliable. There's no justification for deleting this page without deleting all of the others, and I don't think you would be doing Wikipedia a service if you do delete the pages for these educational institutions, each of which have served hundreds of students worldwide. Ezzi386 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the first point, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

For the second point, as pointed out below, they are directory entries. They do not cover the subject in any way, as WP:N stipulates. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be notable, but the refs do not appear to me to support that. The first (ateret.org) looks like the website of the program itself (or its parent organization). The next two (masaisrael and findayeshiva) looks like just directory entries (sites containing uncritically evaluated collection of listings of numerous programs) so they prove existence not notability. The yu.edu one is a dead-link, and the only mention of the topic on their website is http://yu.edu/admissions/israel-program/men-schools/ which similarly looks like a directory. There may well be similar problems in other schools'/programs' articles that could lead to their deletion as well if not resolved. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 19 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) 22:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, makes mention of the concept 'Inherent notability', which, as an example, they say: "generally speaking, any high school is deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not." So I would argue that all institutions of this nature posses such inherent notability. And whilst it may be correct that the article needs better references, that is a good reason to put a Primary sources needed tag on the article, and try to improve it, not a good reason to delete an article on an inherently notable institution. Ezzi386 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Article does not cite substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 06:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like other editors, I find no evidence that this institution meets the GNG. Ezzi386's argument that such institutions ought to be considered inherently notable is certainly worth discussion, but this is not the proper venue for that discussion, and there is no current consensus for that stance. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 20:53, 27 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. The opinions here have refuted the issues of notability by detailing why the article meets the notability criteria with significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure-FTPd[edit]

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

The prod was removed. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of wp:notability. Claims to have been around 15 years.....I guess that means something for a software product. I'd call real world notability unclear. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google gives 399K hits. No understandable reason for deletion is given ("The prod was removed" - what does that mean?). Frodet (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning is Wikipedia's notability guideline. Read WP:PROD for what a prod is. Google hits do not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still, I find no reason for deletion. Removal of a PROD is not a reason in itself. I really don't see lack of notability. It is included in practically every major Linux distribution. It originates from Arnt Gulbrandsen, which is notable in it's own right. There are several security alerts for this software (see http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-2152/Pureftpd.html). Frodet (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never said that a prod was a reason in itself. Normal deletion process is that articles come to AfD once a prod is removed. My reasoning is WP:N which you really need to read. Being included in major Linux distributions does not show notability per Wikipedia's notability guideline. Security alerts does not show notability either. Please understand that Wikipedia has strict rules on notability because even though it is online, it is still an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am well aware of WP:N. However, you have not stated what it lacks thereof. Independent, reliable source? To quote Beginning Ubuntu LTS Server Administration: From Novice to Professional By Sander Van Vugt: "FTP is another service that's quite popular on the web. It's popular because it makes sharing files so easy, and you can use several FTP servers on Ubuntu Server. One of the easiest and fastest of these is pure-ftpd." Frodet (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I deleted the prod because there are many hits from major web documentation sites and also many book references [35] as mentioned by the person who placed the prod. In the prod he said they didn't count because they were about how to use it, but WP:HOWTO is a guideline on how we write articles, not what sources we use. The books make it clear that this is a basic tool that should be covered in any good encyclopedia with the space to do so. Wnt (talk) 12:49, 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) 22:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This particular FTP server software is the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources usually covering building servers. See [36], [37], and [38] as three examples of many that cover the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 24 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) 01:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charybdis (IRCd)[edit]

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

The prod that a member added was contested by the article starter with the comment, "I think XFD would be a better venue for this. In my opinion, this seems sufficiently notable, since it is used by a number of networks. I will work on improving this article." Being used by a number of networks does not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article's notability can be compared to that of UnrealIRCd. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 12:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not notable also. Joe Chill (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - See that article's XfD discussion. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I nominated it for AfD again. It was kept because of one sentence in a book. Joe Chill (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet GNG. Although the references may not be the best, it seems like there is potential to improve the article. Also, the nom reason seems very much like "just not notable". — Waterfox ^~talk~ 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that is exactly why I linked to WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a rundown of the sources -
  1. http://hg.atheme.org/charybdis/rev/55f974346090 is just a bunch of code.
  2. http://www.stack.nl/~jilles/irc/#charybdis is a personal website.
  3. http://stats.efnet.org/ is just software statistics.
  4. http://www.ratbox.org/authors.shtml is not independent of the subject.
  5. http://www.stack.nl/~jilles/irc/charybdis-oper-guide/oprivs.htm is a personal website.
  6. http://www.stack.nl/~jilles/irc/charybdis-oper-guide/cmodes.htm is a personal website.
  7. http://www.ircd-hybrid.org/fullhist.php is just a bunch of code.
  8. http://web1.sorcery.net/old/content/view/110/404/ is not a reliable source.
  9. http://www.esper.net/migration.php is a dead link.
  10. http://freenode.net/seven.shtml is just a short description of the software.
  11. http://staticbox.net/about is an About Us page. Joe Chill (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notes:
    1. Has the charybdis-3.3.0 tag.
    2. While it is a personal website, it's owned by one of the project's core developers.
    3. placeholder
    4. placeholder
    5. It is hosted on a personal website, but this is just an independent compilation of the community-maintained SGML documentation bundled with the code.
    6. Same.
    7. It isn't code, it's a changelog. Near the bottom, you'll find the sourced information.
    8. Explain why it isn't?
    9. Was up when I wrote the article. Added a backup source, and leaving old ref because it might come back up.
    10. It says that it's a branch of the charybdis ircd, which is the information to be sourced. I don't see how length is relevant.
    11. So what? "We use the latest version of Charybdis ircd..."
  - — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1. Which is still not significant coverage.
      2. Okay then. A personal website by someone that is related to the subject. Definitely doesn't show notability.
      3. placeholder
      4. placeholder
      5. Personal website. With code. Yep. Non-notable.
      6. Personal website. With code. Yep. Non-notable.
      7. Changelog. Ok. Still not significant coverage.
      8. It is not reliable because it is an IRC blog.
      9. "Welcome to The EsperNet IRC Network, a place of friends, discussion and fun. Since 1996, EsperNet has offered a home for chatters from around the globe." = unreliable.
      10. Length is relevant to notability at times. This is one of those times when only one paragrah of coverage can probably be used a source.
      11. Good for them. Still doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete as original prodder, for the same reason as my prod. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - JNN?. Also, I like the wikilogism "prodder". :P — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 10 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) 22:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources listed above represent significant coverage in reliable independent sources. For software like this, I often look to see if it's mentioned in any books, but I got zero hits in a Google books search.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:30, 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 22:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Messies[edit]

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

Not a notable band. No articles found on them in Google News archive. Mattg82 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see notable third-party sources on Google and Yahoo for an encyclopedia article.SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are albums made by the band:

Mattg82 (talk) 22:06, 26 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 22:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dover[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR; WP:PROMO article written by former colleague; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy declined; proposed deletion contested by creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep. The article is quite well-sourced now. --Jdechambeau (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. All I could find was a single passing reference in the National Post. The current article has no reliable secondary sources, and the bulk of links are to youtube videos which appear to be primary sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a passing reference, it's a featured article. And there are many more references, all in the article. --Jdechambeau (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article creator has acknowledged a conflict of interest here [39]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see biographical sources that support this biography on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - didn't find much in the way of significant coverage about this author when searching. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Wikibrands[edit]

Would it be an acceptable compromise to merge this article with the User:Jdechambeau/Wikibrands: Reinventing Your Company in a Customer-Driven Marketplace that I'm working on for reintroduction? Mike Dover could then live on as a redirect. Let me know. --Jdechambeau (talk) 20:30, 22 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 22:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nouvelle histoire[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NEO; the single cited source isn't enough to establish notability (which requires multiple independent, reliable sources). I tried a Google search for "nouvelle histoire", and most of the hits appeared to be about a fabric collection by Vlisco. If this article is to be kept, it needs more sources; it needs to make clear whether it's talking primarily about "nouvelle histoire" or "new history"; and it needs to define the term more clearly. If this concept really is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there ought to be plenty of people writing stuff about it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is indeed an international scholarly literature in three languages on the topic. I have added several of these and also a discussion of the reaction in Germany. The article now cites four books and two articles, in English, French and German. Note that half these scholarly sources use "Nouvelle histoire" in the title, so it's more than glancing mention. Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is about a historiographical trend that has been important in the development of the discipline not only in France but in Germany, the U.S. and other nations too, and sufficiently different from the annales school to warrant an article. Sure, it's a stub now, but it's notable enough for inclusion. R. D. Jones (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable topic; full-length books about it. The article could be renamed if this neologism is not the most appropriate title. That's not a good reason to delete the content. The article is certainly not a dictionary entry. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:00, 22 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts list of greatest presidents[edit]

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

This is original research - the author's own opinion. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This looks like a fourth grade term paper. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Just some kid's opinion with some pretty weird choices included to boot - The Bushes were better Presidents than Woodrow Wilson apparently! Keresaspa (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Shouldn't be here. Suraj T 06:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal opinion piece. Wikipedia is not a blog. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I tried to have it deleted under G11, as "the lofty glorification directed toward the various presidents and the tone that sounded like the USA was the only country that ever existed made me feel that it was enough to fall under G11 and WP:NOTPROMOTION". -- $Σ talk contribs$ 19:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and pure POV pushing. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTBLOG snd WP:NPOV. Baseball Watcher 20:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons given above but to respect the new user who added it, I think the debate should go the full distance and it should not be speedied. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:27, 22 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 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New England Patriots strategy[edit]

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

Delete as unencyclopedic. There are references, but many of them are throwaway, and almost all of them are subjective, as they are coming from area sports news or rival coaches (in one instance). As a matter of fact, one of the underpinnings of the article is a statement that the Patriots run a certain type of defense, and there is no citation to back it up. Moreover, an article on a team's strategy makes no sense - there are no other American football teams on WP that have this type of article, and no other sports teams, either, and for good reason - strategies change. MSJapan (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationales spelled out in detail in extended, unanimous discussion in last year's AfD. I don't see that anything has changed in the article or in Wikipedia policy that would require the deletion of this well-sourced and interesting article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Arixiloxos. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD to warrant deletion.--Giants27(T|C) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a fully referenced article that meets all required standards, the nominator has failed to provide a valid policy based reason why it shouldn't exist. This is a classic example of poor arguments to use to delete something (other stuff doesn't exist).Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If in case you don't succeed from the first Snow Keep, try, try again. No changes from last AFD to bring about deletion at all. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article could use some cleanup to remove discussion of other strategies (e.g. New England Patriots strategy#Comparison to "West Coast" and "Air Coryell" offenses and New England Patriots strategy#Comparison to other 3-4 systems) if it's not comparing side-by-side specific facets to the Patriots strategy. In its current format, it seems like unneeded duplication of what is already in other articles. It there are concerns about sourcing, the relevant text should be tagged in the article and discussed on its talk page. Finally, to the nominator's concern over POV, WP:OPINION notes "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy."—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge Can anyone explain why this is not central material for the main article on the team? And if not, why we should not have similar articles for every team in the league, and so on. We could find references to justify them, for sportswriters always talk about such matters. There is no limit to the extent to which we could similarly subdivide Wikipedia articles. Maybe its even a good idea--to turn Wikipedia into a database of separate sections or paragraphs, and the articles into frameworks where the readers could recombine and assemble them. We would never need a merge debate again ever, nor AfD, for there would be no defined separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a fairly lengthy article, so a separate article might be justified for summary style. That being said, I think there is cleanup that can be done per my previous comment. Afterwards, depending on the size, merge can be reconsidered.—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 24 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. Sandstein 06:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baragaon, Jaunpur/version 2[edit]

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

Duplicate of Baragaon, Jaunpur. Nothing to merge. TimBentley (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The subpage violates Wikipedia's guideline on creating subpages. — Fιηεmαηη ^[talk] 17:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baragaon, Jaunpur. It looks like this may be someone's temporary work-in-progress to update/improve the Baragaon, Jaunpur article (which is a total mess). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while this looks like it once was a work in progress or a draft that could allow it to be moved to a subpage in talk space, it has been largely abandoned since 2009. I note that since creation in 2008, the author has made changes to the original article, so that also makes me think that this has been abandoned and is no longer required. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:57, 27 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 Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers Creeggan[edit]

