Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 7

< 6 August	8 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. causa sui (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Ramsey[edit]

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

Only minor roles. Not notable yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still, she was pretty hot in Mad Men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.209.157 (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't many solid sources aside from IMDb on Google and Yahoo. However there is an interview with her on this Esquire article. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete ... she's been in *many* minor roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.8.153 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "hotness" of a person is not a valid reason to keep an article. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as after going through the article, there isn't enough credits for this actress for it to warrant such an article. 99.18.201.209 (talk) 01:43, 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 speedily deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pheobe Sharp[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 8 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. Sock or not, the deletion rationale has been completely torn apart, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton L. Riggs[edit]

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

Procedural nomination for IP address. IP's statement below. lifebaka++ 23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-written, carefully sourced article about a man who almost became notable for one or two of his accomplishments. But as I understand WP:GNG, that isn't enough, and I am submitting the article for an AFD review. Strikehold (talk · contribs), who did all of the non-trivial edits to the article in July 2010, created a good-looking article with the material available on the subject, but the result does not amount to notability. Since {{Infobox college coach}} was used in the article, the first test for notability I considered was WP:ATH#Amateur sports persons, but his 1-1 record coaching a college lacrosse team doesn't seem to establish notability. The next check was at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0717F93E55157A93C1A81782D85F4C8385F9; that NYT article notes he was "prominent in Baltimore society", something the Men of Mark in Maryland book scanned by Google seems to corroborate, but the dozen or more actual details that made it into the article suggest that Clinton L. Riggs is a subject in that book because of one or more of his ancestors, perhaps George Washington Riggs or Elisha Riggs, and being a Riggs descendent doesn't in itself confer notability. None of the details in the section on his career establish notability. My conclusion is that if there were a Riggs family article in Category:American families, Clinton Levering Riggs might warrant some details there, but WP:1E (the event in this case being his membership in a prominent family) and WP:GNG suggest we don't have enough for an independent article. 67.101.6.202 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The IP nominator is not correct in his interpretation of WP:GNG nor in his assertion that the subject "almost" reached notability for "one or two accomplishments". By my count, the subject is actually notable in at least four or five separate respects (which the article asserts). First, "Clinton L. Riggs" returns 5,570 items in Google News Archive spanning the 1890s until his death in 1937, all of which appear to refer to the subject. The article itself cites two separate New York Times articles (and several other reliable sources, in addition to a New York Times obituary) entirely devoted to the subject. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied by extensive significant coverage in reliable sources.

Second, he was the highest-ranking officer in and commander (Adjutant-General) of the Maryland National Guard. He meets the third criterion of WP:MILPEOPLE as a notable military figure as he was a general officer. He also was a high-ranking government offficial (Secretary of Commerce and Police) of the Philippines while it was a U.S. protectorate—a position that required a presidential appointment.

Third, the Men of Mark in Maryland entry states in its first line, "though not yet forty-five years old, [Riggs] has reached the position where he is one of the best and most favorably known citizens of the state of Maryland." There are no other Riggs in that encyclopedia (see the index on pp. 4–5), and no evidence whatsoever that his fame is derived from familial association as the IP asserted. In fact, the subject is not related to either of those Riggs' asserted by the IP above!

Last, Riggs was the head coach of the Johns Hopkins University lacrosse team, arguably the most important and storied program in the sport, and he was the team's first coach to actually win a game, which earned him mention in Bob Scott's Lacrosse: Technique and Tradition (cited), widely considered the definitive work on the sport. The nominator says this is a "good-looking article [created] with the material available on the subject", but the latter part is untrue. There is a lot more information that could be used to expand it (as evidenced by the above 5,570 GNA hits). Nevertheless, the article makes numerous assertions of notability, backed up by reliable sources as references. Strikehold (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Almost notable"? What, like he had it, then lost it? Being the coach of the lacrosse team for Johns Hopkins University is plenty notable enough in my book. Considering all the references cited in this well-written article, I don't know why we're even having this discussion. I feel sorry that Strikehold had to take XX minutes out of his time to deal with this. The extensive media coverage over the years and the content of the article itself more than satisfy general notability guidelines, and if we must get technical, he bare minimum passes WP:MILPEOPLE#PEOPLE #3 with his rank of general. I, for one, also don't want to go down this slippery slope of picking off articles on coaches, especially ones like this that even have Good Article potential. And now 10 of my minutes have left as well that would've better been used on expanding a baseball player article that still needs another 10 hours of work. Great. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Strikehold and Agent Vodello. Seems funny that an IP with a seemingly-extensive knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines comes out of nowhere to lecture on notability. I suspect it is a registered user who may or may not have beef with Strikehold from previous AfD(s), and/or has a thing against college sports coaches. Not a single IP I have ever seen in my life, making his first-ever edits, can rattle off the Wikipedia "alphabet soup" the way this one has. It smells fishy and it's a damn waste of time to AfD a great (albeit somewhat short) article. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that people always demand we Assume Good Faith, but in that same breath we can't be completely ignorant and ignore something that's clearly out of the ordinary such as this AFD. I, also, am finding it difficult to believe the creation of this AFD is due to the content of the article itself, and not the article's writer. Either way I hope this discussion is kept short and possibly see a later sockpuppet investigation in case the author has amassed some "enemies" for whatever reason. I can't ignore the elephant in the room. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, and note that WP:WI1E details what an "event" is fairly extensively--being a member of a family is a state of being, not an "event". Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the NY Times obit seems to erase any doubts about notability. I also concur with Jrcla2's suspicions of fishiness. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. And, as per Jrcla2, the fish odor is strong. Cbl62 (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a general officer alone satisfies the notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep. As Strikehold points out, this subject is notable under multiple criteria. I agree with Agent Vodello that a sockpuppet investigation may be in order. cmadler (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would also like to point out that in July 2010, this was featured on the main English Wikipedia page as a DYK. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. He was the secretary of commerce, the head of the Maryland national guard, and the article cites three articles from the New York Times that discuss him. I agree with Agent Vodello that a sockpuppet investigation is warranted. This IP sure is extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia for only having four edits, all of which involve the deletion of this article. I'm trying to assume good faith but the circumstances here are making it pretty difficult. City boy77 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, follow up with possible SPI, per just about all of the above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passed WP:SOLDIER easily, as stated above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we've been down this road many times before, per WP:GNG, among many other reasons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus. However, this is only a 1 sentence stub so if somebody wants to write a new article with sources then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metin Sofuoğlu[edit]

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

I found no indication that this individual meets any notability criteria. According to the WKF his world ranking is 597. He's had some success as a junior/cadet which, according to the medals chart in the article, he was still competing as earlier this year, but I don't believe that's sufficient to show notability. The article also lacks independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual clearly fails WP:MANOTE since junior events are not considered notable (even world championship events for juniors have been deleted). Astudent0 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources and fails to show notability. Jakejr (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There may be sources in Turkish, but I cannot guarantee the how good they (like this one are. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be barely ranked in the top 600 of an organization and meet none of the specific notability criteria of WP:MANOTE seems sufficient to show subject is not notable. Jakejr (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Chamberlain[edit]

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

Non-notable musician and graphic artist. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any links that could help this article biographically aside from his website, Linkedin and other trivial websites. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PEOPLE. Almost all the Google hits are for sites that are either promotional or copies of the Wikipedia article. I found one hit that looked semi-promising, but it appears to be selling the album it's reviewing, so I have to say it fails WP:INDY. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Everything seems to be either selling or offering music for download. Nothing discussing the person or his work to show enough notability for Wikipedia inclusion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a 1st party referenceCurb Chain (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Author deleted content on article and WP:NOTGUIDE. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8 Strategies to Having a Great Website[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Per WP:NOTGUIDE Baseball Watcher 22:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 22:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How-to / essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guide/how-to, WP:NOTGUIDE. Red Baboon (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Walker[edit]

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

This one was brought to my attention by someone who was upset about his article being deleted. It's been tagged as needing more refs for 18 months, and the only ref given is a dead link. The subject has had more roles than those listed, but they don't look as if they get above minor or bit parts. The subject is at IMDb (but like with authors and Amazon, who isn't?). Peridon (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A number of roles in film or television but as nom says almost all seem to be minor parts, often an unnamed character. It's a little hard searching for sources given the subject's name, but I am not really finding anything in the way of reliable sources for Walker. I don't think he passes the notability bar and I don't think, at this point, we could gather enough verifiable information about him to construct a bio. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search shows absolutely nothing useable to show notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Also, I've examined the mailing list thread referenced and I think that if it influenced this discussion, it's minimal. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of free software for Web 2.0 services[edit]

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

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

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

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

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY Ngroot (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this might also qualify for speedy deletion under A3. No Content, as this is essentially just a categorized list of links. Ngroot (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that only the open source and not the propriety software is linked speaks to me of POV pushing, but I think the page could be improved.Stuartyeates (talk)

Specific and notable subtopics might be worthy of pages of their own, but the topic of this page is extremely broad and vague. The page itself is already many screenfuls of little more than category headers and links, and certainly more software will be added. Given the topic, how can the page be improved to not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Ngroot (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start by (in no particular order) (a) purging all non-notable software (i.e. all software that doesn't already have a wikipedia page) (b) converting to a single table (or a small number) and converting the current headings to fields (c) referencing with references discussing equalivence of packages / services (d) making the propreity software names wiki links (e) writing a lead. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that those would be appropriate cleanup steps if the page were salvageable, but that doesn't address my fundamental complaint: the topic, specifically the "for Web 2.0 services", is overly broad and vague. Even written to Wikipedia standards, given the page title, it would still be a bunch of very loosely associated topics: "Web 2.0" is a broad and ill-defined term; software "for web 2.0 services" even more so. Ngroot (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make sense to delete this unless more established lists such as this and this are deleted.DPic (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually I disagree the larger list of free software supersedes this list, making it redundant. That is bad because both lists must be kept up to date which from what I can tell this list is not. Also having information in more than on place is confusing. While we can argue about the merits of the other lists separately I don't really see a place for this list Lotu (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the criteria for inclusion, "for Web 2.0 services", is extremely vague and would lead to a collection of questionably- and loosely-related topics. Neither of the articles you have linked to has this problem. Ngroot (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and improve. — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again: how do you "improve" it so that it does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY? How do you deal with the problem of loose and vague association from the "for Web 2.0 services" bit?

If you check the current page title, you'll hopefully agree that is no longer a problem Stuartyeates (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question is under discussion on a mailing list. The start of the discussion appears to pre-date the AfD nomination (slightly hard to tell due to timezone issues). See [4]Stuartyeates (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also on Reddit (which is where ngroot came from, so there is no canvassing.) Nymf _hideliho! 07:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate Template for Deletion. I'd like to mention how annoying it is to see a template that says that an article "has been nominated for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies." Really? In accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies? Not some other institution's deletion policy? How fascinating. I have zero interest in scanning through the deletion policies trying to guess why the nominator thought the article should be deleted. I don't even like having to go to the discussion page to find a reference number to some deletion policy. A template nominating an article for deletion should explain, in brief, which policy or policies might lead one to consider deleting the article. This isn't a difficult idea. I'm sure people have had it before, and I'm sure that those templates exist somewhere. Maybe they're crappy, and hard to use. Fine. It would be worth trying to fix them. But clearly nobody has, and nobody will until the Wikipedia community decides to de-stupidify some of the AfD policies around here. A generic nomination for deletion with a cryptic code word on some other page for justification (let alone one with no justification at all) should not be a notice that no-one can remove until the matter has been 'discussed' to everyone's satisfaction. It should, itself, be an immediate candidate for deletion. If the reasons for considering deletion are not explained by the notice, even just in the most general terms, I haven't much sympathy for the opinions of the nominator, nor much interest in discussing the matter. As things stand, of course, every time one sees AfD applied to some seemingly valuable article, one feels the need to find out what's going on, and jump into the fray. I don't want to feel or do that. Instead, if the nominator is not engaged enough in the matter to explain his concern in detail, I would rather just delete the nomination. Nothing against Ngroot for believing, in this situation, that the article is a good candidate for deletion. The reasons may be perfectly obvious in the WP: NOTDIRECTORY deletion policy. But I don't want to have to look at the [emphatic word] policy before I figure out whether or not this is a reasonable nomination. And if the reasons are perfectly obvious, and do not bear repeating, there can [emphatic word] well be a template that recapitulates them. 0x69494411 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Stuartyeates after the refactoring of the title. Nymf _hideliho! 07:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above --The.Filsouf (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (also improve, and potentially split to specific pages; each category may deserve its own list). Look at the relevant guidelines WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Stand-alone-lists: the only guideline could potentially be violating is being a "list of loosely associated topics". Reading the description, this isn't a loosely associated collection of quotations, aphorisms, or persons. In fact, in my opinion definitely falls under "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." A listing of free software is a strong association, in my opinion. Jimbobl (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've improved the first table substantially and would appreciate feedback. I envision all the other sections being merged into the same table. Non-notable software would be removed. Not sure about the hosting column. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion. See WP:SAL. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've pretty much finished my tidy-up. Feedback welcome, as always. Some info is still missing, but the conversion is complete and the purge of non-notable entries is done. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clearer nomination statement might have made a better impression on participants and set a better stage for discussion. Lists can make perfectly valid encyclopedic content, some even get to featured status. For whatever reason, much better after renaming and cleanup. Nice work, User:Stuartyeates and others. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Petrović (footballer)[edit]

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

Non notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Member of Serbian SuperLiga champions. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per this, he hasn't actually played in a fully-professional league yet, has only played in the Serbian First League, meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If and when he makes his debut for Partizan, he will meet WP:NSPORT, but until then this footballer fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, suggest author keeps the article in user space until he makes his debut for Partizan and then will meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Adam4267 (talk) 14:52, 12 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 as obvious self-promotion

Cory Basil[edit]

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

Neutral nomination to address the concerns brought up in proposed deletion: "Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:N." Proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article as it stands clearly fails to establish notability: he was "working on a full length album with the name yet to be released" and was "shopping a publisher" for his book of poems. However, it is also clearly out of date, little changed from when it was posted (by an SPA) in 2007. He might have achieved something since then, but searches do not find any evidence of that, only Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and the like - no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Worldcat and Amazon show no evidence that he found a publisher; Allmusic does not show any album. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nothing notable comes up with a Google search. Seems as if it may have been created as self promotion originally, although there is no way for me to know this for sure. ℥^nding·start 03:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - extreme case of non-notable person with nothing resembling an assertion of notability, much less any actual evidence of same. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS (no sources at all); WP:INDY (a Google search found nothing of an independent, reliable nature); and WP:PEOPLE (nothing in the text of the article suggesting any sort of notability). Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:46, 8 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 salt. KuyaBriBriTa's comments about BLPPROD process are, I note, correct, the BLPPROD could have been readded to this article. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Sneijder[edit]

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

Appears to fail wp:athlete as hasn't played yet. Prod contested Ged UK 20:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps salt, as this article has been deleted three times in the past (twice via speedy and once with the BLP prod). No evidence of notability, no citations, and its a borderline candidate for another speedy. This is an example of why a BLP prod shouldn't be removed with the addition of nonreliable sources (in this case, a link to a forum). Them From Space 21:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I agree with the SALTing suggestion as well. Giant Snowman 14:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played at a fully-pro level yet. Lack of significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 14:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced BLP about a footballer who fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Without significant coverage, or an appearance in a fully pro league, he does not meet our inclusion criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: This was not a contested prod; the article creator removed a BLP prod tag after adding an unreliable source (i.e. a link to a forum). The BLP prod tag should have been re-added (and if I had noticed it first, I would have done so) since per policy the tag can be re-added if no reliable sources are added to the article. But what's done is done, and AfD is more than capable of adjudicating this. Delete as failing WP:NFOOTY and WP:BIO. Salt due to repeated re-creation; protection can be lifted if and when he meets criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:02, 8 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. However, I would recommend starting a discussion at Talk:MTR on whether or not to merge these station articles to MTR or to a list article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longhua Station[edit]

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

After two contested dbs, I have come to this, the article does not provide encyclopedic value to wikipedia as its context and content is limited, the articles subject's notability is also mininal, not to say right ahead null Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Transportation; metro stations have consensus notability. The subject of the article is a station along Longhua Line, Shenzhen Metro and is no less encyclopedic than any other member of Category:Shenzhen Metro stations. Admittedly needs to be sourced and expanded, but this is essentially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it was a case of WP:ILIKE or WP:IDONTLIKE, I'd be writing it on my nomination argument which I didn't, but even though most of railway and subway lines survive AfD, station does not, there are many thousand of stations throughout the world, the case is, is this station relevant enough to be featured within Wikipedia, in Brazil, more specifically Salvador, there are several Railway/Subway, so if we have consensus notability I should create an article for every single one of them. The consensus exist, but there is a specific guideline about it, is it notable enough to have its own article? Why can't it be a part of the Metro's article? If there is enough external reliable source to provide context and content, which I steadily thought it would miss, it must be kept, otherwise it has to be deleted. I'm convinced that we don't have enough WP:ATT information about this station to write a comprehensive article about this station. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see any reason to argue against [Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Transportation]]. Some articles will always be short. Its like inhabited places. There's just a general consensus that places inhabited by people which are officially recognized as being towns, villages, etc are notable enough to keep, but some of them are so unremarkable that only a few paragraphs will ever be written about them. go with the flow. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with Eduemoni, that stubs should be deleted but after reading Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations, I have to defer to WP:GNG which requires that reliable sources discusss the subject in some detail. In general I'm for subway station articles, but I'd put the minimum notability requirements a little bit above what this article demonstrates, but the article can be expanded. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A good stub is a deleted stub, why maintain something that cannot grow beyond stub level? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A subway/metro station has been agreed to be notable. If you don't like stubs feel free to add some more information. See Shin-Hōsono_Station as an example of a medium size station page. In the time spent to nominate it and argue for deletion, you could maybe have expanded it to this size. Francis Bond (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stations on notable metro systems are inherently notable, so yes we should ultimately have an article about every station on the network. There is no deadline though, so it is not incumbent on any one editor, including yourself, to create them. Thryduulf (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A fallacy is being propagated here, while Railway and Subway articles are inherently notable, stations are not as per Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations. The article is not going to meet what is required by this guideline as I mentioned before, so it fits better being written into its main article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Metro station in city of over 12 million. Per long-standing convention, such stations are considered inherently notable. It's absolutely impossible for such a major project to be planned, built and completed without extensive government proposals, surveys and reports. The contesting of the dbs were warranted.--Oakshade (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; others have pretty much said it all. Precedent, if not written policy, has established notability for metro stations. Oakshade puts it well. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no trouble with the creation of the article, but it should contain more information than one line that states thet "the station is a station". C'mon now, if you support this article expand it in some way. You've talked the talk - now do the walk - or delete for incompetence. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is this precedent? I have difficulty believing that a sufficiently large number of sane wikipedians all agreed that stations are all notable by definition, regardless of how few sources are available. Arguing that previous stations have survived AfD is just a circular fallacy. This particular station falls far short of the GNG; delete it. bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG isn't the only determinant on whether we should have an article about something. WP:FIVE states we incorporate elements of a Gazetteer, which this article seems to satisfy.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is why I started this AfD, I know that this article won't go beyond stub level. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 11:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a problem? Do all articles need to be lengthy? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something that can't be lengthy, does not have enough background/notability, and is also something which cannot be well sourced, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy that articles don't have to be perfect - WP:IMPERFECT - and that Wikipedia is always a work in progress. In fact if a Korean language editor takes the time to do some research, like with any city metro station, there's plenty that can be written about this station. What's the history? What's the architecture like? Are there any transit connections? What's the ridership? Any notable events take place at the station? See Hollywood/Vine (Los Angeles Metro station) as just one of hundreds of examples of how a metro station can be "lengthy". --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MemoQ[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Also entirely unreferenced advertising: a translation environment tool created by Kilgray translation technologies which contains a number of features to enhance the translation process for both translators and project managers.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability Dialectric (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the topic is notable, [5] the article is useless mud. Can't even tell what this is about. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article seems to have been created for sole promotional purposes. I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo that could help this article on an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - there are some books listed here, but it's hard to tell how much of this is spam from the creators of the software that got copied uncritically into the books. Maybe it's just one of those things where people spammed everywhere. Linguogeek (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Of the first ten hits in that search, three appear to be self-published and six appear to be false-positives (either character-recognition errors or unrelated words/names). That leaves one of ten possibly relevant and reliable, apparently (going by Google Books' snippet view) a passing mention in MultiLingual, which looks like a computational linguistics publication. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 10 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) 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mp3.bc![edit]

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

Non-notable BitTorrent file extension. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of third-party sources, as I didn't see any good sources that could be used here on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be really WP:USEFUL information, but does not cite any reliable source; neither could I find any. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:12, 9 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. SNOW close, self admitted I made it up one day, no conceivable chance of keeping DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Time Unit[edit]

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

A search of legitimate physics-related material (i.e., using Google Scholar and Google Books) reveals this term is rarely if ever used, and the definition (i.e., the specific value) given does not appear to agree with any of them. The only source which seems to support this particular definition is the external link provided, which appears dubious as a reliable source; all other references I find to this particular definition appear to be mirrors of that site and/or this article. Kinu ^t/_c 19:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Your reference to "legitimate physics-related material" seems inconsistent with the concept of Wikipedia. As I understand your proposal to eliminate my definition of the NTU. You state that it is “rarely if ever used” and that “does not appear to agree with any of them”. Does the amount of references make something useful. You say that the other sources do not agree with my definition. However you do not state that my information is correct or not correct.

I created the idea of the NTU back in December 2nd 2005. I published it in the

http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php?word=nt

NTU (abbreviation) : Nuclear Time Unit The amount of time required for a beam of light to travel, in a complete vacume, the distance equal to the diameter of the hydrogen atom. The value is omitted here because the diameter of the hydrogen atom and the speed of light are matters under consideration by science.

That ship is moving at 700,000 NTU's a second. (very slow). I am 768T NTU's old.

Submitted by: Dale Noble from Florida on Dec. 02, 2005 17:23

So thanks with your help in the destruction of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalenoble (talk • contribs)

I take it you admit that you created this definition then? If not, please provide at least one reliable source that supports this definition, not your submission to an open dictionary project or one of the many mirrors that have picked up on this ~~possible~~ blatant hoax article. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:COI. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Delete (provisional). It does not appear that this definition-related neologism is notable. This term needs to have been reviewed by multiple, third-party (i.e not self-published), reliable sources. I am willing to change my !vote if such sources can be provided, but right now the only "source" is an open dictionary defintion posted by the creator of this article. Note to Dalenoble: I am not disputing that one can divide these two values to produce a new value. The issue is whether the term / name you have given to such a value meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Singularity42 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Original research, probably made up in the playground or Speedy delete as per db-hoax. The sentence "The value is omitted here because the diameter of the hydrogen atom and the speed of light are matters under consideration by science" is a dead giveaway; the speed of light is known (299,792,458 metres per second). Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:28, 7 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 issue of redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gishiri[edit]

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

Article is a desambiguation page for pages with does not directly use the word to be accessed. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It a perfectly reasonable disambig page. Peacock (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You could've just, you know, fixed that instead of going the extra mile to chuck this on AFD. The page has now been properly fixed, making the nom's argument moot. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gishiri Cutting (which BTW should be renamed Gishiri cutting). Wikipedia is not a dictionary (much less a Hausa one), so that rules out the first entry. The only other one is a redlinked village. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. --Dia^ (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Clarityfiend. Dabbing pages that may mean words in other languages doesn't hae a precedent as far as I know. If the article for that village is created, then a hatnote can be used. sonia♫ 07:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 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. This article is almost identical to the previous version deleted at AfD, so a G4 speedy is appropriate here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Roux[edit]

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

Recreation of deleted article about minor actor Ebyabe (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still nothing to show notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:25, 7 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 Mass redirect to List of Star Wars books#Fate of the Jedi. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse (Star Wars novel)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Can't find sources to provide background or further details about this article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a series article on the books. If it's an announced sequel in a notable series, then it may very well be a reasonable search term, but that doesn't mean we need an article on a book that won't be out for a year or so. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fate of the Jedi. If you look here, there's an entire list of similarly unreferenced entries on each novel. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 16:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closure comment - I'm redirecting each of the novel of these series as well as the main article of it to List of Star Wars books#Fate of the Jedi. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:13, 10 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 Withdrawal by nominee. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Convention Centre[edit]

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

Non notable building, wikipedia is not a catalogue or list for every building in the world. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been significant media coverage of the building and of the events that have taken place there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nonsensical nomination that just throws up some wiki-cliché and has nothing to do with the reality of this topic or article. Even just by the coverage already linked in the article demonstrates the topic easily passes WP:GNG with very in-depth coverage by secondary sources. If the largest convention center in South Australia is considered just like every other building in the world, this project has got problems. And due to AfDs like this, it does.--Oakshade (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unquestionable noteability of article nominated to AfD by likely uninformed overseas reader. Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced article, period. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very significant building, well covered by reliable sources. - Bilby (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Australian State capital convention centres could be said to have notability from the amount of effort that the state governments put in by investment and effort to sustain their capacity to achieve iconic status within the CBD's - each state centre has a significant story - even if the adelaide story hasnt been expanded much in this article - there is nothing to prevent an enterprising editor to actually take the trouble to go beyond the current bare bones of the article, a dig around trove might help Satu Suro 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems pretty notable to me. Can't see why it ended up on AFD. Calistemon (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep signficant and notable building. Since initial AfD nomination the article has been referenced. Dan arndt (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major and well-known building in the city of Adelaide. I've got no doubt that the Adelaide Advertiser newspaper and other local media will have covered its construction and history in detail. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ridiculous nomination. Close already please. No, it's not the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty, but it's still notable. --Merbabu (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article obviously needs to be expanded, but what we have so far is attributed to reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's notability. Nightw 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article that just needs some work done on it (expanding, copy editing, ect). Bidgee (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal comment - When I nominated the article it was not vandalized or emptied, I made a superficial research through google and I only found closely tied or unreliable references, then I thought it be nominated because I thought it was non notable, which is not the case, its nomination was a good thing for both, the article and me, article got proper attention and I learned from this mistake. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achille Campion[edit]

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

Non notable athlete, seems a mix of ONEEVENT, he plays in a minor sport group and I couldn't find reliable and third-party sources that would show how notable he is. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no evidence of significant coverage and he has not played in a fully pro league. Therefore, he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:44, 8 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 (CSD A7). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Andrew's Junior College Cricket[edit]

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

This is a college cricket team which has historical or modern claims to notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIN. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to http://www1.moe.edu.sg/contact/vol38/in&around-story-1c.htm and http://www.standrewsjc.moe.edu.sg/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajccricket2011 (talk • contribs)
Comment - You have provided a link to ~~co-curricular activities at the college~~ to an article talking about the formation of the college cricket team - this does nothing to assert notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ignorant Armies^?! 10:41, 8 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit Delbecq[edit]

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

I fail to see how this pianist is remarkable. None of his discography appears to have Wikipedia articles, the tone isn't correct for Wikipedia, and I'm not even sure if it's a BLP because no life span info is given. Nathan2055 ^talk 18:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of coverage, some is listed below. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Benoît Delbecq sur des textes de Cadiot", Midi Libre (in French), 15 February 2008

"Ce soir, au Vallon du Villaret Du jazz, d'accord, mais en exploration Benoît Delbecq et les musiciens, à la rencontre des élèves", Midi Libre (in French), 13 June 2008

"Le Petit Faucheux confie les clés à Benoît Delbecq", La Nouvelle République du Centre Ouest (in French), 19 January 2011

"Benoît Delbecq", Libération (in French), 5 September 2003

Chinen, Nate (18 October 2010), "New CDs", The New York Times

Ratliff, Ben (20 June 2005), "Listen Here!", The New York Times

Keep Interwikis now added. Article needs cleaned and referenced better but there are books such as Alyn Shipton in the "Continuum encyclopedia of popular music of the world" where the subject is discussed as a notable practitioner. AllyD (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It looks better, I think with a lot of cleanup it could be converted into a good stub. --Nathan2055 ^talk 16:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: According to a discussion on my talk page with the creator, it appears the article was created against the policies WP:CITE, WP:BLP, and WP:COI. I still think the article may have future, but it needs massive edits. --Nathan2055 ^talk 20:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: There have been massive updates since the nomination, so I think it should be kept. --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 20:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warrior Nun Areala characters[edit]

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

Total fancruft for a series of only questionable notability. Might belong on an Antarctic Press wikia, but not here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:Not notable for a highly sourced article such as this is a weak nomination rationale. A search that took all of two seconds shows articles written about the comic in USA Today, the Hartford Courant, the San Antonio Express-News, and 1Up.com of IGN Entertainment. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 22:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider alternatives: 1) If the series is NN (it does, in fact, appear notable) then AfD the series and its list of characters at the same time, since a character list's notability is dependent on the source work of fiction. 2) If there is extra stuff in this article, clean it up in place, or 3) Consider merging the core character content into the main article if that wouldn't create an unbalanced article or one which violated WP:SIZE. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 8 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 as blatant advertising, no assertion of notability.