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

Not separately notable from Barenaked Ladies. I found no sources besides their own website. Prod declined with an WP:ILIKEIT rationale. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are separately notable considering they have released 4 albums in their own name (available on Amazon), and performed hundreds of concerts as a duo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.21.106 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is an assertation of notability per WP:BAND. Their album is self-released, and anyone can get a gig anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources available (such as these three from Allmusic [40][41][42], plus Canoe.ca, PopMatters and College Music Journal, for starters). These, along with even more references, have been incorporated into the article. Subject easily meets WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 22:47, 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 keep. Courcelles 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1990–91 Yugoslav Ice Hockey League season[edit]

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

No indication of notability of this season (as opposed to notability of the team). No sources at all, so fails WP:RS and WP:V. Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NSPORT#Individual seasons, this sort of article should consist "mainly of well-sourced prose", or else it should be redirected or merged to the team/league article (Yugoslav Ice Hockey League). Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that there are a bunch of other articles for various seasons of the Yugoslav Ice Hockey League (going back to 1973-74). Some of these have statistics added, while others are no more than lists of teams. My impression is that they should all be either deleted, or else merged to Yugoslav Ice Hockey League; but rather than generate a zillion almost identical AfD's, I would propose that we see what the consensus is on this one, and then deal with the others in the same way. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep You're joking with these deletions! These articles are notable enough to be on the Czech and Slovene Wikipedia's. And they are not just a list of teams, they are the final ranking of the teams. How about the thousands of articles on football seasons that have little to no prose? They are not identical the, final ranking of the league changes every year. This is ridiculous that an article on a top level ice hockey league is being proposed for deletion. --Hockeyben ^✉ 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Note All articles now have a source, so they all pass WP:RS and WP:V.--Hockeyben ^✉ 20:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These types of articles are appropriate and the information certainly verifiable. I don't think merging 30 years of season articles into the main article would be feasible. Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because season pages of leagues are notable for notable leagues. However, I would strongly urge the creator of the pages to put more in them than just a list of the order the teams finished in. Otherwise they could very well fall afoul of WP:NOTSTATS. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DJsasso, out of all the standings I've done, these are the only ones that only have the final ranking, as the information was so scarce, on all the other ones, they have a standings table with GP-W-L-T-GF-GA-Pts in them. --Hockeyben ^✉ 15:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then I wouldn't create them until you have more information. But that is just my personal preference. -DJSasso (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these were the only set that didn't have a final table, just a final ranking. And the main reason I created them is that they had articles on the Czech, Slovene, and Serbian Wikipedia's, and I thought that English Wikipedia should have an article on them too. --Hockeyben ^✉ 14:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the league is notable then the season is as well. Article needs expansion not deletion. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:37, 22 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 Beverly_Hills_Ninja#Sequel. Any content worth merging (if any) can be retrieved from the page history. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Ninja[edit]

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

No evidence that the film has been released or will be released. Not covered in secondary sources BOVINEBOY2008 19:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to and expand section at Beverly Hills Ninja sequel section to show the history of this halted sequel, as its history it does have a is sourcable. Written as a sequel to Beverly Hills Ninja by THAT film's co-writer Mitch Klebanoff, 30% of the film had been shot in Korea and Los Angeles by the time production was forced to halt. In 2010 Klebanoff sued his Korean investors for their failing to provide adequate funding, a failure which resulted in numerous production shutdowns, the eventual halting of principle filming, and Klebanoff's removal from the project.[43] Of course, the litigants sued him in turn, with claims of misrepresentation. The dispute ended up in front of an IFTA arbitrator who eventually decided in Klebanoff's favor on the main claims of his suit, who in July 2011 awarded him "nearly $262,000, which included principal money due, legal costs, and interest. Klebanoff filed a petition on Monday in state court to confirm the final award, and a hearing is set for Sept. 21 [2011]."[44] What we have here is a film that began, ran into the worst of production hells, and ceased principle filming before being completed. Per WP:GNG, WP:FUTURE, and WP:EVENT, sourced mentions of this (so-far-failed) project "might" merit inclusion in the Beverly Hills Ninja sequel section (which itself needs correction because a film only 30% shot is NOT in post-production), or in a Mitch Klebanoff article were he to have one. As a stalled film whose future is uncertain, and per WP:NFF, Dancing Ninja does not merit a seperate article. And as a film wjose future is in doubt, it fails being one of NFF's few exceptions. As 30% has been shot, and represents an investment in time and money that production would love to recoupe, it "is" possible that filming "might" resume. If filming does recommence, we can undelete the article and expand it accordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a reasonable way to go. I don't think it is to the point for a stand alone article and it doesn't have the information, sourced or otherwise, to be merged anywhere in my opinion, but a Redirect to the original seems like it would be a good alternative. BOVINEBOY2008 01:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in following my own advice, I just corrected, expanded, and sourced the redirect target.[45] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the "Sequel" section of Beverly Hills Ninja, where Michael has added a good summary. The failed production is not exactly infamous enough to qualify as stand-alone coverage of film history. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:21, 24 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 22:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kitchen[edit]

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

No significant coverage cited to establish notability ╟─Treasury Tag►Odelsting─╢ 18:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much less notable than the canned hash produced by Hormel under the name Mary Kitchen. Maybe instead of a delete, this page should be redirected to Hormel.--MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 26 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 Keep. Bad faith nomination. "This account is a sock puppet of Divineabraham and has been blocked indefinitely." Joe Chill (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial (album)[edit]

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

Includes not imported contents Urmate #a small guy (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Latin Grammy award winning album - passes WP:NMG. NtheP (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nuisance AFD for obviously highly notable album - proposer now blocked for sockpuppetry and vandalism. Gurt Posh (talk) 21:15, 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) 01:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Green (writer)[edit]

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

BLP with no evidence of independent coverage. Deprodded without comment. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent sources are not optional. Detail of life while lacking independent sources suggest COI to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:09, 10 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, Cerejota (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak deleteHe is author of a number of commercially released books, some in well known franchises. His "The Horror of Howling Hill," a novel in the Dr. Who series, is held in 99 libraries, per Worldcat. His "Unnatural History" is held by 64 libraries. His "Human Nature" is held by 46 libraries, and another book by over 50. He has written so many that it is a chore to search for the name of each in turn to see if there are published reviews. Does the site "Graeme's Fantasy Book Review" constitute a reliable source? It has a review of "Unnatural history." and a review of "Anno Frankenstein." Is Gamezebo a reliable source? It has a signed article about Green joining Gamebook Adventures. The article, which is diminished in its effectiveness supporting of notability by sounding like it started as a press release, says he is a popular author. Looking at a sample of reviews online, mostly I just found anonymous reader reviews at Amazon or fansites for the fantasy/scifi genre. So he seems to be a successful working author. The problem is, his name is a common one, even for authors, and there are many hits at Google News archive for other "Jonathan Green's". We need multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, or other indices at WP:AUTHOR, which I just do not see as satisfied. I'm prepared to shift to keep if someone turns up evidence of notability. He is not just some guy with some self-published works. If he is interested in self promotion, he should have hired a PR agent to nudge journalists and gotten a few bio articles and reviews published in newspapers and magazines. Edison (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd really rather you didn't delete this page, seeing as it's about me. I didn't create it and the comments, both good and bad, are the work of others. I know various links have been provided. Why are these not considered good enough references for the page to stay? Yours Jonathan Green (Monday 15 August 22:10 BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.222.184 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In answer to the above editor self-identifying as the subject, this procedure will be discussing whether or not to delete, keep, or take other action to the pagespace. Wikipedians tend to appreciate boldness and truthfulness, so I for one appreciate your interest in the subject matter. It's clear the subject exists and is well-published. I'm going to provide some shortcuts to relevant guidelines and policy as I write so you can follow the discussion better. Several issues arise immediately: self-identifying as the page subject (a claim we will be in no position to verify), your opinions would be subject to scrutiny through the prism of WP:COI. I appreciate that you state you haven't been involved with the article, and that's generally a good practice. The issues which confront us in this discussion relate to WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY. The specific secondary notability criteria WP:AUTHOR applies to creative professionals. Lots of amazing and impressive individuals do not meet the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. What is under discussion is whether there are sources meeting the WP:RELIABLE criteria to verify page assertions and to assert notability sufficient for retention. Search engine results are tricky in this case because the name combination is so common. While your direct participation on the page or in this discussion may not be appropriate as the page subject, if you'd like to add some really good sources in a section of the talk page, this may help us discuss the key issues. Please read the link to reliable above to help you see what we'd be looking for. BusterD (talk) 18:40, 19 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) 18:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Inadequate discussion yet to plot consensus, IMHO; my relisting is coincidental but not related to comment I posted above. BusterD (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP with large amounts of text unsourced. No indication he passes WP:AUTHOR either. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:52, 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. The policy-based consensus, WP:V being core policy, is to delete. While the numbers in this debate are about 7-7, which would normally suggest a no consensus, it is impossible to ignore nine years of unreferencing, one year of tagging calling for references, and two weeks of the sword hanging over the article's head but no efforts being made to reference the article or even suggesting particular sources. In that context, keep rationales such as "just source it" and "needs a cleanup, perhaps a trim and some sources" are demonstrably weak. I note the outcome of this AfD doesn't in any way prohibit an article being created under this title that meets WP:V. Mkativerata (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of forerunners of punk rock[edit]

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

Unreferenced list...has been unreferenced since 2002 and has been tagged as needing references since August 2010. Who considers these to be the front runners? What is the criteria to be a front runner? None of that is set in this article. either way (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and simply add each band or artist to Category:Protopunk musicians. Some of these bands and artists are described in the main articles as protopunk, others are not. Title is inappropriate. better as a category/categories.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a terrible idea, but the "Protopunk musicians" category doesn't include bands. This would require a renaming — plus it's no more or less a form of "original research" (so-called, ugh, what a stupid concept) to declare these bands "protopunk" by including them in a category than it would be to list them in a list. Same info, different forms... Carrite (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list appears to be a good case of original research or simply, the opinion of some editors who added these bands to this page. Unless some criteria can be set and evidence can support a decent number of these bands' fitting those criteria, this page is better off deleted. I agree with Mercurywoodrose's arguments above for adding some bands to the suggested category. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First off, pure opinion. Speaking as a punk fan since 1980 — yeah, it's a good list. It's well done. That counts for nothing here, but it's not a piece of crap. The main question, I suppose, is whether this list was pulled from thin air or whether it is a list from somewhere. It's funny, if you think about it, we build "original research" (quote, unquote, I hate that term...) lists every day of the year on Wikipedia. How? We list this or that subject as being part of various categories. You click on the category link anf voilá! — an "original research" list... The article on Lou Reed probably says "Category:People from New York City." But somehow it is "original research" to make a List of people from New York City that includes Lou Reed, sourced to the Wikipedia categories list? That makes no sense at all. So, okay, this is probably nothing but "Category:Protopunk bands" or some such in article-list form. That's okay. Criteria for inclusion, while not ultra-specific, remains vaguely comprehensible. The list is finite, logical, and performs a valid navigational function. Would this be a better list if it came from a Robert Christgau book or something? Maybe. Maybe not. The list is, like I say, not too far off the mark. Honest people may differ. So, yeah, as a list, based only on a WP category, this is a keep. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the list is merged with Protopunk, it will just bloat that article. it makes a fine separate addendum. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced list; any (referenced) content should be covered within other articles. I don't think "vaguely comprehensible" is the best criteria for determining the acceptability of lists. Neutrality^talk 16:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite and WP:SAL. Categories and lists of the same topic are not mutually exclusive, and in this case, I think a list could provide better navigation than a category. I do however think that it could use a rename as 'forerunners' in the title is a bit odd. -Atmoz (talk) 14:11, 19 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, causa sui (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep the question here is not "is the current list a good list" but "could a good list here be written?" Even if the current list is unsourced, surely enough sources exist on the forerunners of a highly notable movement that say individually that this person or that person influenced Punk Rock. So it's not a matter of "sources do not or cannot exist" as much as "they're not in the article right now." In other words, this is a discriminate list with defined and concrete entry requirements (an author or commentator has said you are a forerunner of the Punk Rock movement) and is finite and notable. All the criteria of a good list. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep just source it. or put a thing on talk saying you're gonna start removing unsourced entries after x date. it's forerunners, not frontrunners btw. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not good enough rationale IMO. Just needs a cleanup, perhaps a trim and some sources.. deletion unnecessary. -- œ ^™ 18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, and verify. Seems like a discriminate topic related to protopunk but needs a lot of work to keep it on point. Dzlife (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as contested material that is completely unsourced (WP:V). Whoever wants to keep it must provide adequate sources first (WP:BURDEN). Sandstein 06:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Repeat keep~~ I don't have a problem with it being turned in a category, but a list works equally well. As for verifiability, if the listees' aricles don't have enough in them to merit inclusion then that's where the adjustments probably should be made. In general I think lists like this exist by consensus. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Because the list has remained unsourced since 2002, it should be deleted. The burden is on those wishing to retain the list to provide sources to verify the entries in the list. It is a given that this article "needs a cleanup, perhaps a trim and some sources" (OlEnglish) and that the article "needs a lot of work to keep it on point" (Dzlife). However, after eight years, no sources have been added to the list. It is unknown who considered these people to be "forerunners of punk rock". Per Sandstein (talk · contribs), this unsourced contested material must be deleted per WP:BURDEN. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, but WP:V - the fundamental content policy of this encyclopedia - is unequivocally, unignorably clear: challenged material must be supported by citations, preferably inline ones. This material has been challenged, and it has been unsourced for many years. Come to that, the Protopunk article itself has language like "The term "protopunk" is of uncertain origins, and has proven difficult to define, and many widely different groups have been so dubbed." The Keep proponents cannot now claim that the article is potentially, conceivably supportable by reliable, independent sources. WP:V requires that it must be. To quote, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period. End of story. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 21:44, 27 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 Dan Le Batard. Can be restored if the show becomes notable by being aired and getting substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 06:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Le Batard is Highly Questionable[edit]

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

Article is premature per WP:FUTURE. No indication of current notability per WP:TVSHOW, in large part because it's still in the future. At present, this information is probably worth merging into Dan Le Batard, but it doesn't merit its own separate article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom's suggestion. Until we have a week of episodes to know what the format of the show will be (ESPN doesn't usually reveal formats of the programs until they actually take the air so that their competitors don't steal it), a harmless redirect is best for this one at this time. It's coming on September 12 barring complete disaster. Right now this text is too bare for its own article. Nate • (chatter) 06:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article meets GNG by virtue of its coverage; and does NOT violate CRYSTAL as its occurance is a reasonably sure things. And it's hardly the only TV show in the future to have it's own article...Pan Am? Whitney? Those articles are just as bare, with the exception of having infoboxes and cast lists. Also, what's the point of deleting the article now...it'll just be recreated in three weeks. Frankly, considering the short amount of time between the closure of the AFD and the first episode, this AFD is a pointless waste of time and borderline disruptive Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really clear that the show will be notable even after it starts airing? It would help if some more sources can be found (now) that are independent of ESPN, the Miami Herald, and Dan Le Batard — sources which talk in some depth about the show, and not simply say that it is expected to happen. If the show really is notable now, then I think it's reasonable to expect some independent discussion now. The mere fact that other planned future TV shows have articles isn't a controlling argument (see WP:WAX); each such article needs to be considered on its own merits. WP:FUTURE / WP:CRYSTAL isn't a blanket ban on all articles covering future events; it does allow such material in certain cases; can this show meet the necessary burden of proof? Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TVSHOW, if a TV show airs on a network (of which ESPN is one), it is likely to be notable. Which again begs the question, "Why delete it if it's going to air very very soon", especially considering the guideline of not being in a rush. If you are going to make the argument that there are no reliable sources, you have to check yourself to make source there are none...and that looking at the more than 5,000 places that mention the show. And you yourself mention a reliable source...the Miami Herald. You also have misintrepreted WP:CRYSTAL...all I have to prove is that it is going to happen at a set date in the future (which I have proved with a source) for WP:CRYSTAL to not apply. You apparently don't understand WP:TVSHOW or WP:CRYSTAL; and all you seem to be doing here is wasting my and a lot of other people's time. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning whether the Miami Herald is a reliable source. I am concerned that since Dan Le Batard writes for the Herald, it might not be sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability. And while I did see a bunch of references to the upcoming show in a Google search, none of them clearly appeared to me to contain significant coverage addressing the show in any amount of detail (as called for by WP:GNG). If you (the creator of the article) are aware of independent sources that do include significant coverage of what this show is expected to be when it airs, it would be very helpful for you to include them in the article. I submitted this AfD nomination in good faith, believing it to be based on a reasonable understanding and interpretation of policy — but if there is ultimately no consensus to delete, the article will naturally remain. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It is upcoming. So coverage in media are only announcing its start. That is not the same as notability. How do we know if it will be notable in the future, if it will even succeed, let alone make some sort of lasting impact? Delete as per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it airs even one episode, it will pass the WP:TVSHOW guideline, as it's on a major network. Also, it has been covered in reliable sources, so it meets WP:GNG,. And therefore, it passes WP:CRYSTAL as it is notable and has a set air date. Furthermore, why delete this NOW? It will air in only 17 days; yours and others' arguments will be completely invalid then. So why delete it now if it'll be recreated in 17 days? A TV show does not need to make a lasting impact to have an article on this Wikipedia; you are setting the bar far too high and your policy basis is weak Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:10, 27 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. I usually don't like to close "1 voters" as delete but this has been listed for 21 days, has one sound delete !vote and no objections to deletion. If someone thinks that notability can be established then I will be happy to userfy or incubate this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo of Alpha Chi[edit]

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

Non-notable single-chapter frat house. No evidence of notability presented beyond its own small college. No sources given beyond the organization's own website, which in any event is a private site. A VfD was filed on this in 2005 and closed as a Delete; the day after, the creator promptly recreated it, which seems to have slipped through the cracks. Six years on, the subject's notability hasn't improved. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY (no sources at all aside from the subject's own web site) and WP:ORG (text doesn't really establish notability even if it were substantiated by multiple independent reliable secondary sources). Some material here might possibly be appropriate for merging into Delta Kappa Epsilon, but only if suitably sourced. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:07, 8 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, Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 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, BusterD (talk) 18:17, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Jordan (music executive)[edit]

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

This person appears to be a behind-the-scenes music guy: the sort of fellow whose number it'd be really handy to have, but who nobody has ever heard of, and intends to keep it that way. In other words: he may be a backstage power broker, but he does not seem to be well-known outside of his specific community (another way of saying "notable"). Jsharpminor (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - James Jordan is the executive producer/mentor/and talent managers for gospel mega stars Kirk Franklin, Marvin Sapp, Fred Hammond, Donnie McClurkin, Richard Smallwood, Deitrick Haddon and so on... and leads the largest gospel label in the world... he is widely known throughout all of the gospel/church and entertainment community... and he's lead his artists into breaking billboard history in the gospel genre, with artists crossing over into the secular market... he's help shaped the the careers of pop/r&b mega stars Brittany Spears, Backstreet Boys, Salt N Pepa, PM Dawn, R. Kelly and Joe in which all of his artists has went platinum. He's founded his own label Jordan Entertainment Group who's artist went platinum as well, topping billboard charts. He has just as much impact in the world of entertainment like other execs such as Tommy Mottola, LA Reid, Kevin Liles, Russell Simmons, Lyor Cohens etc. His works are very notable and with all do respect, it would be an insult to the black community if he wasn't noted as a notable person. He's definitely an in the front man guy and If you don't know him doesn't mean that he isn't notable... just like there may be people I don't know but you know them to be very much notable. Why? Because we don't know everthing and everyone but it doesn't take away from what or who they are. Hansomd 02:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Notable individual (heads a business unit responsible for generating millions in revenue, unit also influential in American culture). Some puffery terms could perhaps be edited from the article but seems basically well-researched. Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 16 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) 18:16, 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 and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Management colleges in Mumbai[edit]

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

redirect from List of colleges in Mumbai Sean ^{(Ask Me?)} 06:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion rationale. This is not a redirect. Suggest Speedy Keep without prejudice if not fixed soon. Ma^t_chups 11:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No links, no assertion of notability, and no sources to verify. Delete! Ng.j (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of colleges in Mumbai#Management institutes; add the external link if appropriate. TimBentley (talk) 21:27, 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, BusterD (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect no sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Dzlife (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per the nomination and other contributors. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:52, 24 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 22:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twistaplot[edit]

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

I can't find any third-party significant coverage of these books. The PROD-tag was removed with an WP:IKNOWIT explanation. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get a lot of results from GBooks, specially regarding the Microzine versions, which could be considered as e-books (a sample [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54], and that is just from the first two pages) — frankie (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Frankie's links prove there is plenty coverage to establish notability. LadyofShalott 17:28, 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. the dlelete arguments concerning sourcing hasn't been refuted by the keep side Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cooper (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable former Minor League Baseball player Adam Penale (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Adam Penale (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cooper is a notable minor leaguer for his time with the Buffalo Bisons, meeting WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced. Meets GNG. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep All-time leader in games played for a franchise as long-lived as the Bisons is a notable distinction, although that may be mitigated depending on the meaning of "modern-era" in the text. If it means "since 1901" (i.e., since the franchise left the Western League), that means a lot more than if it means "since 1979" (i.e., since the franchise was reconstituted after an eight-year hiatus). A clarification of that would affect my !vote. Also note: Cooper is currently active with the St. Paul Saints. I have updated his page to reflect this. -Dewelar (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to delete, as Cooper is only the post-1979 games played leader, falling over 800 games short of all-time leader Ollie Carnegie. Other sources do not establish notability. -Dewelar (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, the article is sourced, but they are mostly trivial mentions in articles, failing WP:GNG which requires multiple sources of significant coverage. For the sources not mentioned in the article, they seem WP:ROUTINE and not enough to establish notability. A record of almost 400 games for a minor league team is also a sign he was stuck without being promoted. Weaker option is to merge to St. Paul Saints as they are not affiliated with an MLB team so they dont have their own minor league player article. However, is he really that much more notable than anyone else on their roster (that is not mentioned in the article). —Bagumba (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think, if merge is the decision, that Buffalo Bisons would be the better option. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since Dewelar above points out the Bison's record wasnt really a true record, he probably doesnt belong in the Bison article. —Bagumba (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dewelar Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dewelar has subsequently changed to "Delete".—Bagumba (talk) 00:00, 27 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 Nulkaba,_New_South_Wales#Education. If anything is worth merging, it can be done from the history, though I'd advise this be done carefully and with WP:UNDUE in mind. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nulkaba Public School[edit]

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

Fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. (Primary schools are rarely notable) The article contains only a single reference that is apparently published by the school itself. AussieLegend (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the article on the community, Nulkaba, New South Wales. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit, I don't see the point in creating a stub for the suburb just so the school article can be merged there.[55] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nulkaba, New South Wales; there ain't much to merge, most of the content is fluff. Orderinchaos 08:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirect to the town. Perhaps an article could be created on the "Cessnock Community of Great Public Schools" which appears to exist for the area schools.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:04, 26 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Winer[edit]

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

This article is about a chiropractor/nutritionist that has no sigfnificant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article was created by user:Doctor Winer which would suggest a conflict of interest. Edits from user:Jksoroka with comments such as "I have removed the biased opinion of the previous author, and substitute this authorized, factual bio from Dr. James Winer." would indicate that the COI is ongoing. Although COI is not a reason for deletion, when combined with lack of coverage in reliable sources, it makes for a stronger reason to delete. Whpq (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOTRESUME. Yoninah (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find no evidence of notability at Google, Google News, or Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P Chips Frauds[edit]

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

Attack page, designed to denigrate the companies mentioned in the article. I don't believe this is salvageable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users commenting in this discussion might also want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S-Chips Scandals, which are related. lifebaka++ 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubify. Companies going bankrupt? In a global recession? Corporate corruption? Not quite notable as a concept in and of itself. Add in minimal sourcing, extreme POV commentary and this is simply beyond salvage. There might be something there as a concept, but this would need to be hammered back to a stub and re-written from scratch. Ravensfire (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:03, 25 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, Sandstein 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Why wasn't this speedied as an attack page? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 21:49, 27 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazlerigg Victory FC[edit]

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

Sunday League teams are almost always extremely non-notable, nothing about this one seems to suggest anything different ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable team. Giant Snowman 12:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete - A sunday leauge team who work hard and deserve to be noticed. and for busy bodys who obviosuly havent got a life to remove this kind of thing is pretty unfair, Hazlerigg vfc is found on google search User:Youngy83 14:20, 27 August 2011
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can't find proof of notability for this club; Google News archives return only one unrelated page. That's not the only way to find sources, but it's not a good sign. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:13, 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 keep. Discussion has established that the artist has met WP:NM by having a charting single, and I see no consensus to make an exception due to the short stay and low ranking of that single on the charts. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon (pop artist)[edit]