Diachronic (software)[edit]

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

Promotional article for a software of little notability. No references, no significant coverage. Google search on Diachronic "Giovanni De Donà" shows only 11 unique results, mostly domain registrations. A search on Diachronic "Andrea Agostini" shows only this article. Already speedied once, with a second WP:POINTy stub deleted as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note As the admin who deleted the pointy iteration of the article, and who also removed the third DB tag, if the article shows no improvement in the next 24 hours, I have no objection to deleting it again. I decided to give the editor who created the article some room since it appeared that they do not have a strong grasp of written English, but I've yet to see any improvements, and as MikeWazowski points out, the available online references to the article's subject are limited at best. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - poor prose that reads like an advertisement, lacks relaible sources, and appears to be non-notable subject at this time. Doc Tropics 18:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as advertisement and no indication of notability, or even a hoax.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable software. But Jasper, it was trivial to find that it's about www.diachronicmusic.com (advertising not hoax). DMacks (talk) 17:49, 9 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. Can be userfied on request. The opinion by Bogdan Nagachop is not taken into account because it does not address the reason for deletion - nobody proposed to delete the list because it concerns a topic related to Iran. Sandstein 05:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of the localities around Tehran[edit]

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

Disorganized, unreferenced, unverifiable. I can find no references to use to clean it up (that is, verify entries, explain/remove duplicate entries, and fix disambiguation links), so I don't see any value in keeping it around. JaGa^talk 17:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is bias. Only because the list is from Iran is no reason to delete. You can improve and request that sources are added. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:WIKIHOUNDING, Bogdan. This is becoming inappropriate. --JaGa^talk 18:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that YOU bring that in, you hounding me: [6], [7] [8], [9] ... and because you disagree with my edits you go to make a SPI case [10]. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JaGa grew up in the US. A list like List of inner suburbs in the United States with as of today [11] weird sorting seems to be ok. And there is a whole category with more than hundred lists: Category:Lists of places in the United States -- Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bogdan Nagachop has been identified as a sock of indef banned user Tobias Conradi. --JaGa^talk 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; per nom - very disorganised and little obviou scope. No sources provided and the vast majority of locations have no article - nothing to indicate this is a notable topic on which to have a list. I generally approve of listing geographical locations but this is unrecoverable. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The user is from the UK. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, it is not helping your point. Instead perhaps you could take the time to provide a source.... --Errant ^(chat!) 13:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inclusion criteria is far to broad. Localities disambiguates to human settlement which has no (min.) specified size ??? Many of the listed 'localities' are in other provinces, which is against the norm for other 'List of villages near X' type Articles. (eg. Garab is 3 provinces away?) I would not be against Userfication until such time as it is ready for ArticleSpace, but right now its just not telling accurate information. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Garab link is wrong, there are several Garab in Iran. You seem not to know much of Iran toponomy. IMO anything outside Tehran Province should be removed. Data for county should be added to all locations. Instead of voting for deleting content you could have helped to make Garab a dab for these items:
- Garab, Lorestan one of several places in Iran named Garab
- Garab (barangay) in Iguig, Cagayan, Philippines
- Garab Dorje
Why not help to grow content? Why this biased deletion of a Iran-related list? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the title, I would guess the list to be composed of populated places nearby Tehran, but the list is categorized under Category:Neighbourhoods in Tehran. Clicking on some of the blue links, it looks like it includes both. A list of named places within Tehran, whether districts of the city, neighborhoods, etc., would seem to be verifiable. But absent something like a metropolitan area concept, "around Tehran" is too ill defined to be the basis for a list. A better task might be to focus this list on populated places in Tehran Province, with links to lists of populated places in neighboring provinces. That would accomplish what this list is attempting without leaving inclusion criteria up in the air. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ok, the list is pretty darn awful, but the solution is not to blow it up. Recommend trimming down to existing articles per Wikipedia:WTAF. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, with that number of redlinks, it would be easier to delete and start over using Category:Populated_places_in_Tehran_Province as the start point. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A list of municipalities in a defined province area might be better, but it's too late now to do that without basically remaking the list - which most of us couldn't do. But if someone could put a DEFINITION at the top of the list - how close is "around Tehran", or how else were the municipalities chosen? - it would be easier to defend keeping this. Wnt (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Looking at the first version of the page, someone copy/pasted a list of localities from God knows where. This might as well be renamed "List of localities in Iran". I have no strong opinion on keeping/deleting. If this was better organized, people would feel compelled to write articles in the red links. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy then delete. All unenhanced lists, regardless of their content, are totally pointless, and given the opportunity I would delete them all. They create maintenance work without adding value. This particular list has the additional problems of containing mostly red links, and being loaded with multiple duplicates. Category:Populated places in Tehran Province is the correct platform for this information. Any future list should be planned as a structured resource including demographics, history, etc, but that should be a low priority given that the few existing articles in this list appear to be minimal stubs. Userfy this list to support article planning. Rubywine . talk 12:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates@home[edit]

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

This fails WP:N and is unsourced except for the official website. An IP on the talk page even asked, "Is this notable enough for an encyclopedia?" Joe Chill (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Product doesn't seemed to have gained media attention, as I didn't find any sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the other non-notable research projects being cleaned up. Perhaps a mention could be made in the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing article. But the project seems almost a joke, as it says on the web page: "...we are just having fun testing BOINC." W Nowicki (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add the {{BOINC projects}} needs to have a thorough cleaning, removing all the red links. W Nowicki (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability;only one reference which is a 1st partyCurb Chain (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing all tests of notability. Even the official site is now a deadlink. BusterD (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education loans: How to plan and manage loan repayment[edit]

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

This is just a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. Per WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO, it should be deleted. Deli nk (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT. Completely unverifiable original research. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 17:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, I'm afraid. Also, I don't see any way of turning into an acceptable encyclopaedic article. Maethordaer (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy?) delete: Obviously not an encyclopedia article, and I can't see anything to be salvaged for an encyclopedic article. It's a biased, completely unsourced how-to. --KFP (contact | edits) 03:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not bad advice, but I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia. Hopefully someone will explain the rules here to the creator of the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not something that should belong on Wikipedia but rather a magazine for students or something like that. Its not giving facts, its giving advice.Naomib1996 (talk) 13:14, 11 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 Jamie Zawinski. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zawinski's law of software envelopment[edit]

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

This one-liner doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own article D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep tons of google hits seem to indicate widespread acceptance of this humorous eponymous "law" of software development. It's not as notable as the Pareto Principle or Brook's Law but it does seem to have notability b the number of people citing it. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (again). Why are we resurrecting old merges from 2007? Speedily merge it again with Jamie Zawinski. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another editor noted that the content had been deleted from the target article and reverted the merge. If the content gets reverted from the target article, it means it shouldn't have been merged in the first place. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually the content was (partially) moved to Wikiquote. Nevertheless, still no need for this stub and it can easily be merged. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge although the Jamie Zawinski article needs help too. Sure, more reliable and independent sources would be better, but take what you can get and resonable compromise (we are not the US congress?). W Nowicki (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Senan[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for over six years. I'm unable to find reliable, secondary sources which verify the existence of or evidence the notability of this musician. Potential for notability if the claims can be verified. Have attempted sourcing in English and Arabic but I don't speak the latter and it's quite possible such data exists, additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reliable sources are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced BLP. I'm not seeing any assertion of notability on the page. No prejudice against re-creation if sources become available, but after six years, maybe they're not out there. BusterD (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. THis is a WP:BLP that contains not one reliable source at the end of the AfD, which makes deletion mandatory. Can be editorially redirected if mentioned in the target article. Sandstein 05:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Pitts[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Prod contested. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Most of this person's work seems to be for supporting cast, however he does play a major character in Peach Girl. Playing a significant part in a notable series, makes you notable. I believe being an ADR Engineer in two notable series is a significant role as well. Has a long career in a large number of notable series.

Dream Focus 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ENT. I don't see where it says that dubbed shows don't count in the sentence, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The dubbed anime is notable as well not just the original. Joe Chill (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Peach Girl (see the discussion below, I think the reasoning for the change will be clear.) Doesn't pass WP:ENT until and unless it's reliably sourced, since WP:NRVE. Further, WP:ENT is part of a larger set of statements which is introduced by the following paragraph:
People who meet any of the following standards are likely to meet the over-arching general notability criteria. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. This standard is a "shorthand" approach to avoid extended discussions where a reasonable presumption exists that sources may be found.

Thus, WP:ENT is a "shorthand", and the lack of verifiable sources, as per policy is an overriding factor. As I have been unable to find reliable, secondary sources as required, I am left at delete, but additional sources are, as always, welcome. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That bit was added in by Aaron Brenneman a few weeks ago, and has been removed and readded by different editors, without any consensus that it should be there. I just removed it again. [12] You can't just decide that all secondary guidelines are meaningless after all these years of them being used. Dream Focus 09:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I was unware of that, thanks for the correction. I don't believe, however, that that applies to WP:NRVE, which is, as far as I know, still guiding. For the record, I didn't "just decide" that notability requires verifiable evidence, instead, that has always been my understanding of the meaning of the policies as a whole. I understand and respect that you disagree.

Moreover, accepting the wording change that you made entirely, I still read the text that's present above WP:ENT the same way I did before. From my reading of policy, you have reverted a change which is clearer, but no different in meaning, than what existed before. I suspect we disagree on that, too. *shrug* --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Not certain when that was added. But check the top part of that page. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." Dream Focus 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are several conflicting principles in our guidelines, to be sure. That's why we get to have so much fun here! :)

I first remember ending up on the other side of a WP:NRVE argument some months back, so I don't think it's recent, but I haven't checked the history. It seems to me to be a very logical corollary of WP:V. I don't believe that a claim of notability under any guideline is meaningful unless it could be backed by a reliable source, and one that's clear enough that there's no doubt as to it's meaning. To make a silly example, if I write an article on myself that says "I'm the queen of England", or "I'm the best photographer in the world.", that's all well and good, but it's a claim of notability, not notability itself. And it's the actual notability that confers the presumption of keeping an article, not the claim of it, in my view. Note that that's still quite different than saying that SNGs have no meaning, since there's no requirement here that the coverage be in-depth, independent, and so on, save to the extent that you need those attributes to really reliably verify the claim. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to prove the information is valid under the policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY of course. But primary sources are fine for that, as long as you have no valid reason to doubt it. WP:ENTERTAINER says that voice actors are notable if the person "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Is there any doubt the person has met this requirement? Is there any sincere doubt that the information about what characters they played on what series is not accurate? Do the credits in the series, as well as the official website listing the cast, and even Amazon and other places that sell it listing this person in the series they were in, not prove without any reasonable doubt they were in them? [13] See? Check the Amazon "Product Details" section for one of the series he's been in. Name right there. Dream Focus 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENTERTAINER #1 requires not only that the person have a role in a series (and yes, primary evidence seems fine to me as far as that goes), but also, as the quote you provide notes, that the series is notable and that the role is significant. The series are notable enough. Are two or more of the roles significant? I could be convinced, but I actually did try and look, and I didn't get the impression that most were. I attempted to go to the primary article for every work in Pitts' filmography and searched for the character name we list, I figure significant roles are probably mentioned at least once in the series plot summaries, that seemed a reasonable guess. I got hits on two, Kairi in Peach Girl (which sure looks significant) and a single episode appearance in Mushishi (which doesn't, at least the role doesn't) The Pitts article lede suggests the School Rumble role, which again, doesn't list the character or the actress in its main plot summary, and in the separate list of characters, relegates the role past the "primary" and "secondary" characters to "other characters" past around, making this role a foreign-language dub of a voice acting role of the, at best, sixteenth or so most important character in the series. Would be your choice for (after Kairi) the second most significant role after Kairi, or is there another role I should be looking at more carefully? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my first comment in this AFD, his roles in Initial D and Peach Girl are the two which had a significant role that I found after some searching. Also, if the places that sell something only list a few of the voice actors, then those they mention must do the significant roles/main characters. Dream Focus 00:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm out the door for the evening, but I'll look again at Sakamoto. That role is not, apparently, major enough to make the main Initial D article plot summary, but perhaps our article on Initial D is misleading. Will revisit in he morning. Thanks. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Initial_D_characters_and_teams#Sakamoto My mistake. The character was only in two episodes. List_of_Initial_D_episodes#Initial_D:_Fourth_Stage_.282004.29 Not all the teams are major to the series it seems. Many of his roles in various things are listed as "various voices", so he did a number of characters in a lot of the episodes for different series. That seems significant. Dream Focus 01:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I do want to look and see if there's more coverage on the role elsewhere. BTW, I did make a change above, while it's little comfort, I'm sure, at the very least there's more than enough for a redirect to Peach Girl. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any coverage other than brief credits. Appealing to subject-specific notability guidelines does not circumvent the fact that WP:V requires that there be independent reliable sources on the topic of each article. Hut 8.5 10:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not establishedCurb Chain (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhu Island[edit]