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

Prod tag has been removed a number of times by author. Article does not show notability, nor have there been enough reliable sources to prove notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [This link http://www.billboard.com/artist/brandon/chart-history/336588#/artist/brandon/chart-history/336588] confirms that the song "Kisses In The Night" charted in 1991. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The one and only source shows one song peaking at 64 with no information about how long it was there. To say that this person passes WP:NM is quite a stretch. The creator and major contributor to the article is a WP:SPA. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Closing admin please note that above IP address is evading a two week block. Yworo (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Forgive my ignorance, but does 1 week in the mid-60's give enough notability to retain the article? If it does I'll withdraw the nomination. Wildthing61476 (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, due to the charting, but there are some pretty egregious unsourced BLP violations in the article which needs to be stubbed back to one sentence if sources are not provided soon. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wick 95008 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing the AfD template from the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:11, 24 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 The Lives of Mount Druitt Youth and protect. However, I'll leave the history intact for now. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Adam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has already been nominated before, and the result was to merge it with The Lives of Mount Druitt Youth. However, it has been created again, and I don't think it meet's the notability guidelines. In addition, The Lives of Mount Druitt Youth page is mostly about Saad Adam himself so what is the point of this article? 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and protect - Nothing seems to have changed since the last AfD with respect to the subject's notability. VQuakr (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Restore redirect and protect. Nothing has changed in the 13 months since the last AFD, other than the director is a bit older and his one film getting more reviews. If he had two or three or four films with accompanying good press, he might merit inclusion under WP:CREATIVE. But its still too soon for one just about him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:50, 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. WP:CSD#G7 article blanked by author. JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Strom[edit]

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

Promotional article about an evangelical preacher. Described as controversial but can only muster 19,000 followers. No reliable sources to indicate notability, just blogs, Amazon reviews and self-published material that don't count as WP:RS. Googling "Andrew Strom" -wiki -blog -linkedin -facebook -amazon -youtube gives lots of hits but no firm support for notability per WP:GNG andy (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY FROM PTESLA-

We had already added references from such reliable sources as Canadian Christianity, Christians Together, and Christian-faith.com. We have now added another reference from the world's most prominent Pentecostal magazine - "Charisma Magazine" - which describes Andrew Strom as a "Revival Historian and teacher" while quoting him as an authority in their article "When Christians Quit Church." If you do a search on Google, you will find that Andrew Strom's books, articles and videos are discussed on thousands of websites across the world. He is one of the most controversial figures in the Charismatic movement. This will become obvious if you do the search and look through all the websites. We believe "notability" is well established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTesla (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - no notability established although claimed. References are mostly blogs or self written. No authoritative secondary sources at all. Reads like an advert. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PTESLA REPLIES-

Article has been deleted by its creator — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTesla (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm assuming that's equivalent to an "Author requests deletion", and have tagged it for speedy deletion G7. --88.104.36.157 (talk) 09:30, 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 22:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hepburn Bio Care[edit]

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

Unremarkable company. References only show that the company exists, not that it is notable. Biker Biker (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the citations link to an RS with a website. The periodicals cited do not show up in a web search. Also, the username of the author starts with "Hbc" making me think he is a corporate insider. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when do citations have to be available on the web? WP:V requires that information be verifiable. It doesn't require that it be easily verifiable.--v/r - T P 17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 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. Consensus is that the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and there is no consensus -- either in our policy or in this debate -- to support the inherent notability of the head chef of a Michelin-starred restaurant. Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus Moore[edit]

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

An Irish chef who works at a Michelin stared restaurant. There are sources about the restaurant mentioning him, but unable to find sources about him. Thus, he fails WP:GNG Bgwhite (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as author). Added a navigation box to put in more context, part of a series of articles. Found another source about him. According to Máirtín Mac Con Iomaire, the author of the DIT thesis The Emergence, Development and Influence of French Haute Cuisine on Public Dining in Dublin Restaurants 1900-2000: An Oral History written sources are notoriously hard to find, especially when somebody is not a celebrity chef (what is the case with most head chefs). Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire sentence with Moore mentioned is, "There was John Dunne, there was Fergus Moore, who is now in Sheen Falls but I don’t think he’s cooking anymore." The context is a chef is mentioning his time at a restaurant and the sentence gives who was there with him. This is not exactly a reliable source about Moore. Bgwhite (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the context of the article it just confirm that he is/was a chef, that he worked in the Sheen Falls Hotel and that he had worked as part of a team that earned a Michelin star. The article is really thin, I agree. But with a Michelin star being the highest and most wanted award, he sure is notable. And why should a restaurant with one star be notable and the chef who earns is not? See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House (restaurant). Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Michelin star is in fact earned by the head chef, not by the restaurant. Head chef leaving normally means losing your star(s). See for example Parkheuvel that lost two of its three stars after head chef Cees Helder left and the kitchen was taken over by Erik van Loo, who used to work in the two starred restaurant De Zwethheul. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been unable to find where a Michelin star makes a chef presumed notable. Do you know where a link is? A Michelin star is actually given to the restaurant. A look a Mechelin's faq page never mentions chef, but only the restaurant. Here is a good description of a Mechelin star and note they say restaurant. Among the things considered for a star is wine list, the surroundings and the if food is priced accordingly. These three things may not be something that a chef can control. Bgwhite (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case a restaurant should keep his star when the head chef leaves, but that is seldom the case... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, the article about the Michelin guide and the FAQ from Michelin both mention cuisine as in Three stars reward exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey, where diners eat extremely well, often superbly.. Cuisine can give you an insight what is ment with that. Your last source clearly mentions cooking. It is all about cooking. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cuisine is the most important part. But the star goes to the restaurant. The Oscar goes to the movie, not the director, who has the most to do with artistic direction of the movie. In a restaurant, you have the head chef, who is also the most important. But you also have the sous chef, sommelier, owner, servers, etc. Have a bad sommelier or servers and the restaurant can't get 2 stars. Nowhere that I found a star makes a chef presumed notable. Nowhere that I found are there reliable sources about the chef.

The staff can cost a chef his stars, true. But it is the chef and the "White Brigade" that earns them, not the "Black Brigade"! See here:

“

"Wist u dat “de sterren enkel en alleen op het bord liggen” ? De sterren zijn een beoordeling van de kwaliteit van de keuken. Bij de toekenning wordt rekening gehouden met 5 criteria : de kwaliteit van de producten, de beheersing van de kooktechnieken en de smaken, de persoonlijkheid van de chef, de prijs-kwaliteitverhouding, de constante kwaliteit: zowel van de gerechten als in de tijd. Deze criteria zijn overigens sinds 2005 vermeld in de inleiding van de gids. De decoratie, het tafellinnen, het aantal personeelsleden en de kwaliteit van de uitrusting tellen absoluut niet mee bij de toekenning van de sterren, maar bepalen hoeveel couverts een adres krijgt.[56]

English: Did you know that "the star only lie on the plate"? The stars are an assessment of the quality of the cuisine. At the award takes into account five criteria: quality of products, control of the cooking techniques and flavors, the chef's personality, value for money, consistent quality: both the dishes and in time. These criteria are also mentioned in the introduction since 2005 of the guide. The decorations, the tablecloths, the staff and the quality of the equipment count absolutely no part in the awarding of stars, but determine how many couverts an address is receiving.

”

Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are thousands of Michelin Starred restaurants around the world. Does every head chef who ever led a restaurant while it had a star rating meet the notability guideline? Clearly not. The basic guideline remains that there has to be substantial, reliable, 3rd party coverage of the topic. This is clearly not the case here. --Slashme (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many thousands? Not many according to fr:Liste des restaurants étoilés par le Guide Michelin. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No demonstration through references of notability. --HighKing (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I rest my case. Lack of sources, okay. But some other arguments are a heartbreaking show of not-knowing-where-you-are-talking-about. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems a pretty straightforward deal. A number of sources are listed, but they not only do not discuss the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG requires, but they scarcely mention him at all. As it happens, Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not rise and fall on whether we're experts on cooking, but on whether the subjects of articles meet the criteria of notability and verifiability. The subject of this one does not. Fails WP:N. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 21:52, 27 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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Morello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Antonio Morello

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

Possibly non-existent or apocryphal mobster. See more here and here. Suggest deletion or, if the historical record can be straightened out, rewrite to make note of uncertain status. Shoplifter (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In David Critchley's The origin of organized crime in America: the New York City mafia, 1891-1931 On pg. 51-54 the section title "Morello-Terranova Organization" Critchley explains other authors (Chandler, Pasley and Selvaggi) made mistakes with naming the Morello's brothers. Critchley made a Morello famiy tree chart on pg. 53, there is no one with the name of Antonio Morello. --Vic49 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced and unclear sources. - DonCalo (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems more to be an issue of placing sources in this article. Per above delete reasoning. There wouldnt be this much information about a non-person.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article has a good deal of information, but it seems to be a combination of the biography of Giuseppe Morello and the history of the Morello crime family. A person by the name of Antonio Morello seems never to have existed; see for example Critchley's family tree at page 53: [57] Shoplifter (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was probably written by User:Little Joe Shots who has a history of making things up and pretending to cite sources, see Talk:Agueci Brothers. It is highly unreliable, a blatant case of violating WP:NOR and should be deleted. - DonCalo (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article doesn't have a single citation and if you can't say for sure whether the subject exists, it doesn't deserve an article. --Ted87 (talk) 21:51, 23 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! 07:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary Charts[edit]

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

A series of lists that comes from a single issue of Billboard magazine. Much of the article is about the history of the Hot 100, and there is no other significant coverage of the event, the issue, or these "moment-in-time" charts to back up a case for notability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the above and I can't help but think that its exact duplication is a copyright violation. More, the article keeps getting skewed as people try to update with changes that have occurred to the rankings after the 50th anniversary has passed. - eo (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The extensive copies of the lists should be eliminated or reduced. But an article is still appropriate covering the material in these anniversary lists - i.e., what was the top song, the top rock song and other relevant matters. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 11 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, Bejinhan talks 03:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like a good article Tony (talk) 16:45, 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, BusterD (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have standalone notability as the chart itself was not extensively discussed outside Billboard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! The article has/is in the process of being revised. It is already much better. ~ Don4of4 ^[Talk]
Merge relevant information into Billboard (magazine), Billboard Hot 100, or other related articles. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to another relevant article. Dzlife (talk) 13:41, 26 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) 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resilience Advocacy Project[edit]

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

organizational spam created by a spam account since blocked Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly spam, and close to being speedy-deletable. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:15, 14 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) 04:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Delete Fails A7 notability requirements and was created by a user affiliated with the group. ~ Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously spam. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:32, 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. I have userfied per request to User:BrandonHilton/Brandon Hilton. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Hilton[edit]

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

The author is trying to evade the salting of Brandon Hilton. ~~This might also be recreation of deleted material?~~ Probably not, upon further review. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 03:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Hilton's twitter account mentioned his lack of WP article and a fan tweeted back "I'll be fixing that ;D". Just if that has any bearing, since the creator (SkittlesNSpice) and the fan tweeter (@SkittlesNSpice) appear to be the same. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 04:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, I've talked with an admin, and he doesn't think that the whole Twitter thing is too big a deal. Without that, I wouldn't have AfD'd this article as quickly as I did, so I'm torn between withdrawing and just letting this play out to get more eyes on it. Anyway, he may or may not fail the WP:GNG, as well as WP:MUSICBIO. Let's see what the 'pedia says, shall we? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 04:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I currently am in contact with Brandon Hilton himself besides that I will be posting similar information from his facebook page I hope that my article will be allowed I am new to this please contact me to let me know if my article will be ok User:YukikoGC I apologize for all this I was the one who was planning to do an official article for him and some one beat me to it using unauthorized info should I redo what is posted to help or should I post another? YukikoGC

Keep I strongly feel that this page should have been tagged and not proposed for deletion. People tend to make articles about people/things they like, however as long as the article follows Wikipedia guidelines (esp. regarding neutrality) the practice is acceptable. ~ Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clear things up, I think there are other reason besides its creator that would indicate that this article is not ready. As others have said (not necessarily WP editors), he looks like someone trying to get famous, rather then someone who has actually gotten noticed by others. And yes, neutrality is important, but isn't notability even more so? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree however there is not enough information and the person did copy and paste info. I'm going to do some revisions I understand it will not help but I have been asked to make it different YukikoGC ^[Talk] —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really care who starts the article, but independent sources are still needed to establish notability. Several Times (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good to see a new author attempting an article, but there are no independent sources, and so I feel fails on general notability. A Google search finds videos posted on youtube, pages on myspace, linkedin etc. and a reference in the Urban Dictionary but nothing reliable or noteworthy. Maybe the film will boost his profile to the point that someone writes something worthwhile about him, but until then he is not notable. Arnie Side (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is SkittlesNSpice. I saw this information on his file on the German wikipedia. No, I did NOT copy paste. The evidence is strong, and if it has been accepted on the German wikipedia then it should be accepted here as well. Also don't get upset just because I made a page before you could. Brandon wanted an English wiki so I made ir. End of story. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.76.3 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 August 2011