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

Contested prod. Needs reliable third party sources to WP:verify notability and provide some out-of-universe context, as required by WP:NOT#PLOT. Unless someone can write a real article here based on reliable sources that don't merely rehash everything in the game, this article will not meet our policies. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable outside the games. Fails basic WP:GNG. The few mentions are always bundled with the game and offer no real-world relevance. At the very best, WP:CFORK. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As is, there's virtually nothing there to begin with. Additionally, everything just said above me. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per everything above me. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:06, 8 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) • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wii Sports Resort where the most information can be found about it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If it can be expanded from just a list, I say keep. --Nathan2055^talk^-^review 02:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded to what though? The topic does not become notable depending on the article size. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if I got some sources, perhaps from the release of Wii Sports Resort? --Nathan2055^talk^-^review 17:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the topic in question is "Wuhu Island", not "Wii Sports Resort". If you get sources that cover Wuhu Island in detail, then go ahead and post them. But this AfD is because we can't find any significant coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know. I've started a userspace draft at User:Nathan2055/Wuhu Island. If I can get some sources, I'll open a deletion review and republish the article. Let's hope in the near future I can find some. --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 17:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afonso Busa Metan[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this poet. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any sources, as I didn't find any on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. If a neutral editor with no connection to the subject wants to write a sourced article then be my guest but this version isn't coming back. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Boss[edit]

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

No claim of notability made. Article seems to be self-promotion by the page creator. Bazonka (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if articles remains unsourced at end of AfD, weak keep if it at least some sources are added. While there is one external link, this is basically an unsourced BLP, so if someone doesn't bother to source this I think we should get rid of it and someone could recreate it if they actually provided sources. I'm not inclined to do the sourcing myself because I don't think we really need this article, but if it were sourced I would be in the weak keep camp. Boss has written a number of books and journal articles in peer reviewed journals, the latter of which have received some citation attention. Some of her work has also received popular notice, for example an article she wrote discussing the possible deleterious effects of the Santa Claus myth--hope I didn't ruin anyone's day with that reveal!--on children (see here for example). Boss is of marginal notability, but I think we could craft a verifiable article which discusses her work. If that happens then keep it, but if it still looks like it does now after one week then definitely delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent third party sources are required. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 11 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. Closed per WP:SNOW. Although only listed for a short amount of time, there has been very heavy, unanimous agreement to keep, with all contributors agreeing that the subject is clearly sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. There seems little point in keeping this running, when the riot is so high profile, and an obvious major event. If anybody objects to this closing, please leave a note on my talk page. I am also happy for it to be re-opened by others, if there is a strong feeling that it should be. TigerShark (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tottenham riots[edit]

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

It is not notable enough. if we add this to wikipedia then we will have to add about a hundred thousand more minor protests too. Pass a Method talk 15:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but for me this is an obvious keep. This easily reaches standards for notability - see major articles in every major UK media outlet over the last 24 hours. This is clearly notable by any reasonable standard. Palltrast (talk)Z
Keep In the context of things, this is a relevant article, sourced, balanced, and with a sound and reasoned structure. It has been well tendered and mostly kept civil both in the body text and talk pages. Given the historic context - riots in Tottenham in the 1980s - this new article works as a decent 'milestone' too. doktorb _words^deeds 15:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Per nom. Also it does not meet WP:GNG Pass a Method talk 15:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you intend to !vote? Your nomination already counts as one !vote. WWGB (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, your nomination counts as a delete !vote, so I've struck your second. Also, You might choose to re-read WP:GNG. Reso lute 15:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is on the front page of the BBC, and it getting ever increasing press coverage here in the UK, related to both the riots and what causded them (i.e. the shooting by police of a father-of-four). Giant Snowman 15:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wide-ranging sources satisfy the requirement of WP:EVENT. WWGB (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plentiful coverage, establishing notability per the main notability guideline, including internationally such as on the front page of CNN and ABC (Australia). Davewild (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This riot is front page news in the national press and obviously meets WP:GNG.ARK (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and please stop trying to delete this again and again There have been countless of riots and outbreaks on Wikipedia that have been making in the progress. Tottenham is just one of them. I remember when the 2008 Mumbai riots were happening, I followed it on Wikipedia quite well and everything worked. This article is so important and big. It shouldn't be deleted. I'm sorry but it's begenning to annoy me. Jaguar (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is also on Russia Today. It may take off in Brixton if informants are true, so waite a while to see if it goes off tonight or allied riots occer in Wood Green and Brixton. I say give it a week or two.82.14.54.17 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I sympathize with the nom's aim, as Wikipedia struggles to understand the difference between news stories of no historical significance, and those that are significant. But in this case, given the local history of the area and the worldwide coverage, I would suggest this is indeed a notable riot. Reso lute 15:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the main news item in the UK. Gfcvoice (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I generally prefer mergers for recent events like these that haven't demonstrated enduring notability, I can't think of an article to merge this into right now. Jim Sukwutput 16:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is firmly established. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Can someone please invoke WP:SNOW? This is the most serious civil disturbance anywhere on the UK mainland for many years, so it's obviously going to be both newsworthy and historically significant. Prioryman (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nominator states "It is not notable enough." Wikipedia does not have degrees of notability; it either is notable or it isn't. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:10, 7 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) 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coskel University[edit]

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

This seems to just be a small business. The sources provided seem to be press releases posted in blogs. Searches of Google News and Books didn't show any mention at all. Having said that I wish them well but their company does not seem notable enough by WP standards.BigJim707 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient mention in third party sources to meet notabilty requirements. Sources cited are all low quality. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: little evidence of significant independent coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Angles[edit]

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

Non-notable. One source doesn't mention the article's subject; the other source is the website for his self-published book. Lagrange613 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources cited do not establish notability for inclusion in WP by a long shot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither source even mentions his name and the article appears to exist purely for promotional purposes. Eeekster (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources, I didn't see any good sources on both Google and Yahoo aside from the LinkedIn, Facebook and Amazon. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^{[failed verification]} for the 1st reference, 1st party source for the 2ndCurb Chain (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (delete as speedy). Neutrality^talk 18:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaj Krishen Shah[edit]

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

This article hasn't got a single source. Also the notability of the person remains questionable Commander _{(Ping Me)} 14:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ZERO Google hits? Obviously not notable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable person. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. When I ran both a Yahoo and Google search, I only saw Wikipedia and a peoplesearch page. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above, no notability whatsoever. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:26, 9 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) 23:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alesso[edit]

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

Prod was removed. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tomas e (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly soes not meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:MUSIC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is under development and so is the artist just needs a little more time. Ballon d'or (talk) Ballon d'or (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third party sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is almost a CSD A1. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanklet[edit]

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

No indication of notability, the only result was from the Urban Dictionary and it was a vulgar term. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 13:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS (no sources at all:: Yes I agree the page lacks content but maybe redirect to sandal User:Aviation.expert 13:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anklet. There is actually a picture of the subject of this article on the page "Anklet". Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anklet. Good find, Ryan Vesey. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a picture of something that fits the description in the article Anklet, but neither in that article nor anywhere else is there anything that says it is called a "tanklet". Every indication is that the word was made up by the person who created the article Tanklet, who also put the word in a couple of other articles, perhaps as an attempt to popularise the word. Like Matthew Thompson I am unable to find any record anywhere of this word except in Urban Dictionary, which says that it means "testicle", which has nothing to do with the subject of this article. In fact I think the article could perhaps be speedily deleted as a hoax. There is no justification for redirecting to another article since the existence of the term is completely unverifiable. Indeed, since the word either doesn't exist or is so rare that it can't be found anywhere, if it were redirected then it would qualify for immediate speedy deletion as an implausible redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am fairly uncertain about what should happen to this article. I found a website selling tanklets here, but I also found out that the image I referred to is much more commonly known as a barefoot sandal. Etsy.com is the only website that appears to be selling them. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Ryan. I searched and failed to find anything about them, but you have done better. Well, clearly the word does exist, but it seems to be a trade name used by only one business, and I see no evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that redirects are cheap and there is obviously some, although very minimal, usage of the subject, would a redirect to either Anklet or Barefoot sandal be appropriate? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS (no sources at all, and I couldn't find anything relevant in a Google search); WP:V (can't verify without any sources); WP:INDY (no sources at all, thus no independent sources to substantiate notability); and WP:SPAM (the article is written like an advertisement). Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am withdrawing my recommendation to "Redirect" because it seems that this is a term created by an individual who makes and sells a handmade product on Etsy. The phrasing in this article and on Etsy are very similar, and we should not be promoting a neologism by a solo craftsperson. Etsy says, "It is so flattering on EVERY foot!" and our article now says "It is so flattering on EVERY foot". That being said, I wish the craftsperson well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Cullen328 and JamesBWatson. The similarities between it and the etsy site lead me to believe it is the company pushing their brand. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:41, 11 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 article is not very well-written but the subject is clearly notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. @pple complain 19:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming conspiracy theory[edit]

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

This article was kept under a thin criteria, and has really not gotten better. It is still a collection of partisan sources with thin primary backing sourcing, tons of OR, and after four years the issues still exist, pretty much untouched. I thought that maybe merger into Global warming controversy might be a good idea, but this is way too WP:FRINGE so that merging into that article would raise significant WP:UNDUE issues. This article is an aberration - even WP:FRINGE beliefs or views held by notable people doesn't mean these views are notable enough for their own article. Cerejota (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an ugly article and I don't like it, but it establishes that the concept of conspiracy theories concerning global warming are notable. BigJim707 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does, but even then that might be irrelevant - let me explain. Adoption of WP:FRINGE ideas on the part of notable individuals might be noted in their biographies, and the mere existence of conspiracy theories, even if mentioned in reliable sources, is not enough for an article. The bulk, the immense bulk, of those that question global warming do not do so via conspiracy theories, they do so by other means, and we already have a number of articles that deal with that, such as Global warming controversy. This article here serves as a dual purpose coatrack, one for the conspiracists to give wider audience to their loony tune ideas, the other for pro-climate change forces to discredit less loony skeptics. Both are terrible in terms of quality. Its is essentially a convergence POV fork from Global warming controversy, a result of the inability of editors to find WP:UNDUE solutions to WP:FRINGE ideas. In this case, notability - while not established in my view - is even irrelevant: we should delete coatracks, specially ones that are racks for both POVs, as they are hopelessly doomed to lack quality. As it stands, it should be mergesd into controversies with a heavy dose of WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE, but all efforts to do so meet no consensus because of the WP:COATRACK pov pushing, we need to put a stop to that for the sake of quality.--Cerejota (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "the immense bulk, of those that question global warming do not do so via conspiracy theories" The article quotes, among others, leading US Republican Congressmen, thinktanks such as Cato, prominent conservative newspapers and a number of individual scientists who are among the most prominent "sceptics". And that's just people who use explicitly conspiracy-theoretic language. Virtually everyone on the sceptical side embraced the conspiracy-theoretic interpretation of Climategate, even if they did not use the word. Can you point to prominent sceptics who simply assert that the results of mainstream climate science are the product of honest error? JQ (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article had barely been started when it was first brought to AFD four years ago. Consensus showed that the article was more than notable enough to warrant being kept, and I see no reason to overturn that consensus four years later. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question. There is obviously a very real and significant phenomenon whereby a large number of people hold that not only is anthropogenic global warming not happening, there has been some sort of conspiracy to pretend that it is. We should cover that somehow, though this article is far from ideal. I also see a problem in that Global warming conspiracy theory and Climate change denial are sort of talking about the same thing--obviously there are some distinctions--but largely from two different partisan perspectives. Has there been discussion about an article, perhaps of a completely different title, that would supersede both of these and be formulated neutrally to discuss the full range of AGW naysayers, be they "conspiracy theorists" or simply folks who don't agree with it? Obviously this would be a sub-article to Global warming controversy. I'm just curious as to how we got where we are--I know the infighting on this topic has been nuts--and if the debate about this particular article should maybe be part of a larger discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make clear I do not think that skepticism of the theory of global warming is WP:FRINGE. I think the conspiracy theories (which are a small sub-set of this skepticism) are. Since there are articles that already deal with skepticism, support, scientific views, and other long etcs, giving any kind of coatrack to WP:FRINGE ideas used mostly to defame one side or the other of the debate , we should delete. All merger attempts are met by heavy resistance from POV pushers, which is why I didn't start a merge discussion: this whole topic area needs a nice hard spanking, but while that happens, we should at least cull the coatrackcruft.--Cerejota (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you have things the wrong way around. Considered as a scientific theory, Climate change denial is WP:FRINGE. On the other hand, in political/cultural terms the Global warming conspiracy theory is a mainstream viewpoint, advocated by most right-of-centre political parties, commentators and news outlets in the US and many in other English speaking countries. JQ (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep WP:FRINGE applies to uncommon ideas being talked about by a few fanatics. Things like the time cube, or orgonne energy. This conspiracy theory is being talked about on TV news, on the floor of the US senate, it is as mainstream as a conspiracy theory can get. It has even more mainstream widespread support than 9/11 conspiracy theorism. It's obviously notable, obviously there's a lot of verifiable information, NPOV requires we report this ample acceptance accurately. HominidMachinae (talk)

Keep. Not the best written article at the moment, but the topic is covered by reliable sources as cited. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well supported article on politically significant phenomenon of spurious allegations that scientists reporting findings on anthropic global warming are conspiring to obtain funding. Considerable improvements are needed, but the article forms at least a basis for such improvements. . dave souza, talk 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a demotion to an article incubator. This article is incoherent, disorganized, badly written, and riddled with partisan opinions presented as fact. I've read it twice now, and I have no idea what it's trying to say -- except that climate deniers are wicked, and Exxon is eeevil. Try reading Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#Counterclaims_of_conspiracy, for instance: the body has (sfaict) nothing at all to do with the title, and the content is poor rehashes from other (bad) articles. This is an embarrassment to the project.

There are certainly people who believe that global warming is some sort of conspiracy, and probably some usable sources hidden in with all the coatracked politicking -- but ordinary readers who come to this article will quickly leave, shaking their heads. Needs a complete rewrite -- which won't be an easy task. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a notable mostly politically motivated conspiracy theory with valid references. As the topic area elicits strong feelings it will likely be a hotly disputed topic and suffer from POV pushing which results in some problematic content. As pointed out above, the article isn't perfect -- so fix it. Vsmith (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an extremely popular, and very notable, conspiracy theory, so well worth an article. The article is in bad shape, and in particular the section "Counterclaims of conspiracy" changes topic every few sentences, probably due to its strange title, which presumably has been interpreted by various editors to mean various totally different things. A merge with climate change denial may or may not be beneficial. In either case a lot of work is needed here, but not deletion. As always, adherents of this conspiracy theory are not all happy with the fact it is called a conspiracy theory and discussed as such on Wikipedia, but we don't have to make them happy. Hans Adler 15:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Both Hans Alder and Pete Tillman above mention the section Global warming conspiracy theory#Counterclaims of conspiracy. I do not see how it 'changes topic every few sentences', or see what is strange about its title, or how that could have been misinterpreted by various editors, i.e. any of the problems claimed. The article is about claims that a cabal of scientists have conspired to convince the world of global warming, when there is none. This section is about the counterclaim that in fact a cabal of global warming deniers have tried to convince the world there is no global warming, when there is. It goes on to quote Bruce Babbitt making that counterclaim, saying that oil and coal companies have joined in a conspiracy. It then cites Greenpeace's Exxon project, quotes from an Exxon statement, and gives further statements about Exxon from the Royal Society. Exxon is an oil company. The whole thing makes perfect sense and is well cited. I don't see a problem. Maybe the last two paragraphs could be merged as they're both about Exxon. --Nigelj (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I just tried to make sense of it again, & failed. Maybe because I'm not a full member of the Cabal?? Hans & I both agree, the article is in very bad shape. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overstating our agreement. Hans Adler 17:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw the section title, I had no idea whether it was (A) about the claim of a conspiracy to deny global warming, (B) about the claim that the topic of the article is not a conspiracy theory in the usual sense because the conspiracy exists, or some third idea I couldn't think of. So it's not a good title. Now let's look at the content. First sentence is about (A). Second sentence is off-topic. People who deny something that is obviously true (such as evolution or the Holocaust) usually do so without being part of a conspiracy, although they may have a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories (such as the global warming conspiracy theory, but not the "counter-claim"). The rest is on-topic, i.e. essentially about (A). Somehow I managed to misread the last paragraph, and I partially retract my comment. But apart from one explicit claim of conspiracy, the rest of the discussion is about essentially open industry lobbying, so the section is broken. Hans Adler 17:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe one day someone will produce a 'site map' of all the global warming articles. There's Climate change at the top, with Global warming (the current climate change) under that. Then maybe we have Global warming controversy below that, off to one side alongside many other scientific, social, political, economic and other high-level sub-articles. Under Global warming controversy we have a spectrum from current and past legitimate scientific and other academic controversies played out in peer reviewed journals at one end, through to the other end where this article and Climate change denial have their rightful places. We seem to be suffering from a small 'denial of the conspiracy theories' push from a few editors at the moment, but that does not change the facts as per the sources. There is not an article on Wikipedia that cannot be improved and updated, but there is no argument for deleting this. It is a notable topic that has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and is not excluded for any other reason. This attention can be shown by considering the evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers, as shown by the four dozen refs in the article at the moment, and many more to be found by simple searches. --Nigelj (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the very good reasons given by the person who proposed this deletion. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep When will people get it through their heads that lack of notability is the only acceptable reason to delete an article? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 17:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry but right now this just isn't Numberwang. However if sources turn up later we can "rotate the board". I'll be glad to userfy or incubate this article on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuned Out[edit]

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

Non-notable. The article is written by the show's director and star, Blairpeyton (talk · contribs), which raises obvious COI issues; virtually all of the (rather thin) sourcing comes from his own website. Prioryman (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No evidence of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources; the only secondary source presented is from a local newspaper. The accolades the show has won are also local in nature. Accordingly, there is no notability for the subject outside of that local scope. Additionally, the conflict of interest raises the question of whether this article exists just to inform or to promote the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little indication of wp:notabiliity given. But it looks like actual notability is a possibility. COI makes the neutrality of the article suspect but does not affect possible inherent notability. Give them a couple months to establish WP:notability, and re-nominate then if not fixed? North8000 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it's possible future notability. When I've searched for the show's title plus the director's name (because the title is a pretty common phrase), I get a limited amount of local press coverage. In this case, I think the better approach is give a couple month to establish notability, and let them (or better yet, an independent editor) recreate the article if/when notability is achieved and demonstrable. —C.Fred (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of general notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:53, 11 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. As User:Mtking correctly points out, there is a basic requirement that articles be verifiable and meet our notability guidelines. In the absence of reliable sources, the fact that a single paragraph is "still largely valid and useful" is irrelevant; there is no content which passes our most basic standard of inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major cricket[edit]

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

Essentially due to original research; the term has colloquial usage only. There are several issues with the article including its references to the Cricket Archive database which are now outdated since the database was revised in recent months. The first citation of the Australian site is false, again perhaps because of site update, and the reference is in any case about "quasi-official" status only. Although the historical notes are of interest, the source does not use "major cricket" in an official sense and speaks equally of "great matches" and "important matches": it is clear that the source is studying the evolution of village cricket into county cricket and not describing major cricket as a concept in its own right. The article is entirely superfluous and its import is misleading with the term being taken right out of its strictly colloquial context. Mike^(chat) 07:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the article clearly needs significant updating and revising now that CA no longer uses the term "major" for important matches prior to 1800 and has categorised some matches in the last few decades of the 18th century as first-class, but it seems to me that the lead paragraph in particular is still largely valid and useful. JH (talk page) 09:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the above by JH. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think my gut tells me to disagree slightly with my esteemed WP:CRIC colleagues. I too find the definition "It is more of a colloquial than an official term and it has tended to be used in recent years to equate List A limited overs cricket with first-class cricket" a bit wishy-washy. An encyclopaedic entry for a term which is largely used to sandwich List A and T20 cricket into the top-level of domestic competition just because the four-day stuff is called "first class" and that suggests that a gulf lies between it and the rest of domestic cricket? In the historical sense, it seems a fairly ill-defined quasi-serious way of including or excluding old matches in archaic forms from statistical evaluation. Then again my points are taking issue with the concept itself rather than the Wikipedia article, and that is not valid deletion rationale. If the movement to use this term in world of cricket and cricket history is significant, then the article should reflect that for it would be notable. So I'm gloriously sat on the fence (or the boundary). In either case, the article does need to be revamped because it doesn't make a whole lotta' sense. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JH. Needs revising, but there is still a point to it. Johnlp (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would seem that consensus among cricket project members is that the article should be kept but revised. It would be good to see what non-members think. Nevertheless, I will attempt to revise it myself but I suspect doing so will make it even briefer as it will be difficult to find offline sources. Cricket Archive is no longer a source and even the one source used in the article which still provides relevant information does not refer to "major cricket", though it does use terms like "top-class cricket" and "great (i.e., important) matches". --Mike^(chat) 20:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NEO and WP:OR. This article has worried me for ages - there's no secondary reliable sources which support the term and it appears to have been created as a convenience for Wikipedia or an editor. It is neither official or colloquial terminology. Moondyne (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable term. And per the infallible Dweller's law. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With out reliable secondary sourcing for this term it fails WP:V, so can we have some? else as WP:V is core policy it must be deleted. Mt king ^(edits) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Moondyne hit the nail on the head saying it is a convenience article. The only reference I found which even says "major cricket" is actually a list of major events; and, as I said above, the historical site referenced by the writer does not mention the concept in its description of cricket's evolution, a process which belongs in a cricket history. I can't find anything else that would qualify as a citation on Google and I do not recall the term being used in any book or article I have ever read except where "major" might be used purely as an adjective in the same way as "top-class", which is an equally occasional term. I have to say to Mtking that the article in my opinion cannot possibly meet the terms of WP:V. --Mike^(chat) 18:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEO and WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. Even the sources presented don't use the term. Only "The Cricketeer" seems to use the phrase "Major Cricket". While I have no doubt this is a useful historical term, I'm not seeing sourcing. Can we find some citation of contemporary common usage? As is, it appears to be something only in common usage amongst a very specialized group. BusterD (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. WP:NEO says it all with: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term". My italics. I believe this is exactly what the writer had in mind because otherwise the article has little point. Can we please have more views by non-WP:CRIC members? --Mike^(chat) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. @pple complain 19:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Olsson[edit]

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

Youth footballer who does not meet notability guidelines for footballers and does not appear to have achieved anything of specific note in the scheme of things. Completely unreferenced at tie of nomination. ClubOranje^T 07:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 14:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Another Arsenal youngster, give me strength. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced BLP. Subject does not appear to meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party referencesCurb Chain (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good day to die (film)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Only sources are MySpace and YouTube. —Mike Allen 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — —Mike Allen 04:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google fails to find anything, and the article is really badly made. Dengero (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 13:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NF. Maybe after this thing gets reviewed, but the best I can say for now is that it's simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. only sources are youtube and myspace which anybody could change and add Naomib1996 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Network Indicator[edit]

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

This tiny stub article has a very old stale merge tag, but no mention of this on the supposed destination article. There's very little context, so I don't even understand what this is. If there's nothing to say about this, we should just delete it, or redirect (don't merge, there's nothing here) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing even links here. I say delete it. — Dgtsyb (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like it is a few bits from the SS7 protocol. The protocol itself was very notable (very few last that long) but of course a few bits in it are not. Not worth a redirect either. W Nowicki (talk) 18:19, 8 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Ames[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article was speedy deleted in 2009. I PRODed the article but the author removed it (along with other tags.) The first sentence says that he is a highly ranked FIDE player, but the first reference shows no FIDE ranking or rating. The article mentions his "notable showing in the US Amateur Team East" and is referenced by #6, which lists two games - both loses. And being the 65th highest 16-yer-old in the US is not notable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as a chess player, and no other claim for an article is presented. Quale (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. I didn't find any good sources on both Google and Yahoo! aside from MySpace and his Linkedin page. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability; the significance of the cited sources is overrated. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable; agree with others. And the claim "child prodigy" from article origination equals unjustified promotion. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that such disambiguation pages serve a valuable function. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Elementary School[edit]

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

disambig for inherently nonnotable subject (elementary schools). the article titles linked to are not ambiguous. if they had sections in them on the elementary schools, i could see this as viable. but, of course, they dont, as the schools are not notable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From my understanding they don't even have to have Wikiheadlined "sections" on the elementary schools. As long as the school "belongs" to the district, it merits a redirect. No matter what it should be listed in its list of schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a valid disambiguation page. There's nothing wrong with pointing to the district pages that list a school with that name. LadyofShalott 03:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a valid disambiguation page. Needs to be rewritten to be clearer, perhaps something like "Alpine Elementary School" can refer to an elementary school in any of the following districts" Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Alpine School District (disambiguation) and keep about half of the entries, plus add a hatnote to Alpine School District. Dab pages are for articles or potential articles, and these elementary schools are unlikely to ever get to that stage. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know of some cases where people may be looking for a subject even if it's not likely to get its own article. I.E. children of major celebrities. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why rename? Per WP:AT, we're supposed to keep titles as simple as possible, unless needed to distinguish among topics. What does adding the extra bracketed word accomplish? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid disambiguation function. Casual users are not going to come here looking for a school district article, they're going to type in the name of the school and it is up to us to get them where they need to go. This does the trick. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The first line of WP:MOSDAB states "Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles". You and WhisperToMe are arguing that WP:ITSUSEFUL. On the other hand, there are two existing and two redlinked school districts, more than enough to justify a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION; if an "Alpine Elementary School" is mentioned in each of the linked articles, that's sufficient for inclusion in the disambig page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion indicates such disambiguation pages serve a useful navigation function. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crestwood Elementary School[edit]

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

inherently nonnotable subject (elementary schools), 2 are redirects now, 1 has not article (and shouldnt) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a disambiguation page, and if a school is "not-notable" it becomes a redirect to the school district page. From my understanding it's okay to use disambig pages like these to force people to view information within the school district articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know about that. I do wonder if its appropriate to have disambigs for redirects where the subject is mentioned only in very brief passing, as most elementary schools are at their school district articles. If others understand this better, and if its established policy, then i will go along with consensus.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on Whisper's comment and my own experience with school articles. Per WP:DAB, the page should link directly to the school district. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Valid navigational function. Casual users are going to come here looking for a school name, not a district name, and it is up to us to get them where they need to go. I have installed three proper dab links. I find evidence of the existence of two other Virginia schools which do not seem to be listed on WP district pages. I have linked these to their cities. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION; although, WhisperToMe, we are here to help readers find articles, not "force" them to read anything! :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A useful navigational tool as a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview Elementary School[edit]

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

all redlinks, for inherently nonnotable subjects (elementary schools), with the one blue link being a redirect already to the school district. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:DAB, the page should link directly to the school districts. Elementary schools themselves are not notable, but they are redirected to the district pages. Since many districts have a Fairview Elementary, it is a viable DAB page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This serves a valid navigational function, as users coming to WP are going to know a school name, not a district name. I started playing with this, saw there are 128 "Fairview Elementary Schools" listed on CLASSMATES.COM, and said: "This is somebody else's battle." This is fixable by the normal editing process and not reason for deletion, but make no mistake — disambiguation pages for common school names are going to be massive and time-consuming projects to build exhaustively. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments about hypothetical future notability were not substantiated and WP:CRYSTAL arguments are rejected by a mountain of AFD precedent. causa sui (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic police officer[edit]

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

Pure speculation about a subject that only exists in movies; sourced to a single speculative article. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If someone can find a lot of information through magazines, newspapers and other sources about robotic police officers in fiction, maybe this could be less about speculation and more about the robotic police officers in the movies. GVnayR (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Speculation can be accurate sometimes, if enough research is done. I have also added a reference from a book. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 06:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete sourced to a single speculative article, if more more quality sources were to be forthcoming then would consider changing. Mt king ^(edits) 06:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't a book count? -- $Σ talk contribs$ 06:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is valid. There's an abundant amount of movies/fiction that robotic police exist. Off the top of my head for now I can think of Wall-E, Doraemon etc etc. Dengero (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Robot. The article is just speculation about what future robotic police officers (RPO?) might be like, plus some examples from fiction. There is no overall discussion of the topic in the article or in the sources. BigJim707 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article should be improved. --Hydao (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rewrite: Keep the article, get rid of the speculation about real use in the future. /Julle (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the fictional examples are just that. Some are serious science fiction speculation and some are just cartoon characters. One mention in Robot or Robots in fiction would be enough to say that police work is one of the jobs fictional robots sometimes do. BigJim707 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fictional items and the speculation about real future developments are two entirely unrelated issues. This article lacks a unified topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL reads

Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.