Heya Skittles, just so you know, the existence of an article about Hilton of the German WP is no reason for one to be created here. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Taste the rainbow. Delete: Completely non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Skittles, I urge you to please read WP:A Primer for newcomers so as to better understand the need for verifiability in reliable sources that we have here. What is done in other Wikipedias is on them. HERE, we have standards upon which we rely. If you come up with news articles and commentary on this fellow, the article might be determined as suitable. Simple listings of his discography is not the same. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been talking to User:Brandon Hilton here, so I ask that the article be userfied to his page/space. If nothing else, It'll at least give me time to show him why his article in the current state wouldn't work. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but Brandon should be encouraged to write about things other than himself. As long as he understands WP:NAU and you yourself assist, I applaud your willingnes to help him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 27 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. Deletion arguments are significantly stronger and sway the consensus, based on the clear application of the relevant guideline, WP:NBASKETBALL and the failure of the keep side to make any policy-compliant claim to notability. Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lehmon Colbert[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL as he plays in the BBL, the worst league in Europe. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "the worst League in Europe." That's a new one for attempting to disprove notability. The Birmingham Thunderbolts of the XFL had the worst record in likely the worst pro football league of all-time, so that's a double whammy that should warrant deletion, no? I don't have a vote since I don't have much experience with Basketball AFDs, but I do know other sports typically keep articles on players that played in the highest professional league of a country, such as the 'awful' BBL. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely why the only player from the Birmingham Thunderbolts to have a Wikipedia page is Stepfret Williams because he had played in the NFL. If Lehmon Colbert plays a game in the NBA or in another major professional sports league, which the BBL frankly is not since it is non-Euroleague, then his inclusion can be justified. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's still a national league even if it is the worst in Europe. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it is a national league but definitely not a major professional sports league, the criterion necessary for inclusion of players. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 13:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should be kept because he sounds like a notable person but needs more information. Tony (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator says, Colbert fails WP:NBASKETBALL, as the BBL is (rightly) not considered to play at a high enough level that anyone who plays one game is deemed notable. In addition, I had a look through the article and gnews and could find nothing that could be considered the significant coverage that's required to pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 02:02, 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) 03:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The BBL article states that it's "the premier men's professional basketball league in the United Kingdom" with a second tier of lesser professional leagues under it. That Wikipedia's coverage of British basketball (or former XFL players) is inadequate is a discussion for another place and time. - Dravecky (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NBASKETBALL. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:47, 26 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap Wai Kiang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete per WP:PROF.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see notable links on Google and Yahoo that could support a biography. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Due to a lack of employment opportunities after graduation"? What the hey? Some knife-twisting revenge scheme going on here? Kauffner (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current h-index on GS is 5, not remotely adequate for WP:Prof#C1. One article in a Malaysian newspaper is not enough for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I articulated in the first AfD. Nothing since then has happened to make this article any less unimpressive. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Pennington[edit]

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

Actor/model with no evidence of notability. Only roles appear to be bit parts/extra roles. The sources consist of IMDB, Twitter, and an interview which is possibly the sole WP:RS and states that he is "a name perhaps unfamiliar to you but he’s been linked with recent rumors" with no qualification as to the subject's credibility. Kinu ^t/_c 03:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant roles, just rumors of parts, which he himself debunks in the interview. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real sources, just twitter etc. It's self-promotion. Kauffner (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Maybe make his page just state he is primarily a model, and then can have small subsection for acting. He has an IMDB, his own website which shows his modeling work and magazine appearances so he deserves to have a wiki page. Plus, though his movie roles were small, they still exist. He's not a nobody. Plus his role on HBO's Tilda was a co-starring role, not an extra or one scene.Uknowwhogirl (talk) 20 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Don't Delete~~ I have updated/edited his page to make it more concise, simple and accurate which I hope makes it remain eligible to be saved. I kept the filmography section but if you feel it should be taken down, feel free. Uknowwhogirl (talk) 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Double !vote struck. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete There is no self-promotion involved. If you Google his name, there are hundreds of results in relation to this actor, and many photos of his modelling. This is evidence alone that he is a person of interest and discussion. He is currently working on a couple of major projects and a lot of people will expect to see an entry for him on Wikipedia. Union jak86 (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete~~ His name has been mentioned on MTV, cinemablend, fandango, about.com. He has a celebrity profile on IGN and he even has a tag on Perez Hilton. He has over 3 dozen news items on imdb.com, 1,300,000 results on Google for "Kevin Pennington Avengers" and 649,000 for "Kevin Pennington True Blood". Rumours or not, people are clearly talking about him. There are pictures and footage of him attending the Academy Awards, Golden Globes and the AMAs. You do not attend all these events without being a 'somebody' in the industry. Union jak86 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double !vote struck. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete His name might not be a household name yet, but he's been mentioned plenty of times on various sources, he even was linked to the movie "The Avengers" at one point. If you google pictures of him, the first results that are showing up are a lot of his modeling gigs - it's not like you only have a few pics of him mixed with random people, it's ALL him. Also, if this page were completely about self-promotion, which it is not, than you would recognize so, but all facts giving are JUST facts - filmography and his biography etc etc. And I am wondering what the big deal is... if you delete the page now, and in a few months he's gonna have his big break, you'll just create a new one? Save yourself the time and keep the page. Wikipedia is one of the first sources people go to to look up certain information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorgirl123 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC) — Mirrorgirl123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't Delete Pennington is an up and coming actor, more so a musician in a band called ROME that will soon launch their debut single. Just because his filmography doesn't list a number of blockbusters or movie hits, it doesn't mean he's an unknown. As has been mentioned, Pennington has attended various events throughout this year and the past. He's very well known amongst the very strong comic fan-base having been mentioned for roles such as Aquaman and another in next year's "The Avengers" - those clearly have been rumours, also he is widely known in the modelling circles. This shows that he's not just some nobody who is trying to up his status by self-promoting his biography and career on Wikipedia. If you were to take the time looking him up via Google you'll find that his name has been linked to various BIG projects and that he certainly is not some unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolakhe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC) — Kolakhe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:NotJustYet. His so-far short[58] film career fails WP:ENT, and his "Kev Penn bio at Monsters & Critcs is borrowed from Wikipedia. The interview in Screenrant is not enough to meet WP:GNG's instruction of "multiple". There are multiple short articles in iffy sites that deal with his NOT being in the Avengers movie,[59] but those do not tell us about the indivdual, only about what he has not done. His work as a fashion model and fitness advisor do not meet WP:N. His fashion editorials in L'Uomo Vogue and Complex do not meet WP:AUTHOR. What is required is our finding independent reliable sources that speak about the fellow dirctly and in detail. I looked and did not find where these are archived. If the asserted covers of Men's Health and 944 Magazine can be linked and show coverage of the individual, then I can reconsier ny delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woolworths @ Gull[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable business arrangement.
Delete. Non-notable. Call me suspicious by I wonder at a user whose only edits relate to one company and its subsidiaries! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see many notable links on Google and Yahoo aside from small mentions here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a partnership between Gull Petroleum and Woolworths Supermarkets (New Zealand), apparently involving the addition of convenience shops to gas stations in New Zealand. I'm surprised that nobody has ever thought of this before. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable spam. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At best a smerge into Gull, but outright deletion seems the most sensible outcome. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 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. No clear consensus to delete. Fair consensus subject is notable and page assertions are verifiable. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Biaz[edit]

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

Contested prod; article fails WP:BIO and precedent with previous winner of elementary and high school academic competitions. As seen with the Scripps National Spelling Bee, one of the most celebrated of such competitions, the articles of winners have been deleted or redirected to a main article, as established with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai R. Gunturi. Spencer^T♦C 00:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note: I'd also support redirection to Poetry_Out_Loud#2011_Winners. Spencer^T♦C 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 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, Courcelles 00:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as subject of article notable for two events, the academic competition and performance at well-publicised White House Poetry night 1, thus WP:BIO1E may not apply. Lissoy (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar precedent exists for this: Anurag Kashyap (Jeopardy and Scripps National Spelling Bee champion), won the Spelling Bee and also won the Jeopardy Teen Tournament, a major game show. His article is redirected to the Spelling Bee Champions page. Spencer^T♦C 19:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same case with Amanda Goad, who won the Spelling Bee and Jeopardy Teen Tournament. Her article was also redirected. Spencer^T♦C 19:11, 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) 00:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - seems like a non notable person but may be well known in the next couple of years. Tony (talk) 16:55, 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, BusterD (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Still not enough participation or discussion to accurately plot consensus. Relisting hoping for more discussion about whether this minor child BLP meets notability standards. BusterD (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has two major achievements that have been documented and commented on in independent sources. Let's move this along, now. A month is way too long to go without consensus. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:26, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendence (band)[edit]

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

Questionable notability per WP:BAND. Only releases are on a non-notable label. Allmusic entry is blank. Only sources found were promotional in nature. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Allmusic bio may be blank, but the site has this review, and I also found these: CMJ New Music Monthly, Miami New Times, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Miami Herald, plus a few more. There will likely also be further offline sources. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Per Michig. Joe Chill (talk) 02:52, 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) 03:16, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Project[edit]

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

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

There is some assertion of notability but no evidence thereof. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 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) 00:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary keep Has specific concrete claims relevant to notability, but zero real references. Give them a couple months to put in sources establishing wp:notabiliity. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no "temporary keep" for subjects that might be notable some day. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's notable now as it clearly meets WP:BAND. A lack of references isn't a reason to delete, but to improve the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page just needs more information on the artist, giving it more time should help do that. — Ballon d'or (talk) 02:44, 14 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) 03:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if the article is notable, there are many sources to support the article aside from the group's websites. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand your delete vote, could you clarify that please? --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BAND #2 and #3 with a European Number 1 Hit that has been certified Gold+ in 4 countries (see Infinity_(Guru_Josh_song)#Infinity 2008).--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:54, 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! 07:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tall Trees[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable business based upon the article. Herp Derp (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whilst the nightclub is Newquay might not be notable, the venue near Yarm probably is. The Tall Trees near Yarm is a large venue which is well-known across the local area. I don't have time to do a detailed search for coverage of both venues right now, but that's a complication to consider in this debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert Yes, the article is about the small one but it mentions the big one with the same name. No indication of notability for the small one. I suppose what should really happen is to convert the article to being about the big one. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 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) 00:18, 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, BusterD (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:50, 26 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! 07:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Seasons Arena[edit]

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

This article refers to two separate, unrelated facilities in different states, both wholly unremarkable. There is nothing to distinguish these buildings as noteworthy any more than any other hometown ice rink in America (or abroad). B.Rossow · talk 20:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that I live in Mankato, where one of these buildings is located, and have been to the other facility on multiple occasions, so my nomination is based on firsthand experience, not simply a lack of supporting evidence here on Wikipedia. B.Rossow · talk 20:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Arena is notable as the home of the Minnesota State University, Mankato Mavericks women's hockey team which competes at the NCAA Division I level. Johnblue52 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited by association. Notability is accrued by independent third party coverage as discussed in WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:32, 10 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) 00:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split the article is poorly souced, and the two venues need to be split into All Seasons Arena (Mankato) and All Seasons Arena (Minot). There are some references for both after doing a google search. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:34, 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, BusterD (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split. Both are notable but the article quality is poor. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does either facility meet the notability guidelines in WP:GNG? As noted elsewhere, the users of the facilities don't make the facilities themselves notable. B.Rossow · talk 14:46, 24 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elpida Xylofagou[edit]

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

Plays in the Cypriot Third Division, which is not a fully professional league. Fails WP:FOOTYN as third division sides play in a lower tier domestic cup tournament. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nominator is slightly confused - not being a member of a professional league is NOT reason to delete; in fact, we have plenty of teams who play in low amateur levels. However, there is little evidence that this particular team is notable. Giant Snowman 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new evidence from Deserter1, meets WP:FOOTYN. Needs massive improvement though. Giant Snowman 22:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete What's to delete? There is virtually no content. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted by GiantSnowman even though there is still no content! Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no evidence of notability and almost no content. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article certainly requires improvement, but for me the club is notable. They have played in the Cyprus Cup [60][61] and the Cyprus Second Division (most recently in 05/06 [62]). The club also has a profile on stats websites like soccerway [63] and weltfussballarchiv [64]. Deserter1 20:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (also see below). I don't see any evidence of notability. I couldn't find anything in a Google search other than hits mentioning the club's existence and various mediocre stats. I don't see anything satisfying WP:FOOTYN in the references provided by Deserter1; please indicate precisely which sources meet this requirement so we don't accidentally overlook something useful. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FOOTYN guidelines on club notability state: "All teams that have played in the national cup... are assumed to meet WP:N criteria". As I mentioned above, this team has competed in the national cup of Cyprus in recent years; the RSSSF links confirm this. Deserter1 talk 12:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll withdraw my "delete" !vote on this basis. I do recommend adding more material to the article, including a clear indication in the text (cited to a suitable source) confirming that the team has played in the Cyprus national cup. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:15, 27 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) 00:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberconfidence[edit]