This article is about the hypothetical use of robotic police officers in the future, not their use as a device in fiction. Two of the references are articles propose that robot police could be a reality in 75 years. If we want to write Robotic police officers in fiction then we should, but we shouldn't pretend that this article isn't pure speculation. --Djohns21 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't have to wait 75 years in order to write an article about robotic police officers. I waited 12 years to play Duke Nukem Forever (on any console/computer system) and the wait was almost brutal. It's time for Wikipedia to predict the technological trends of the future; not wait for them to unfold before writing articles about them. GVnayR (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it should be rewritten, and instead cover the use of them in fiction. /Julle (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of deleting it or changing the article name, I will remove all the speculation material immediately and keep only the informating regarding their use in fiction. Maybe this will be the perfect solution. GVnayR (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does a book written by a physicist who has interviewed many people who specialise in their field on their predictions make the material WP:CRYSTAL? What about other books?--

Σ talk contribs

04:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research ("could also be described as"), WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation ("as of 2011, X does not exist in reality"), and otherwise synthesis. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the ("as of 2011, X does not exist in reality") part of it. Now, the article shouldn't be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL ball anymore. GVnayR (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only shows how flimsy the article is. It's now a source to a movie review of robocop, plus a synthesis of unsourced statements about robot cops in other movies. This will never be anything more than what it is: a WP:SYNthesis of various observations users have gleaned from movies. WP:CANTFIX so delete. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's next? Robotic garbagemen (they had that in Wall-e)? Robotic whores (they had that in A.I.)? Robotic science officers (they had that in Alien)? The fact is, you can make a robot perform almost any job in the future, and futuristic robotic police officers aren't any more special at the moment than other robots. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except if a case could be made that the robotic police officer is in fact a recurring theme in fiction and speculation about the future, with certain implications regarding legal protection et cetera, in a way that isn't true for robotic garbagemen. /Julle (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not need an article to tell us that there are robot cops, and robot something others, in sci-fi films. Any content like this belongs on the list of fictional robots or in Robocop.There seems to be no third party coverage of the topic of robot cops as such, outside Robocop, so the subject fails WP:GNG. Sandstein 04:56, 15 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 Battle of Shubra Khit. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chobrakit[edit]

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

Article Battle of Shubra Khit also exists, and is slightly better (neither are great articles). I recommend deletion of Battle of Chobrakit and redirection to Battle of Shubra Khit to prevent recreation. Would do it myself, but it might be challenged without consensus. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 02:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No opinion about the best name for the article, but there doesn't seem to be a need for deletion. Just be bold and redirect the page, merging whatever content is appropriate. If someone objects, talk it out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect, as the proposer of this AfD stated, and assuming good faith that this is an honest statement, the two articles talk about the same event; therefore, the articles should be merged, with the reliably sourced content of the article that we are discussing be merged into the article. A terminology section should be added to indicate different names used for this same event. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect - per RightCowLeftCoast. Anotherclown (talk) 09:14, 12 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kooyumjian[edit]

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

WP:N -- Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this musical artist under WP:GNG nor are there claims of notability under WP:MUSICBIO. joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; references provided in article, and via a search for references via google did not bring up sufficient references from reliable secondary or tertiary sources that are sufficiently in depth to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Failing those it is doubtful the subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 11 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urges, A Chronicle of Serial Killer Larry Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable book, the article reads like advertising, the publisher of the book is a self-publisher. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google News shows only a few passing mentions of this book, rather than significant coverage such as detailed reviews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable book. I would have said to merge it to he serial killer, but he doesn't have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third party sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Substantial argument has been made this subject meets secondary criteria for football players and sports figures. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Doukas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christos Doukas

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

entirely unencyclopedic Polyklinj (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Polyklinj (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems that this person technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL simply because he has played in the Beta Ethniki. However, I could find no other significant coverage of this person anywhere else. Topher385 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL - I don't see what the issue is here. Giant Snowman 13:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as stated above, he has played in the Beta Ethniki and therefore clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He technically seems to pass WP:NFOOTBALL because he plays for Beta Ethniki (and apparently has actually played, not simply been on the roster). However, I'm disturbed by not being able to find any significant English-language sources via a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This player is regularly mentioned in the Greek-language media (but most of it appears to be routine coverage). If I knew how to look better, I'm almost certain I could find more substantive coverage (since he is a key member of a second level club). The article already passes NSPORTS, so it seems reasonable to keep it (and hope an editor with Greek-language skills can improve it). Jogurney (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:50, 8 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 WP:CSD#G7 per primary author Yosesphdaviyd's request. – Athaenara ✉ 04:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Gray[edit]

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

Apparent autobiographical article about an author/blogger of questionable notability. Article is largely referenced to primary or non-independent sources. Majority of books are self-published. Other than his conviction for theft, no real claims of notability, Google search shows no significant coverage, just simple listings of the books and/or social media sites. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to let this sit until my post on WP:N was resolved, but as I have been beaten to it, I would state (as with the Walkes article) that fraternal accomplishments by themselves are not enough to meet WP's notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANTS 1. Obviously it is not a person who ONLY has Masonic Accomplishment, unless you didn't read it. 2. Look at the statistic for Gray - he gets much traffic as other CATHOLIC Apologist, such as --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Akin --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Madrid --- and etc. 3. Only one book is self published - stop making false statements. 4. Just a search of David Gray Freemason or David Gray Catholic proves how notable he is - television, radio, books. 5. The References provided in this article substantiate every FALSE claim of advertising, autobiographical, original research, and self published sources, and lastly

Therefore, being that this person doesn't not have ONLY masonic accomplishments - MSJapan issue is resolved. As for MikeWaz - if you delete Gray then you have to Delete all the Other Catholic Apologist, who I modeled his article after. And again, if he wasn't as notable as the other Catholic Apologist then he wouldn't get more or as much traffic as they do. I'm an expert in Prince Hall Freemasonry - I know who is notable and who is not - Gray and Walkes are notable.--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Just because article X is deleted, it does not follow that articles Y and Z on similar topics should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per David L. Gray's "About Me" page, "In 2007 he was moved by the Spirit of God to take the new spiritual name 'Yoseph Miryam Daviyd'". Accordingly, it would appear User:Yosesphdaviyd has a conflict of interest with this subject. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing that comment: it looks like there was a COI noticeboard report filed, and the determination was that the user is not related. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred - No I think you are wrong. It does logically follow that if one person is deleted then all other perosns of equal or less notability, using equal google search standards, must also be deleted - otherwise it is prejudice. Next you must can't read very well - my handle is yosesphdaviyd - NOT yosephdaviyd or yosephmiryamdaviyd - moreover that issue has already been resolved. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:OTHERSTUFF is part of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, there is no requirement in Wikipedia policy to delete other related articles. Each article would, of course, be subject to nomination for deletion and consideration on its own merits, but there is no "precedence" to be gained from this deletion for that discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep without prejudice. Yosesphdaviyd does not present any compelling reasons based on Wikipedia's notability policy to keep the article. However, I do not think the nomination presents a compelling argument to delete the article. I recommend some time be given for expansion of the article and adding independent reliable sources. If, after a month or two, the article isn't significantly improved—if his notability is still in question or the article is still not well stocked with secondary sources—then let's bring it back to AfD. (Note: "without prejudice" is used in the legal meaning of the term; my intention is that if the outcome is keep, the outcome not be a bar to a re-nomination of the article a month or two down the road.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I don't have any issue with that finding, as according to the Wikipedia's notability policy, this person seems to 1. Ongoing Coverage (therefore not temporary) 2. Preexisting Verifiable Evidence (way more references used in this article than many I have seen for persons of this degree of notability) 3. References such as Masonic Awards and Trial that are independent of the subject, and 4. Clearly not a self-promotion. If this article is judge (not that it has to be) along with other Catholic Apologist then there is no reason why it should not stay. Thanks for fair treatment of a newbie on this one --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ongoing coverage? Where? His own website doesn't count. 2. Yeah, he did stuff, but there's no assertion of notability - Gray is not the only Freemason, or only Catholic apologist. Why is he notable? 3. Masonic awards do not meet GNG, they are secondary. Otherwise every "office worker by day and Grand Lodge officer at night" would have an article, and they don't and will not. Lastly, articles are not judged comparatively; they are judged on objective community criteria. From your statements here, you apparently do not understand how the deletion process works either. MSJapan (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since Yosesphdaviyd has accused me of making false statements in regards to the majority of Gray's books being self-published, let's look at the facts. According to the article, The Unveiling of the Third Preparation is listed as self-published. Dead on Arrival: The Seven Fatal Errors of Sola-Scriptura is published through CreateSpace - i.e., it's self-published. Cooperating with God: Life with the Cross and Cooperating with God: The Bridegroom's Prayer were both published by an outfit called Erehmai Uoyevoli, whose website (now defunct) was Erehmai.com. Guess what? That was registered to David Gray at [email protected] - obviously the same person as the subject of the article, so those two titles were also self published. Inside Prince Hall (listed twice in the article, but it appears to be only one book) was published by Anchor Communications, which is a publishing company that specializes in Masonic works. They appear to be a paid by the author/print-on-demand company, but let's give him this one as possibly not self-published. So, out of five titles, four are self-published. This is objectively a majority, therefore my original statement is categorically true, and not a false statement, as Yosesphdaviyd claims. So, Yosesphdaviyd - care to apologize? MikeWazowski (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MSJapan You seem to be making up your own rules for notability or focusing solely on the sub-set, as if you are the God of Freemasonry on Wiki - determining who is in and who is out. Here are the real rules:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. The foundation of notability rest in significant coverage and I have established that. The sources I cited were reliable. The sources I cited were secondary. Over 10 of the sources I cited were independent. Altogether notability can be a subjective issue on Wiki.

Response to MikeWazowski - You should to better research, Inside Prince Hall was published in both the USA and Australia (Anchor in the USA and ANZMRC down-under), and though they bear the same title are two different books. Clearly the company that published his two latest books doesn't have a web presence, but by virtue of him registering a domain name for it or even owning a publishing company doesn't mean it's self published. Granted, I do see your point, but your logic fails to create a solid case, and I don't live in assumption land - 'prove it or shut up' is my motto. With your case it is all circumstantial on the last two books, fails altogether on Anchor being a pay to print firm (they are NOT), and fails again on Inside Prince Hall being published once. Therefore, being that the statements you stand on are warm marshmallows no reason to apologize yet :) God Bless --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiiight - you just keep telling yourself that, David... I'll let the evidence (which I provided documented proof for) speak for itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:30, 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person's current position and his former jobs do not rise to the level of notability. Books are self-published, or not published by notable/reputable outfits. The editorial positions are for minor publications within the masonic organization, there are no reviews of the books, and the only reliable bit of information is the court case--but that is primary, legal information, which we don't allow in BLPs. None of the biographical information that the subject deems important to his career right now are properly referenced--in short, this is a resume-style BLP for a non-notable person. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked for evidence of notability in the article and couldn't find it - not in the books published, not in his criminal record, not in his blogging and not in his media interviews. St Anselm (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, apparently autobiographical article from a limited-purpose account which has been abandoned by the editor.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:10, 7 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 Exosquad. There is a clear consensus here that the subject doesn't warrant a standalone article. I'll leave the history intact in case someone thinks there's anything here worth merging. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-frame[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of direct and detailed coverage to WP:verify notability, as required by the general notability guideline. This is basically a list of in-universe specs on fictional robots, held together by a barely-related quote where two corporations were arguing about who should pay costs, with the actual lawsuit about the toys being completely insignificant. Lawsuit doesn't address the toys directly in detail because it's not really about the toys, and even if it did it would be just one source that doesn't justify a comprehensive article listing every toy in the lawsuit. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is basically just retelling the fictional details of the series. Better on a fan site since it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. Even if it had sources it would still be too much in-universe detail. There seem to be other articles related to the series with the same status. Borock (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Exosquad and be done with it. --Koveras ^☭ 08:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too in-universe. There's no indication that coverage of such universe-only detail is in any way notable, or covered by the necessary secondary sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect, I would be inclined to merge or redirect ro the suggested above, because there are numerous links to this page, and those links should go somewhere. Also, the information is accurate and cited, if not notable, so no need to delete where the information can be merged into a more notable topic. Mathewignash (talk) 20:36, 11 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. With the added sources, there's no clear consensus to delete. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bannari Amman Group[edit]

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

Poorly written stub without references, and with unclear notability. This article was previously PRODed based on WP:GNG; however, it was deproded with edit summary "notable, listed on stock exchange". However, listing on stock exchange is not enough to establish notability. Beagel (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Beagel (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Beagel (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A very poorly written stub article indeed. But appears to be a big company, so is likely to be quite notable in India. I would ask for comment on WP:IN MakeSense64 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement not deletion. A major business group of South India. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. While this article is poorly written, the subject is quite notable, with about 250000 Google hits. Miguel AG (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please avoid using this argument in an AfD as per WP:ATA#Google_test. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I agree that the company is notable enough, the article is in such poor shape that it is better to just delete and recreate it, rather than keep it like this.--Atlan (talk) 10:09, 31 July 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) 00:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Atlan, unfortunately your WP:TNT argument is not a valid though I sympathize with your sentiment. My own google news search finds 41 hits, some of which look like supersources but may also be press releases. This one needs more discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's just that I expect that if the article is kept, it will remain in its awful state because no one is editing it. I'd rather see it gone than have it like it is.--Atlan (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is a copyright violation, it is straight ahead copied from Bannari Amman Group website, violating also MIRROR and content replication policies, also we don't need another non notable yet Indian advertisement on WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of independent sources demonstrate this is a very large business entity, with fingers in many pies. I've applied several sources to the page. The Hindu, The Economic Times, and BioSpectrumIndia all pass the bar for independence and the first two are certainly regarded as reliable. One of the reasons the company is newsworthy is because it created a 4,000 student college facility, as shown by two of the sources. More significant coverage on this can be seen by searching for the company name at this link, but the article isn't available to view. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. BusterD (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd encourage all participants to give these sources I've applied a look. I've added a significant article from Reuters and more from The Hindu. Only one of the eight sources is shaky. The rest are from diverse independent news organs, albeit the business sections. Only ordinary editing remains to clean this up. BusterD (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if a bit weak. While a few of those new sources appear to be reprinted press releases or near enough, there are enough that aren't that I think there's a GNG argument. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:08, 15 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 without prejudice . Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Pearce (American artist)[edit]

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

Tagged by IP editor as 'not notable'. Nominating on its behalf. No opinion myself; this article certainly makes claims of notability, but I'll leave it to other editors to assess them. Robofish (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted. It is a garage band quality. Only links were to his site and my space. No one cares about this artist but himsel and this looks like self promotion is what I am saying. That is against Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.194.41 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 July 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 00:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per above, and he fails WP:MUSIC notability guideline. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets at least one criteria of notability: four albums on Hypnos label, active indie ambient label est. 1997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.221.16 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walstein Snyder[edit]

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

Person is only "known" for charitable reasons. I failed to find any non-routine coverage. All of the references on the article (of which there are 4 unique references) do not provide thresholds of notability because they're all passing mentions of this person. Additionally, WP:NOBLECAUSE applies here - Wally does charitable work (great) but isn't notable because of it. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 July 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 00:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable personality, his charity ain't big enough to be referenced or serve as a parameter to be imprinted into other reliable and relevant charity organizations. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:28, 7 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. Given the completely unsourced state of the article, and the fact that in over 3 weeks, not one source has been provided, the delete side carries the day. Courcelles 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PARADOX (research network)[edit]

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

Non-notable fine art education outreach organization. Was unable to find any sources to establish notability, including Google News, EBSCOhost and InfoTrac (both academic and general) searches. --Darkwind (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Judging from this, Paradox is a "sub-network" of the European League of Institutes of the Arts, and judging from the Tuning Document that they produced, Paradox was then operating within the Erasmus-funded "inter}artes" thematic network. It would be useful to confirm these linkages, but they would suggest an upmerge into the ELIA article? AllyD (talk) 10:15, 31 July 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 00:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Judging from this "an independent network of artists, curators, researchers and other academics involved in running and/or teaching Fine Art courses at University level", this network is obviously non notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into European League of Institutes of the Arts. Beagel (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into European League of Institutes of the Arts or Delete no third party sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets CSD A7. The article does not even assert the significance of the subject. causa sui (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Boon[edit]

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

Seems like self-promotion for a person who at best is questionably notable. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 July 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) 00:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Selfpromitional article with no notability. Lugnuts (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable architect. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Behavior[edit]

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

Orphaned since 2009, article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: this is "a bit iffy" indeed. Sevreal television series have Wikipedia articles on every one of their episodes, and this was become a de facto accepted standard on Wikipedia. But is Rocko's Modern Life really of the same stature as The Simpsons or South Park? Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:48, 31 July 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) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's keep our cruft cruft-worthy. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:49, 7 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. No clear consensus that this is not notable, but needs cleanup. Sandstein 05:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Diabetes Duo: Captain Glucose and Meter Boy[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation for Notability -- User:Carljtwo Somewhat confused as to why this was tagged as non-notable and will try to make my explanation brief. These diabetes superhero characters have existed for many years and have a large and important presence in the diabetes community and the diabetes online community. They are world renowned and have been featured on diabetes blogsites and publications throughout the world including the International Diabetes Federation. I respectfully suggest that the page is important as a source by which the millions of people with diabetes can find out more about the Diabetes Duo and their important mission. (I hope I formatted this correctly and that this is the right place to respond as I've never done this before). —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC).
This article is relevant and notable based on my understanding of the notability guidelines. The subject and characters in question are commonly and widely known throughout the diabetes community and are have contributed to diabetes awareness and charitable related events. It also appears that there is no spam involved nor is the focus of the characters written about by the original creator of the article done in a manner to promote anything. Lorenzorro (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The related notability guideline is at WP:WEB. Since the notability guidelines are descriptive it is a judgement call as to whether it is a notable topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that sheds some light and clears up my confusion, Alan, and thanks for directing me there. I agree that the notability question is subjective so it is obviously not my call to make. All I can do is point out that these characters, and what I consider to be their important mission, coupled with the many articles and sources proving that they have become an important part of the diabetes community, makes the information about them on Wikipedia an important and worthwhile addition, IMHO. Since they are not selling anything nor could their mission be considered spam in any manner, they should be included here. But yes, it is totally subjective and therefore I understand why it has come to the point where the notability of the article is now being questioned. I have nothing more to add so although I'd rather quote Vonnegut and say "so it goes" it seems that Doris Day's "que sera sera" is a more fitting quote to end my part of this discussion with. But please don't tell anyone I quoted Doris Day. --User:Carljtwo —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  - Importance does not directly relate to notability on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, one last comment, I promise. Their notability is they are the first and only animated diabetes superheroes. --Carljtwo (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a fairly tenuous claim to notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Understandably so. There are a lot of firsts, but that doesn't necessarily mean they merit a Wikipedia articles. Carson (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)****[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did the International Diabetes Federation ever publish anything with these two as Mascots? ...even if its not Online. To me it's pretty borderline. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This title is bad, it should be either The Diabetes Duo or Captain Glucose and Meter Boy, with the title not chosen redirecting to the title that was chosen. Attempting to search this full phrase is fruitless, need to pick one or the other or both as search terms. I'm now searching, but in the (likely) event that this closes a keep, that title definitely needs to be changed. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T DELETE I agree that thetitle might need to be revisedbut the page and characters are certainly notable. I first saw them when the IDF shared their work on World Diabetes Day. They have been featured all over the US and in internationally as well. Two sources are the Argentina diabetes site blogdiabeticotipo and Germany diabetes-leben site in addtionj to the IDF. They are notable not just because they are the first and only diabetes superheroes, but that they are world renowned for their work. The two actors who play these characters are also internationally known. In the diabetes world CG & MB are just as notable as any other animated characters that are wll known...and they have a charitable mission to boot, which is more than I can say for most other cartoon characters. Diabetesmomma (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a feeder page for the material run by the Diabetes Hands Foundation. My first glance at the Google hits is that this subject is a keeper. Still searching... Carrite (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my dig has been unfruitful. I don't deal with the standards for web comics and web video, but I'm not turning up the sort of independent sourcing one would like to find to constitute iron-clad notability. The novelty of the subject might lead one towards an IAR keep; I certainly would see that as a positive outcome. But my dig isn't churning up sourcing nuggets. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following the discussion on the “notability” of Captain Glucose and Meter Boy after being told about it by my neighbor. Who is and who isn’t notable in your world is a subject I’m not well versed in. But I can tell you that my two young nephews and my niece who have to deal with Juvenile Diabetes on a daily basis know exactly who Captain Glucose and Meter Boy are. Pictures of the Diabetic Duo hang on their bedroom wall to remind them that they too are Diabetic Super Heroes. To my nephews and niece the Captain and his sidekick are role models and an inspiration to three kids who don’t deserve the hand they were dealt. The Diabetic Duo may be “non-notable” to you but not to us. If you’re voting on this notary thing put down their parents and I as resound YES. Theymightbeus1 (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Non notable webcomics or what else. Also, just because your neighbor know about a subject this does not prove that it is notable, there is a street dog in my city named Apachua, and my 3y.o. neighbor who never walked outside of his house knows about it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comment comparing these diabetes characters to a street dog is highly offensive and insensitive to anyone who is unfortunate enough to have this disease. Diabetesmomma (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Eduemon. It sounds to me like you need to stop hanging around with 3 year old neighbors and get out a little more.

69.232.154.135 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a big difference between 'notability' and 'credibility'. In the diabetic community Captain Glucose and Meter Boy are respected and credible advocates of children understanding and learning how to manage their diabetes. Is teaching our children more 'notable' or credible cause? Is instilling in young children the belief that they too can be a Diabetic Super Hero a more 'notable' or credible objective? As a mother I wish there were more individuals like Captain Glucose and Meter Boy. By the way, when it comes to credibility, didn't Wikipedia once let someone edit the Albert Einstein page and put in that Einstein invented oxygen? Now that's "notable."

69.232.154.135 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a Google search, and although most of the hits seemed generally iffy per WP:RS, I did get the impression that many of them are reliable in terms of verifying the existence and characteristics of "Captain Glucose" and "Meter Boy", and that enough of them are independent of the subject (not owned/operated by the people who created the characters, not specifically trying to sell products including the characters, etc.) that we probably do have notability here. More work would be required to pin this down, but I would hesitate to give this article the hook too quickly. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For WP:RS, might I note that Google Archives tells me that an article on them ran in the L.A. Daily News, the Detroit Free Press, and the Beaumont Enterprise in 2005? That should go a good way to establishing notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surry Wood[edit]

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

Was not notable as a basketball or lacrosse player. Subject was a basketball walkon at UNC who met none of the criteria for Wikipedia notability for college athletes - no awards won, records held or any significant media coverage as an individual. Did not play lacrosse at beyond the high school level. Rikster2 (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, guideline cited here: Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:36, 9 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. No clear consensus for deletion. As a BLP it needs better citation. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel De Los Santos[edit]

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

A minor-league baseball pitcher that has never risen above AA ball. Currently playing for the Myrtle Beach Pelicans, a A+ baseball team (unfortunately he lost while pitching yesterday). Article states he is on the Texas Rangers active squad. Unable to find a reference where he ever was during the regular season. Fails WP:WPBB/N and WP:GNG as only WP:ROUTINE is found. Bgwhite (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From my experience, it is general practice to keep players who are actively on 40-man rosters. If anything, merge to Texas Rangers minor league players. Alex (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WPBB/N and WP:GNG. There is only WP:ROUTINE coverage in independent sources. 40-man roster is only temporary (e.g. failed prospects) and does not guarantee notability. I see no reason to redirect when the existing text is just reciting statistics. —Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. As with most young players added to a team's 40-man roster, covered at length in multiple bound periodicals related to baseball prospects, including the 2010 and 2011 editions of The Newberg Report (a Rangers-specific source) and the 2011 Baseball America Prospect Handbook (not available online, ISBN 1932391347). -208.81.148.194 (talk) 16:17, 4 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) 00:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a lot of no consensus on this discussion, because both thoughts are either split away (talking about different subtopics) or not converging, the article itself is filled with dubious information, starting with "a minor league baseball pitcher currently on the Texas Rangers active roster", however in the roster template he is in the inactive roster, the article also says that he has been featured in thirteen games, however I can't find a reliable source which provides context based on what is said, the article is also non encyclopedic, just ask yourself, if I read this article what don't or won't know/understand about the subject, which it utterly fails to fulfill, the article is also written in a complex way for common readers (written in a too specific manner that only people inside the scope of the article understand), periodicals are not a way to suffice notability, he must be covered by major sports revenue such as ESPN, Fox Sports, YES, Illustred Magazine, Sports Weekly, which I couldn't find a hit. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Basically the crux of your argument is based more not on article worthiness, but on article quality. Those are two different things. De Los Santos played for the DSL Rangers in 2006.[14] You're making up rules in the latter part of your argument. Alex (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "periodicals are not a way to suffice notability, he must be covered by major sports revenue such as ESPN, Fox Sports, YES, Illustred Magazine, Sports Weekly, which I couldn't find a hit." These delete votes from you seem to have a trend: they consistently make things up. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 13:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Alex. The article needs work, but that is not a reason to delete. And there is no requirement in any guideline I am aware of for a player to be covered by a "major sports revenue such as ESPN, Fox Sports, YES, Illustred Magazine, Sports Weekly." Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas Rangers minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since prior consensus is that a player on the 40-man roster is notable. If it's absolutely necessary that this player not have an article, then please merge a sizable amount of this article with Texas Rangers minor league players. I'd rather it not be merged. Under no circumstances should this be deleted outright. Whoever has time to work on this article if kept, please add information from this article on August 1 titled No-Hit Bid Carries De Los Santos To Carolina League Award. This article needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion just because it's a thousand times easier. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:56, 9 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 18:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DrayTek Vigor 2710 Series[edit]

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

And:

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

Delete. WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Routers are a WP:USEFUL category. These are exceptionally good routers. Maybe merge the series 2710 and 2820. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have an exceptionally good toaster that is very useful. Shall I list the model and specs on WP? But seriously, WP:PRODUCT suggests articles on individual products should be avoided. Note that WP:USEFUL is not an argument that should be used in AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no Category:Toasters. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you under the impression that if a category exists it must be populated by creating articles? That is not how it works. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No; but I suggest DrayTek Vigor routers are sufficiently WP:NOTABLE. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And I suggest that it is all too easy to get references for a product of this type to satisfy WP:NOTABLE, which means we must set the bar a little higher. Products need their own notability guidelines to avoid the systemic bias towards geeky products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually check where WP:USEFUL redirects to? --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DrayTek Vigor 2710 Series, no opinion on DrayTek Vigor 2820 Series. The article on 2710 is not independently referenced. On the 2820, I'm not sure how trusted and independent TrustedReviews is. Anyway, the router series did not get an "award" there but a "recommendation", which is quite something else. --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, neither a product catologue, and all the articles from DrayTek Vigor within same series range should be merge or deleted as well. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into DrayTek. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. They cite no or only one item of third party coverage respectively, and for such run-of-the-mill IT components we would need some more coverage for notability. Probably too detailed to merge. Sandstein 05:04, 15 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. No consensus for deletion; as a list article it should be renamed. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Digger Characters[edit]

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

The series in itself is of only questionable notability; a list of characters, completely unreferenced and written in an inappropriate style, does not belong on Wikipedia. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have no idea what the problem is with this article. It's a notable, long running comic book series, and this is a list of it's characters. Nothing wrong with this article. It might be better named "List of Gold Digger characters" or something. Mathewignash (talk) 01:45, 5 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, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, would be better named "List of Gold Digger characters", but unless the article on the series itself is deleted I see no reason to delete the list of characters. Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is obviously a problem with this article as you can see on List_of_Warrior_Nun_Areala_characters (same publisher, different creator), this article needs an overhaul, otherwise it must be deleted, if a mess can't be cleaned, then we must throw it into garbage bin. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to List of Gold Digger characters. Gold Digger (comics) is a long running, notable comic series, and it's normal to have character articles branched off from the main as opposed to having 30 different character articles. Does this article need cleanup? Yes. That, however, is not a valid reason to delete. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 22:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my thing, but it appears notable. Move to List of Gold Digger characters as suggested, reasonably. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 9 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton Ultimate Team[edit]

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

unremarkable collegiate club team. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources to meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Define what remarkable is. They are the reigning national champions, and have accrued 3 national champoinships in the team's history. Both Brown and Virginia have pages, neither is as storied as CUT, and neither has been nominated for deletion.