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

This article appears to describe a neologism: It's sourced, yes, but term appears in none of the sources. A quick Google fails to reveal use in independent and reliable sources. (It seems to be a trademark owned by CSC used in a website they run.) The article also asserts the importance of the concept (as opposed to describing it neutrally). wctaiwan (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a vacuous neologism for network security. Chief purpose of the page seems to be to drum up traffic for a "csc.com" website, which is where most of the "references" end up. The others are a snow job: you will look in vain for the word "cyberconfidence" in the linked Forbes and New York Times articles. Obviously a promotional insertion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the IP has done some useful edits, IMO, this Article is just corperate spam Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam and a neologism. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Checked a few references in the current article and there was no mention of the term "CyberConfidence", indicating a problem with reliable sources. Further, I did several sweeps of major newspapers and magazines in US, worldwide, including computer-related publications, and got no hits for "CyberConfidence". So I have confidence that this subject is not notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:28, 23 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) 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Dunn[edit]

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

Bio, possibly vanity. Seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN. A number of Google news hits but they only mention the subject in passing. Also a number of web hits but they don't pass WP:N either. Miracle Pen (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources provided are not independent of the subject. The subject appears to be a garden variety local government politician with no claim to meet WP:POLITICIAN. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mattinbgn. No independent reliable sources, and no indication of notability — especially since (as far as I can tell) she lost her race in the 2010 Victoria state election. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mattinbgn - falls well short of WP:POLITICIAN and appears to have been created by a promotional account. Orderinchaos 21:15, 22 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Squier[edit]

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

I have not found any reason under Notability for this article. Simply being a judge does not confer notability. I did tag the article for references back in April and added my concerns about notability on the talk page at that time. As no new info has been shown other than the fact that he is a judge, I do not find this a notable subject for a biographical article. The article creator has been notified. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians says:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office...

So a judge who holds a state or federal appointment (as distinct from one appointed by a county or municipality) would appear to pass WP:PEOPLE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not hold a "statewide" office; rather, he has served as a trial judge in parts of the state of Texas. If he were a Texas Supreme Court justice, for example, then that would be a statewide position. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The header of the category where was found Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians does not give automatic credence. See [Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additinal criteria the head of the section in which Policitian is a sub section-
"...conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". This to me, considering the lack of of sources with time given to find them, and per Metropolitan90 above, does not meet the requirements. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Hey thanks for the further links. I am however still looking for references that make him notable. Is there a particularly important or high profile case he has been part of. Is there a story somewhere about any precedents he may have set in the course of his work? I went through the spanish language references and I cannot find any there other than his being mentioned as part of a case. The subject of the case, a Mr. Alejandro Peñafiel, when I tried finding more info on him I was not seeing it. So he doesn't appear to be notable either. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a minor local judge and as such we can't infer notability from his office. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:09, 22 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 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josomo[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. I'm a Yankee fan and I've never heard this. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it was well-known it wouldn't be a suitable topic for WP, by WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's not even a dictionary of Yankee jargon. BigJim707 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there are insufficient secondary sources to justify an encyclopedia article on this. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom (except the bit about being a Yankee fan). Rlendog (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soriano has been injured for half the season, so there is not nearly enough sources for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny Leo (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sourcing to show that this term has any lasting or widespread usage or significance. The only sourcing is an entry added four months ago to the urban dictionary (added by a random user) and a mention in a blog site called Yankeeology. Every little bit of Yankee trivia does not belong on Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably shoulda just speedied this one, huh? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 26 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 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Cone's perfect game[edit]

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

There is nothing particularly notable about this game that can't be mentioned at 1999 New York Yankees season or Perfect game#David Cone. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to David Cone. The game itself seems to fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. The information is better suited to the player's individual page. PaintedCarpet (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my suggestion to Keep based on prior establishment of notability pointed out by Wizardman. PaintedCarpet (talk)

Keep only because consensus has been established that these are fine; see Roy Halladay's perfect game. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior precedent and consensus on Roy Halladay's perfect game being a notable event that warrants its own article. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:10, 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. Courcelles 23:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1066 47th ave Oakland Ca The "Boise Cascade" building[edit]

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

It isn't notable enough for its own article. Maybe it can be merged to Boise Cascade. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 01:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like an article written by the IP jumper currently warring on the Oakland, California article over crime statistics. If an admin see this, a CheckUser might be in line to see if this matches that MO. As it is, this is a coatrack article designed to sneak in an average shooting usually mentioned in passing in the police blotter and local newscasts under the cover of a "historical building" article, when it hardly seems the case at all (just another industrial building reused as apartments and businesses; Google Streetview images of the address show a building that is unexceptional for the era it was constructed in.). Nate • (chatter) 03:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claim of historical significance is not sourceable, no other evidence of notability. While I'm assuming good faith, I am inclined to agree with User:Mrschimpf in that this might be a coatrack article. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no evidence that the building has been listed as historic by the city of Oakland or by any other designator. Failing such a designation, it's just another old building. I would oppose a merger to Boise Cascade; this was never a headquarters building, just a local branch, of which they must have had many. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 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) 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of KROQ's Almost Acoustic Christmas[edit]

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

This article lacks notability in a major way. They had big acts, but it's a compilation CD by a radio station, for God's sake. I know it suggests to merge, but I think deletion is a better choice for this page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 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) 01:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails any criteria for notability one could ever imagine using short of 'this album existed once'. Several Times (talk) 14:29, 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 redirect to Chris Eubank. Poorly sourced BLP. Consider this a no consensus close but please do not undo the redirect without adding more sources, No prejudice against a speedy renomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Eubank, Jr.[edit]

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

Amateur boxer whose notability appears to be inherited from Chris Eubank. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. CharlieEchoTango 23:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current text of the article doesn't appear to establish notability per WP:ATHLETE#Boxing. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:03, 8 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, Cerejota (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Notability is not inherited but he keeps getting mentioned in the media because he has done well as an amateur and they keep on reminding the world whose son he is. So I think that he is a weak keep that meets WP:GNG even though he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Moreover, he is on the cusp of turning pro. See http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2011/06/chris-eubank-jr-set-to-turn.html (which means that he will meet WP:ATHLETE shortly after you delete him). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:26, 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) 01:32, 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. A couple sources, but, per consensus, no indication of notability. Courcelles 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point Zero[edit]

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

A non-notable company. Joe Chill (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, weakly. This is about a business in Montreal that makes sport clothing. Even modified Google searches like /"Point Zero" Montreal/ or /"Point Zero" clothes/ are contaminated by false hits, but I see nothing that appears to be about the business. I'd be willing to change my mind if somebody's search-fu is mightier than mine. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even more weakly. Eastmain's search fu was indeed mightier than mine. Now we have another problem: the article does not speak to what the sources so found are saying about it. But that is a problem that can be fixed by editing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company with no claim of notability. Keb25 (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some possible references are hidden behind a paywall, such as these stories in Women's Wear Daily. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 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) 01:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with the references, there is still no claim of any notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be sources now, but still no indication that the subject is notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 26 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. Though, congratulations for one of the worst AfD "discussions" I have ever seen. "It's very interesting". "It's too detailed". "I like it". "I like lists". "Other TV shows have these lists", followed by a playground argument. Well done, everyone. I was almost tempted to close it as "no consensus" because there's so little policy-based discussion, but hey. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld[edit]

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

WP:Listcruft: it's a well-known show, and if a person is important enough to be on the show, they are most likely going to be well known already. There is no reason to devote a list to just those who have appeared on the show. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Piers Morgan Tonight guests and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien (2nd nomination). Gurt Posh (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I don't think any of these should be deleted. They are very interesting on who was on these shows from the start to present. Okay they are long, but when I had put these in the main article they weren't as long as this page. Now that section with the Guest Hosts and Halftime Reporters will not have any purpose if there isn't a section of past and present Guests. When this show aired in 2007 there were not a lot of people that watched this show until now and I had liked to know who was on it when it started. This show offers famous and not famous people which I come to follow now since they appeared on the show. This list does not have the most well-known people.Ltlane777 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Lists like this are common place on wikipedia , I like them and I think that they should be kept. Here's a list of some:

Fodient (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the argument for deletion isn't based on the precedent of other, similar lists existing, but on whether it's ever a good idea to have lists like these. If the consensus is that lists of guests on shows are not suitable articles for inclusion, then the articles you list should also be considered for deletion. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:29, 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) 01:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia is for basic information on notable topics. This is way too much detail. Better to have one article on each show with a link to the official site of the show or a fan site where more detailed information can be found. BigJim707 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like lists. I often like lists more than articles. They're a quick informative reference. This list and ones like it give readers a quick look as to what to expect along the lines of guests the show offers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Racingstripes (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops sorry, thought I signed it.Racingstripes (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As already mentioned, other TV series have articles naming their guests. Further, Red Eye has quite a few regular guests, making the guest list especially relevant to the show. -- Evans1982 (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is doing exactly what any Wikipedia list should do: It is documenting information relevant to a notable subject without cluttering that subject's main article, which was my main concern when I saw this list being originally formed in the main Red Eye article. I was very happy when an separate article was created to house it. I was even happier when it was greatly improved using List of The Daily Show guests as a format by Racingstripes (talk). The information is all verifiable with the reliable references listed and the show itself which spawned this list is unquestionably notable. It meets WP:LIST in that it is informative about the types of guests on the show, which aids researchers in quickly determining the demographic of the show's guests and/or the show's network, and also aids quick/efficient navigation to learn more about those guests. Who appears on a particular show and why has a meaning far greater than a simple list of names. Any future arguments that the nature of the subject/list is not encyclopedic should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies/guidelines against articles on such subjects/lists (from: WP:IDONTLIKEIT).--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, in the case of 'TV guest lists', the violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS be damned in favor of the much needed WP:NoDoubleStandards and WP:HowToOvercomeWikiDemographicBias, because the Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists (aka List of The Daily Show guests) has existed and been maintained as an excellent standard precedent for many years without deletion and has inspired many other 'TV guest lists' (many of which have been selectively deleted, IMHO, by editors deliberately ignoring (with a Wiki-wink-of-approval) the existence of the Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists). The strong community support for List of The Daily Show guests and its acceptance as a 'Category' with 16 related articles proves that the larger Wiki community does not really agree that these types of 'TV guests lists' are WP:LISTCRUFT. Otherwise, this massive, conspicuous Holy Grail would have been deleted "a long, long time ago in the Land of Wiki."--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to improve Wiki and to stop all the unnecessary debates and waste of time which occurs every single time a 'TV guest list' is nominated for deletion, a new clear policy needs to be developed to allow 'TV guest lists' which follow the 'excellent standard precedent' set by List of The Daily Show guests. If not, then I suggest my arguments above for KEEP (some of which I retrieved from the nomination for deletion of 'The Daily Show guest lists') be posted on every 'discussion page' of 'TV show guest list' articles, so that less experienced Wiki editors can better defend their particular 'TV guest lists' in the future from more experienced editors who selectively nominate the easy "low-hanging fruit" while ignoring (with a Wiki-wink-of-approval) the Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists (aka the Category List of The Daily Show guests and it's 16 related articles below), which are all being cited as precedent setting 'TV guest list' formats across Wiki:

List of The Daily Show guests (2011)

Many editors often point first to the existence of the above Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists when their TV guest list is nominated for deletion, which happened here also. And what arguments are used to discredit some of their arguments to KEEP? Violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:Listcruft and/or WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. But somehow (wink) when it comes to the above Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists, these same policy arguments never have resulted in deletion...ever. And we all know they never will because of the "Wiki-wink-of-approval" toward this particular article coupled with the demographic of Wiki editors being heavily skewed toward the political left which always votes to KEEP it, no matter how many other similar 'TV guest lists' are deleted.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I find it very interesting indeed the editors who selectively choose the "low-hanging fruit" of 'TV guest lists' for deletion somehow just never get around to nominating the massive Holy Grail for deletion, which if successful would eliminate with one single nomination the long-standing precedent source for most of the other 'TV guest lists' now being created. So editors continue to use the above Holy Grail as a precedent to create more 'TV guest lists' thinking it is acceptable policy on Wiki to do so, then they become understandably upset and disillusioned with Wiki when their guest list is deleted using violations of WP:Listcruft, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and/or WP:IJUSTLIKEIT.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would not surprise me if many editors have left Wiki in total disgust at the unfairness dealt them, or worse become vandals, which IMHO Wiki has a bad habit of creating in unacceptable numbers. That fact alone should "wake Wiki up" that something isn't working here, but Wiki goes on ignoring the real causes of these problems. This should concern fair-minded editors who really want to stop the increasing number of editors leaving Wiki and stop this double-standard unfairness here, which often masquerades behind some Wiki-policy which more experienced editors know how to exploit. IMHO, there is much need for WP:NoDoubleStandards and WP:HowToOvercomeWikiDemographicBias. That would be real change that would really help Wiki keep editors by acknowledging real causes of problems on Wiki and showing them there is real concern that fairness be shown across all Wiki articles. Good day. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's neither helpful nor accurate to use words like "selective", "wink", "bias" and "double-standards" here. I have no idea what you mean by "Holy Grail" above, either.

The main Daily Show guest-list article has been nominated three times:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests in 2005 (consensus "keep")
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable guests appearing on The Daily Show (2nd nomination) in 2006 (consensus merge, and the redirect was later deleted)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests (2nd nomination) in 2007 (no consensus).

There's no evidence of selective deletion or inclusion for that list: it's been deleted and re-created. Editors simply seem not to have come to a consensus about that list yet. I favor its deletion, but recognise that guidelines on inclusion for lists like these are pretty hazy at the moment. So before I start off a useless fourth AFD for that list, I'd like to establish some precedent for merging or deleting poorly-sourced lists like this one. As I've said in the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity guests on The Howard Stern Show (2nd nomination), lists like these are a magnet for adding unreferenced additions, until the list becomes worse than useless. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (Wiki translation: "Shhh! We don't talk about those issues on Wiki.") It seems I hit upon the two elephant-sized issues which are taboo to speak of on Wiki. I used those very accurate and helpful words/issues exactly as I intended. I know I am 'Tilting at Wiki-windmills' here, but there is much need for WP:NoDoubleStandards and WP:HowToOvercomeWikiDemographicBias. These two go hand-in-hand and are two of the reasons editors are leaving. There, I said it in the spirit of trying to help Wiki. Deal with it, or stay in denial. Wiki's choice. Those two elephants and the damage they create on Wiki are not getting any smaller by denying they exist. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am talking about them, and I clearly said that I favor deletion of the Daily Show lists, so all this talk of "taboos" is complete nonsense. Please stop attempting to infer bias and selectivity on my part. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a request that the reference quality be improved; with that, this list would have my strong keep support. In my opinion, this is going to be either a list or a category, and the precedent is list, given other notable sourced talk show guest lists which have been kept. Consensus is formed by active discussion, tacit discussion, as well as precedent.

I disagree with the nom trotting out unrelated prior AfD 'delete' results, which were not valid precedent, since they were based on 'no references' whereas this one is not.
I disagree with the trotting out of prior AfD results as examples, and the simultaneous rejection of valid counterexamples as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Dirty pool. Either both examples and counterexamples are allowed in AfD, or neither.

Improvement is possible, which would be prevented by deletion:

A serious attempt has been made here to provide sources, flawed though some of them may be (unofficial YouTube videos are not good sources - find better ones).

Some of the guests have been fairly unique "gets" - the list could be improved by identifying which guests appeared only or first on Red Eye.

On guideline: the list of guests clearly outgrew the show article, and it is quite normal, per WP:LIST to spawn such lists to separate articles, as has been done here. Its inclusion criteria are clear, as only notable guests are listed.

Problems with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: it assumes bad faith - that other articles are "crap" if they are kept. This is pointedly counter to a core Wikipedia value, of WP:AGF. Also, it disallows the reference to consensus made elsewhere; this is a flaw. To be sure, we should focus most of our attention on issues related to this article, but we should not be blinkered to the history of prior and related consensus.

--Lexein (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS was not cited before you mentioned it. I don't think it should exist as a redirect, or at the very least shouldn't be linked to on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?, precisely for the reasons you suggest. I did mention WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though, and that was argued against by RedEyedCajun above. I'm not assuming bad faith on anyone's part, nor am I assuming political bias, and I hope for the same assumptions to be made by any editors tempted to think that this is being nominated for deletion for political reasons. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the intention. Unfortunately OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a euphemism for the more obviously deprecatory (and more frequently used) OTHERCRAPEXISTS version, and I've always objected to its use in any form by any name. More importantly, that particular ATA, by any name, is typically used to stifle discussion of accumulated consensus as expressed in precedent. As stated, I agree with the idea of focusing most attention on the current article's issues, but other applicable consensus matters; heck, that's how most policies, guidelines and essays are arrived at. --Lexein (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And speaking of "dirty pool", this post that another editor made to your talk page that brought you to this discussion looks an awful lot like campaigning. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it was just me, doesn't seem like much of a canvas. If this list had had no attempt at sourcing, and no similar lists had survived AfD, I would have opted for Delete. Generic complaint about difficulty of being notified of AfDs I'm interested in without having my watchlist overwhelmed by traffic. --Lexein (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked him or anyone to come comment here, and was surprised he did. I wanted him to get interested in doing something about the policies I suggested because I know for a fact he is very concerned about editors leavng Wiki and deletions in general. I think my reasons for contacting him are very clear on his talk page. Nothing nefarious there, only my stated concerns in general about Wiki. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gurt Posh, your stated real intention is to change the "hazy policy" by deleting as many 'TV guest lists' as you can NOW to establish a large enough "precedent" (i.e.WP:OtherStuffNoLongerExistsThanksToGurtPosh) that will then somehow allow you to go delete the long-standing more popular 'TV guest lists'. But you want it both ways here: you say deleted 'TV guest lists' are precedent setting (citing 'Conan O'Brien-2nd nomination', 'Piers Morgan', 'The Howard Stern Show-2nd nomination') when it suites your purpose to convince editors to vote DELETE here; but then you claim other existing 'TV guest lists' are not precedent setting and can't be used to convince editors to vote KEEP here (citing violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]). You are contradicting yourself. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In June 2011, Gurt Posh (talk) stated [here] "...it's noted that there is a List of The Daily Show guests. There is indeed a whole category: Category:Lists of The Daily Show guests. I would argue for deletion of all of those too." I do not accept his contradictory explanation that because one 2007 AfD on List of The Daily Show guests resulted in 'no consensus' he just didn't want to nominate it again now because consensus is unclear now and "the policy is hazy". But he has no problem now using this same "hazy policy" to delete the "low-hanging fruit" of 'TV guest lists' which also have "unclear consensus" because of their own past failed nominations for deletion, like his August 2011 nomination of List of celebrity guests on The Howard Stern Show(2nd nomination) which had a 'no consensus' outcome in 2006. He somehow knows consensus is clear there now, but not on List of The Daily Show guests. He claims "Editors simply seem not to have come to a consensus about the (List of The Daily Show guests) yet." Yes they have and that is the real reason nobody (including Gurt Posh) dares nominate it again for deletion now. The past four years of acceptance by the larger Wiki community, along with long-ago failed attempts to delete it, is an implicit vote for STRONG KEEP and everyone knows this. The List of The Daily Show guests will remain forever and grow larger (fine with me) while similar 'TV guest lists' often get deleted (Wiki unfair double-standard in action) without any guidance/help (before nomination) to suggest improvements using the List of The Daily Show guests as an excellent precedent setting format. These obvious substantial contradictions are the reasons I questioned his motives here. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone" knows no such thing, and there's no implicit vote for a STRONG KEEP simply because they haven't been deleted yet. There's no conspiracy here, no matter how many times you try to make the mud stick by repeated throws. As I've already said, there's no point in nominating it for a fourth time until policy on guest lists is clarified. Discussions like this are a good way to clarify policy. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory. This one has turned into a pointless slanging match. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it policy/guideline/courtesy to notify all the builders of lists when their list is up for nomination for deletion? I believe so. So was this done in this case? Talk about dirty pool if not. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is courtesy to notify, and I did notify both the creator of the article and Racingstripes, since he did a lot of work on referencing. Clean pool here. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No not really, because that guest list of names was assembled for months recently on the 'Red Eye' main page by many different editors which you apparently did not contact at all.

Seriously? "Dirty pool", because I did notify the creators of this article, but not the umpteen editors of Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld dating back to August? Gurt Posh (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice slanging, but you only needed to contact those who actually built the guest list on the main Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld article. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Conerning References - The List of The Daily Show guests contains only one in-line citation on a guest name. That's it! Otherwise, has ZERO refences supporting that long list, unless you include the external links as references, which I believe the editors there are doing. Also, I sampled some of the 16 'The Daily Show (by year)' related articles, and the ones I sampled contain ZERO references! I assume none of the 16 do have any references. At least this List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld has some references (some bad, some good) and is not only depending on the external links for its references, but they probably are depending mosty on the external links, following the standing precedent set by List of The Daily Show guests. The list builders here are at least trying to have some references, but the editors over at The Daily Show Lists obviously feel confident they have the Wiki-wink-of-approval to not even try to find any references at all. Wiki-double-standard I am talking about. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They clearly all meet up in secret, to plan out their next unreferenced list article. And if it's not true, then why won't they step forward to deny these allegations? Gurt Posh (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about Glen Beck for (just you "slanging" apparently), but your hatred of him and, thereby conservatives, has finally revealed itself - your true motive for wanting to delete a Fox 'TV guest list', but you never get around to The Daily Show guest list for deletion. I am a independant libertarian, not a conservative. I started editing the main 'Red Eye' article because of Andy Levy and Greg Gutfeld, both libertarians I respect. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my comparison of your lame rhetoric to that of Glenn Beck (a man that any intelligent conservative will have nothing whatever to do with) reveals my true intentions! Busted! Gurt Posh (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Busted for what? Being a libertarian. Wow! If that is a bustable offense on Wiki, then Wiki has much bigger problems than I thought. You need a break because your many last comments don't make any sense whatsoever. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(facepalm) Gurt Posh (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to really clarify policy as you said above, you can do so more effectively by going to the longest unreferenced 'TV guest list' you can find and nominate it for deletion. That list is your favorite, the List of The Daily Show guests, aka the Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists. Go there NOW and nominate it, then we'll all see what happens to your needed clarity.(wink) No secret meeting required at all for all this to happen exactly as I stated above. I'm calling your bluff. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you from going there NOW and nominating it? Gurt Posh (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should gather your composure and start making sense. I don't want it deleted! I never wanted it deleted! You said you wanted it deleted way back in June, so go nominate it NOW. I'm still waiting!--RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated accusations that I'm acting in WP:Bad faith because I nominated this guest list (and others), but won't nominate the Daily Show guest lists yet, are quite ridiculous. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My accusations are well documented using your own words, actions (and one particular lack of action). Good day.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating accusations many times, with exclamation marks and uppercase, hardly makes them "documented". Come back when you're ready to argue like a grown-up. Good day. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:22, 25 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. I'm unaware of any policy that a model appearing n the cover of a magazine is notable so the policy based arguments are the delete ones - especially referinging ONEEVENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeniffer Viturino[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD with reason: has a strong indication of notability with multiple significant coverage in RSs, per NMODEL C.3 and GNG. Coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE. Subject does not meet criteria listed under WP:NMODEL. No further information contributed since previous AfD. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - As previously said, it has a strong indication of notability with multiple significant coverage in RSs, per NMODEL C.3 and GNG. Winning one of the three largest beauty pageants (Miss Póvoa de Santo Adrião), or appearing on the cover of one of the best-selling fashion-glamour magazines in a country (Revista J), is at least a claim to importance meeting NMODEL C.3. Not to mention the multiple significant coverage in RSs. ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant coverage appears to be for her unfortunate death and not for her modeling success, indicating WP:BLP1E. Winning Miss Póvoa de Santo Adrião does not seem notable since the beauty pageant is a local one for a town of ~14,000. Furthermore I cannot find any evidence of Revista J being a notable magazine; there is no page on the Portuguese wiki (same for the above pageant) and no official website. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google, and OTHERCRAPEXISTS#Interwiki. ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google gave me this, a bunch of download and spam links. I don't know how you found that, but that's not relevant. In this case it's more like NOCRAPEXISTS confirming her notability as a model, which was the assessment for the first AfD nom. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any biographical sources on Google and Yahoo to support this article. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sources indicate that she was best known for her 2011 appearance in the J Mag in which she was featured prominently in the front page story and across nine pages (hence her death became a subject of extensive media coverage), not primarily for her death. Although it should be mentioned in the article which currently appears to focus on the death of the subject. / LLFrance 09:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Vanadus. Despite some media coverage, she fails WP:NMODEL on all 3 points: no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; no large fan base or a significant "cult" following; no unique, prolific or innovative contribution to a field of entertainment. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for same reasons LLFrance mentioned. Blackdragon6 10:06, 26 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 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatanpur, Moradabad/version 2[edit]

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

Similar to Fatanpur, Moradabad but with barely any information. TimBentley (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a needless duplicate. JIP | Talk 05:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as data fork. BusterD (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe someone should tell the creator of this page that if he wants to improve the original page, he can just go ahead and do that without making subpages. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:05, 26 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) 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Frank (meteorologist)[edit]

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

Local news personality whose only claim of importance appears to be a regional Emmy award; the rest of the content reads like a typical local news personality résumé with no actual indication of notability. I cannot find coverage in reliable sources to show that WP:GNG is met. Kinu ^t/_c 18:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 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) 01:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not all on-air personalities are notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion, especially ones at the local level. I don't think that the regional New England Emmy, which Frank won, is "a well-known and significant award or honor" in the grand scheme of things. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:42, 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. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Haring[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS - in either singles or doubles, no main draw WTA appearances and no ITF $25 000 or better tournament wins Mayumashu (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has competed 3 times in doubles at the French Open in the main draw. 2006 looks like she got in on a wild card which I would really discount for notability. But 2005, and 2007 appear to be not wild cards. She never made it past the first round, but competing in the main draw of a Grand Slam event meets WP:NTENNIS point 3. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 18 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) 01:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to withdraw my nomiation Sorry - somehow missed her French Open main draw results Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Raja[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, doesn't meet any relevant standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator appears to have a WP:SPA in terms of their contribs - possibly promotional. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 01:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my first entry to submit a known musician who has alot of reference and has no wikipedia. If I made a mistake in writing something please let me know. I've tried my best to put the article in a general way for the outer world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightenterprise (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Lightenterprise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think that you would do best to read Wikipedia:Notability (music). We have well-defined rules over whether musicians meet our notability guidelines, which they have to do to merit articles. These aren't a judgement about the musician him/herself, but instead based on how much they have been reported on by outsiders etc, and on whether they have been featured in charts, or won awards etc. It may well be that Kamal Raja is very talented, but he will have to achieve notability elsewhere before he gets a Wikipedia article - as you can imagine, many relatively-unknown musicians, bands etc would like to have an article, but we aren't here to provide free publicity - instead, we base articles on external evidence of success. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article about Wikipedia:Notability (music). Therefor I have a question. I know he has had recently several interviews on big tv channels and radio stations. But how can I place that in the article. Cause these are not on internet. He is also currently being voted for best newcomer, best singer, best single for the brit asia award. Can i allready mention this? Or does he needs to be nominated first. Also his first track was in the FunX Radio chartlist for almost a year (what is the best way to mention this). Lightenterprise (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)— Lightenterprise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Nothing notable on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could find nothing notable. Tried to find if his new song charted on any national list, but couldn't see any references. Bgwhite (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look by Kamal Raja - No Clue on google then you find enough notable information about his latest single. And his first single was in the chartlist. The second will be soon in the chart. And besides this i've added alot of reference. How can this been unseen? Isn't that notable as well, all the links are big websites in the UK Asian scene and dutch asian scene as well. Lightenterprise (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)— Lightenterprise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All I see on Google are a bunch of YouTube videos (some unlisted) on a channel that hasn't been logged into for a month, and a website link http://www.cj-records.com/ which is "Forbidden" (probably a dead site) - not much to go on. Notability requires independent recognition, not just passing references or self-reference. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 12:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a screenshot of my google search, where you do see alot of notable pages without deadlinks. and as mentioned in his biography cj-records was his old record label that doe not exist anymore.Lightenterprise (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)— Lightenterprise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Screenshots can be edited and this isn't a social networking site it's an encyclopedia - Wiki determines notability based on independent searches and current results, not screenshots. If his site doesn't function anymore, and he has not bothered to even remove it from his own YouTube channel in that time, he isn't doing himself any favours in terms of self-interest is he? Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 13:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the XChart proof on #74 http://www.xchart.nl/chart/chart.php?chart=Xchart_100&id=710&p=3&baseurl= (google you type kamal raja xchart first thing pops up) He has been with his first single in the charts for over 1 year. First few months it was on number one. Lightenterprise (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)— Lightenterprise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You speak of Kamal in the third-person, which suggests you are not him. But there are 2 images on the article, uploaded by yourself and listed as "own work". If you are not Kamal, how or where did you obtain these images? In short, I sense copyright concerns here. AFAIK, permission must be granted for the use of images, especially in biographies (BLPs) - and images must be tagged with the correct license. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 12:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article of a non-notable singer. Keb25 (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Tahir Mohamed. And my company is Light-Enterprise. I photographed the pictures and i can prove this. That's why i added my own work as copyright. Lightenterprise (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)— Lightenterprise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Maybe one day, but currently the artist is not notable. Also, per the above, a major WP:COI issue as the creator is the owner of the label that released the artist. --Muhandes (talk) 10:39, 24 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 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamnagar, Badaun/version 2[edit]

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

Duplicate of Islamnagar, Badaun. Nothing to merge. TimBentley (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a needless duplicate. JIP | Talk 05:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This subpage violates Wikipedia's guideline on creating subpages. — Fιηεmαηη ^[talk] 17:37, 22 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 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalapuram, Warangal/version 2[edit]

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

Duplicate of Kamalapuram, Warangal and/or Kamalapuram, Kadapa (lead and infobox contradict each other). Only added information is a citation needed statement, and a broken link. TimBentley (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a needless duplicate. JIP | Talk 05:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as data fork. Unnecessary to have three articles on the exact same subject. BusterD (talk) 09:32, 26 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball player nicknames[edit]

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

Nothing here that isn't in the player's respective articles. Albacore (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why we shouldn't list them by their nicknames. Borock (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruftacious list, will never really be complete. Blueboy 96 22:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very interesting page and why delete it?Ltlane777 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 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, Cerejota (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This qualifies as notable? Every nickname should be cited, they aren't. Most of the current citations are "dead". Put the nicknames in their own biogs, nothing really is gained by collecting them in a list. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 00:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Logical connection, finite list, useful function as a source of in-links. Sourcing needs work (as is true for many pages on WP), but it is accurate so far as I can see. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as glossary; as such meets MOS for stand alone list. Easily sourceable, though potentially extensive. Is properly constructed for such expansion. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Buster, I'm curious as to what you mean by Glossary. If you're referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries, that doesn't really seem to apply since these are not definitions. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In a strange way, yes I do think of them as definitions. Catfish: Jim Hunter. Mr. October: Reggie Jackson. Most of these are easily sourceable, given access to GoogleBooks and their complete online collection of the Baseball Digest. You're correct that redirects might be sufficient, but since we can do both easily, I don't see why an accumulation in one list would violate indiscriminate. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm...yes, I sorta see what you mean. Of course, then we run into WP:NOTDIC. Just kidding, just kidding, :P. Anyway here is, in one sentence, my exact reasoning: the topic as a whole isn't notable, and much of the individual entries aren't verifiable (in my mind, at least) therefore delete per NLIST, and INDIS. If all nicknames could be sourced, which should be the case anyway, and RS's discussing the topic as a whole could be found, this would be an easy keep. However, I don't see that. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Random intersection of topics (the notable player w/ the non-notable nickname). Also, Listcruft, if you want to find the players nickname you would look on the Players Article, not in a list of nicknames. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Lists that compile data about notable subjects in a manner that's been found interesting to at least one editor are useful navigation tools, and this one looks better developed than most. The claim that all of the information here belongs in articles about the individual players is no obstacle to compiling this list. The fact that an external website has changed its structure does not even turn this into an unreferenced list. We easily could have a stand alone article on baseball nicknames, in which case this article would be an almost necessary complement to it. I see no policy that this list violates. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Indiscriminate? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't begin to even imagine how WP:Indiscriminate applies. This is no more "indiscriminate" than, say, 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm also not seeing the applicable section of WP:Indiscriminate. IMHO, this is a specialized glossary and as such fits perfectly into what is expected of a stand-alone list. The list performs a navigation function which the individual articles and relevant categories do not perform. BusterD (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here's what I see as an indiscriminate list - maybe its not to others, I don't know - any list which has multiple entries (nicknames, in this case), that aren't notable enough for their own article, and many of which aren't WP:VERIFIABLE. I realize that WP:LISTN says that not all individual entries must be "independently notable", but none of these entries are notable, and furthermore, I see no evidence that the "group or set is notable" and hence - indiscriminate. There is no "navigation" function...because none of the nicknames have articles. The only bluelinks are the players themselves, and so redirects from each nickname to each player would work fine. This isn't remotely close to 2010 AHS (mainly because AHS isn't a list). AHS is entirely verifiable plus, each "entry" (as well as the list as a whole) is clearly notable enough for its own article. At present, there are no RS's discussing baseball nicknames as a whole, and GNG applies to lists just as much as prose. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This isn't a list of nicknames: it's a list of professional baseball players, all of whom are likely notable under WP:ATHLETE, who have nicknames conferred by sports journalists. The nicknames themselves are at minimum verifiable; names won't make the list until they achieve some currency in sports sources. Redirecting nicknames to players will not work well, not even as entries on a disambiguation page: Duke > Edwin Snider, Chicken > Fred Stanley, Scrap Iron > Phil Garner??? I also don't see these as so numerous that the list will never be complete; there's a finite number of pro baseball players, and only those routinely referred to by nickname by sports journalists will get entries on the page. There's quite a history in baseball, of course, so there may well be quite a few of them. I'm still not seeing grounds to delete this article. The perennial problem with WP:INDISCRIMINATE is that it's rather indiscriminate itself. This article is nothing like any of the listed examples, at minimum. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a list of nicknames? Umm, what's the title? And are the player's names or the nicknames listed in alphabetical order? This is most certainly a list of nicknames. Yes, the athletes are notable, but that's not what the article is about. It's about their nicknames, and the vast majority of the nicknames are not notable. Per NLIST, this in and of itself isn't a problem if the overall topic (nicknames in baseball) is notable, but I'm not seeing that either. That's what makes this different then the Hurricane article. As to redirects, yes, you've picked the obvious ones. There are many others, if not most of them, for which redirects would do fine. And if these nicknames are commonly referred to by journalists, then there shouldn't be any problem with sourcing, but that's not what I see. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as an WP:Indiscriminate list. It will never be complete, will never be fully sourced (currently only 50 of 350-ish), and these belong in the individual players articles. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: since many real-life baseball and team encyclopedias have section devoted to nicknames, and this is sourced, it seems reasonable to keep Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Other(Projects?)Exist and note that there are 50 (mostly dead) links for over 300 entries. Also, if I'm coming across as badgering will someone please slap me? I just find it simply mind-boggling that a list of this size would have few-to-no comments about the lack of references and overall notability. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, "this article is crap" isn't enough. If part of the article is referenced, which it is, that's enough. And redlinks? This is an AFD, not a GA nomination Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not saying this article is crap. I'm saying this list is almost entirely unsourced. I most certainly do not believe that only partially sourcing anything is the way to go. And I have no issue with redlinks at all (I think that is in response to my notability comment?). It's the notability of the overall subject that I find lacking. You'll find plenty of sources saying that Ruth was the Babe - there's no issue with some of the individual nicknames. However, per WP:LISTN, I don't see anything about baseball nicknames in general. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't really see how a list like this can ever be anything other then indiscriminate information. Are their sources discussing nicknames in Baseball or individual nicknames? If not, this has no place in Wikipedia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 28 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) 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Merrill[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be a day that this merits an article, but not now. Blueboy 96 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 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, Cerejota (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NHOCKEY (doesn't appear to have played any games yet in an actual NHL team, or am I misreading the stats?). Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:35, 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 23:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Heritage: 20 Greats[edit]

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

Non-notable comp--only assertion is a mono version of a song by a band that later became famous. Googling is tricky as "Harvest Heritage" will show up some definitely unrelated results. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 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) 00:31, 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, Courcelles 00:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Claim to notability is so trivial. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:08, 26 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) 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Music People[edit]

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

Non-notable comp with no assertion of notability (PROD was denied.) There are Google shows a couple of contemporary references to it, but not substantial coverage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 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) 00:31, 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, Courcelles 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously nobody cares or they'd have, you know, VOTED by now. Seriously, the sourcing isn't there. Let's not have this one closed as a no consensus. Gotta love ambivalence, eh? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:40, 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.