Comment - In sources, USAultimate, the governing body of the sport is cited twice. This page should not be deleted. D.ma.long (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant to !vote "Keep," the usual convention is to put that word in bold at the beginning of your comment. Also, it's not clear what you mean by your comment about USAultimate being cited twice. --Orlady (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. What I mean is that USAultimate.org, the governing body of the sport, is cited twice in the article. D.ma.long (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Carleton College#Club sports. Maintaining a stand-alone article about an individual team in a club sport is too serious a challenge to justify treating team as a notable topic, but the team definitely should be thoroughly covered in the college article. --Orlady (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm satisfied that the three USA Ultimate national championships suffice to establish notability per WP:NSPORTS. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - They somewhat satisfies the criteria needed as WP:NSPORTS. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not seeing this as meeting general notability guidelines. As a section in the university's article, sure, but not a dedicated article.--RadioFan (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The team has been a long time powerhouse in the Ultimate community and is one of the teams that everyone has on their watch list each season. Three national championships, making the finals the past three years, I don't really see your point about this not being notable. Are other club sports televised on CBS? In my opinion, that is a significant sign that this is a notable team.--Wherold (talk) 16:19, 11 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 am open to userfying this article on request. Deleting it currently as consensus, based on commentaries of policies and guidelines, is for deleting this article. I shall request new editors and ips to kindly read up on Deletion discussions before commenting in the future. It will provide them information about how to put across an argument forcefully. Please also read up on what constitutes consensus on Wikipedia. Please contact me on my talk page for any future assistance. Thanks. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Kumar Pandey[edit]

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

(Past AfD information:Articles for deletion/Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey) A (so far) unremarkable scientist, the section "Responsibilities and research he carried out so far" in whose article is completely unsourced. What sourcing there is elsewhere in the article is somewhat desperate. I don't doubt that he was Honored by having his name included in list of "TOP 100 SCIENTISTS 2010" of International Biographical Centre (IBC), Sponsored & Administered by International Biographical Centre, Cambridge, England (an imprint of Melrose Press Ltd. Registered in England (No) 965274). Not written by, but perhaps related to, the User Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey (contributions). He's young; perhaps he will go far. Hoary (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Clear delete with a grand total of 2 cites on GS and at least one of those a self-cite! Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Nicely formatted, knows his wikimarkup. Unfortunately, that's not enough. --Crusio (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Artcle he is worthy of the wikipedia article and for his detail see the web link: ^[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.149.2 (talk • contribs) — 117.199.149.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Keep~~ Article about vivek pandey is good to find here. He has got proud of past honor Allahabad university in academic field in very early age among 42 members also IBC scientist 2010 award is going to make him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.149.2 (talk • contribs)
Do not delete Artcle is about the person who initiated his study from the place where was no facity at all for Oceanic Research. The Centre becomes the permanent centre of the university with Faculty in 2009 while enrollments in D.Phil was possible since begining. Pandey got first D.Phil from that centre which was not expected by this project mode centre due to local politics. Pandey worked on Indonesian Throughflow using POM model and became first on from India in the field.Dr. Pandey is not only academics, scientist but social and cultural person which is well know by most of the person. I gone through the wikibin page of Dr. Pandey and found him a Noble person of the world as comment described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.245 (talk • contribs)
Original and Notable Article It is not recreation but original article motivated from the wikibin article on Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey and near about 300 comments on the article. Kindly consider the influence of the wikibin article page^[2].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kook2011 (talk • contribs) — Kook2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep it on the wikipedia I have read the reference and comment on wikibin of Dr. Pandey and found him notable. added by 117.199.146.116 (contributions)— 117.199.146.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nom and Crusio. Beagel (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite notable person Keep the article as permanent article of wikipedia. I found no doubt on Dr. Pandey's Notablity. Added by 117.199.144.213 (contributions)— 117.199.144.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment If this piece at "Wikibin" is "Pandey's major reference", as Kook2011 claims, then Pandey is in trouble. It's pretty easy for anyone to have an article there. As for the comments on the Wikibin article, they're hilarious (where they're comprehensible). -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep it The article is notable according the wikibin comment. Dear Hoary why pandey in trouble. Please do not spread such words. Added by 117.199.149.232 (contributions)— 117.199.149.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, only an Assistant Professor, minimal citability in GScholar, fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - THere are bunch of sockpuppets here uh? He fails WP:PROF, Wikipedia is not a curriculum vitae and he has no impact or has reached controversy enough to meet the GNG, the references provided are academical however my major's tutor has greater number of scientific published articles, but this isn't a reason why I should create his article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources have been found that show that these sockpuppets are correct. Joe Chill (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - No sources that meet guidelines were found on Yahoo and Google. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are adequate to verify the facts stated in the article but not to show notability. There is no evidence that he passes WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. I removed two "Who's Who" type vanity scam awards from the honors section; that sort of thing in an article here is less an indication of notability than the opposite, and should be removed per WP:BLP as an embarrassment to the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt in notability Dear user Nsk92 Iwant to say that Tathagat Avatar Tulsi is also Assistant Professor contract while Dr. Pandey is permanent Assistant Professor. I have seen his blog written by name Jai Hind Pandey which shows his cultural, religious and social impact and thoughts^[3]
Delete. No evidence of significant achievements, but strong evidence of fervent attempts to promote that individual, both from reading the article and this page. Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Dear Hoary, I created the article not fully based on wikibin article but I have no doubt on his notability as per my best knowledge. I point you 1. he is written topper in 96 UP BN Jaunpur under Varanasi Group NCC in 1997. He is honored with a historical university’s Alumni Association “Proud Past” among 42 persons list. He is honored by IBC as Top 100 Scientist. He has done remarkable work on Indonesian through flow as 1st of Indian Scientist and also he worked on Indian Ocean variabilty. His cultural and social approach and behavior is also remarkable. Without such influence no article can get 321 comments most in favor of Dr. Pandey as per my knowledge this is highest commented article in wikibin sources. If in your knowledge any article got more that 321 comments in wikibin sources then let me know.

Thus I finally want to say that wikibin is only not a base of the creation of article but sure so many comments in favor of him and his fame in IISc, Bangaore due to involvement in Bhagvat Group, cultural activities and his personality as Project Associate made me to decide a notable article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kook2011 (talk • contribs)

Notable article and keep it Dr. Pandey was well know figure at IISc Bangalore during 2007-2009 and therefore a large number of students (Male and Female) commented on his wikibin article. Rishikesh Pandey and others still remember Dr. Pandey^[4]^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.245 (talk • contribs)
Note to closing admin Please note that 117.211.83.245 has voted multiple times and, in addition, from the edit history of this debate it would appear that this IP and User:Kook2011 are one and the same person. --Crusio (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)--Crusio (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep the Article~~ The article is notable one and should remain on the wikipedia. The IP may be same if there is Cafe. The matter should count. I strongly recommend this Notable Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.245 (talk • contribs)

Wow! I'm almost starting to become convinced. A whole cafe is behind him, this must be somebody notable! --Crusio (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable article:Vivek Kumar Pandey Should remain On wikipedia (An event occurred in April 2000:“Shiksha Par Shaitan Ka Saya”- under main heading Aparadh - Kashi Hindu Vishvavidyalay (BHU), India Today, edition 21 Jun, 2000, 36-37)Dr. Pandey was scout traing holder during B Sc. education and in the text event at BHU he participated in Hospital Activities on the day before examination and in funeral activities on the examiation day on the request of HOD Physics, BHU in suicide case of his junior. He used to involve in cultural and social activities from begining of the education and also was a briliant student in over all carreer. You can find his foot step in all education centre where ever he pass out from Purvanchal University to IISc Bangalore. Faculties at every institute know him well. In Allahaabad he was used by Prem Chand Pandey for building KBCAOS, IIDS, AU, Allahaabad although he was able to find higher education from USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.116.131 (talk • contribs)
Delete. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is notable and should be on wikipedia. Vivek was the person who conducted science faculty final students mess (strength near about 2000) in Ramkrishn Hostel in his busy schedule of M.Sc. final study on request of students. This made him popular in BHU because the mess in Ramkrishna was best mess in all facuties mess except medical students mess where charge were too high even BHU IT mess was bellow in Rank of mess. Dr. Pandey offered PDF at FSU, USA, Stevens Institute of tecjnology, New York and GFDL when he was at CAOS, IISc Bangalore this was due to his skill in ocean modelling using POM. I could not found any good scientist who have so many experience with good in field of science also. For the example he is also First of first of batch assistant professor at KBCAOS with 1st D.Phil. All these character defined in the comments on deletion of the article and 321 comments on wikibin article which is highest commented article say that Dr. pandey is notable person of the science field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.128.250 (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.241.128.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep this notable article. Pandey is notable person of science and society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.243 (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Dr. Pandey has done very good research work on Indonesian throughflow using very basic facilities at KBCAOS, IIDS. He refined himself at CAOS, IISc Bangalore and contributed also Indian Ocean Variabilty. He developed high-resolution regional model of the north Indian Ocean, based on MOM4 with Matt Harrison of GFDL, Princeton at CAOS, IISc Bangalore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.243 (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.211.83.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Vivek sir has done first time analysis of GODAS of National Centre for Environmental prediction (NCEP) using Indian Ocean RAMA conservationism data and find the clear signature of Indian Ocean dipole (IOD) in 2006 and this article is presented in the international conference. perhaps that article is in process of publication. Apart from these scientific activities he is a noble human being. I request admin to keep the article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.154.226 (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.199.154.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep.Article is notable on best of my knowledge. He is good scientist, academician and best human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.145.118 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.199.145.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment to IP !voters To all the IPs that are participatig here, please realize that !votes from anonymous users that have few or no other contributions to WP will actually have the opposite effect from what you are hoping for. AfD is not a vote, your arguments will have to be based in policy (WP:GNG, WP:PROF, and WP:BIO). Note also that "notability" in the WP sense has nothing to do with being "noble", "good", "bad", or whatever. It's just an evaluation of the sources that are available to construct an encyclopedic article. Wikibin is not an acceptable source, so please come up with something better. --Crusio (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this notable article. Pandey has 1st time done the work of comparison of GODAS, NCEP and ECCO2, MIT data for Indian Ocean and find that the GODAS performance is the better that ECCO2 using RAMA and TRITON observational data and this important work is published in e-Journal of Earth Science India. Therefore the article is well written and comprehensive matter is given about pandey. Thus artcle in this format is in the best form and also rating of the article is near about 20 and grade is 5 means 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.94.60 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — 115.118.94.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 1 and no other claim to WP:PROF make this an uncontroversial case. The sockpuppeting/canvassing here is becoming deafening. Agricola44 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Based on the matter in article of the person, comment in this debate and rating of the article I came on conclusion that admin should close the debate and keep the article on wikipedia forever. The pandey's paper search which is available on line in the google say that he has contribuuted as main author in the papers on Indonesian Throughflow, data analysis and seasonal, intraseasonal and Interannual variability of Indian Ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.149.73 (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.199.149.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Article is not controversial. The detail given about him in the debate is some part of his life. I providing some web links where his some papers are available: Indonesian Throughflow and Data Analysis on Indian Ocean Variability^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]. Scientific person knows that the from a ground zero facility (at KBCAOS) to a modelling study how much difficult but Pandey has done struggle with circumstances and came to a good position in science community. I am satisfied with deletion debates on my creation and rating of the article on my first notable article. I hope now admin will keep it because the article is comprehensive and suitable for wikipedia as per my belief. Kook2011 (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I do not know how admin will treat the references about Vivek Kumar Pandey which support the notability of the this article^[12]^[13]Kook2011 (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Even when signed in as "Kook2011", you have already written a comment starting "Keep". ("Keep it. Dear Hoary, I created the article not fully based on wikibin article[...]") I have therefore struck through the word "Keep" at the start of this new one. ¶ 2. You now provide two references. One appears to be written by Pandey, and therefore is not a reliable source. (If you don't understand this, read "WP:RS".) The other is in Wikibin, which nobody here other than you and the Indian IP numbers takes seriously. ¶ You are doing nothing here to help the reputation of Pandey, instead, you are doing the reverse. If you have some new material from a reliable source, say so; if you don't, please stop wasting the time of other people here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kook2011, I have reverted this edit of yours to your comment above, because another user (me, as it happens) had already commented on what you originally wrote. Please read this within "WP:TALK". -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some more reliable sources. Paper presentation in Conference,paper on Antarctica, oceanographer.net profile and one online project being carried by his group^[14]^[15]^[16] ^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]
Accept. Due to the large amount of citation in various journals, academic work, relevance to the "origins" discussions, etc.117.241.129.3 (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.241.129.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Notable. Article in this form is notable one. The matter in the article, discussions in this page and references are sufficient to prove notable.117.241.128.156 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)— 117.241.128.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment adding a {{reflist}}, so refs may show up - Nabla (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC) — And moving it lower - Nabla (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC) This is fun... Nabla (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ "wikibin article with 321 comments on Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey". Pandey's major reference

^ "Vivekanand and Modern Tradition". Dr. Pandey's Blog with name Jai Hind Pandey.

^ “ Rishikesh Pandey, Chairman, Student Council, IISc Bangalore, 2010-2011” knows well to Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey due to his social and cultural activities at IISc Bangalore.

^ “ Rishikesh Pandey, Chairman, Student Council, IISc Bangalore, 2010-2011 knows well to Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey due to his social and cultural activities at IISc Bangalore.

^ [1].

^ (PDF).

^ (PDF)

^ [2].

^ [3].

^ “Vivek Kumar Pandey’s profile on un-official web page”. Profile of Vivek Kumar Pandey on academia.edu

^ “ Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, now CAOS, IISc Bangalore who was BHU Physics student’s work was very constructive to combined the team KBCAOS and making link of KBCAOS strong for stability in the starting uncertain day of KBCAOS. I appreciate him. And Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey(BHU alumni) used to say Pandey ji, Gentleman and Modeler”. Statement about Vivek at KBCAOS wikibin article page

^ “Celebrating the monsoon”. Pandey presented papers in 2007 in International conference.

^ “CONIAPS XI, 11th Conference of the International Academy of Physical Sciences”. Pandey presented papers in 2010 in International conference.papers.

^ “IMPA IIT Delhi-2006 Blockage of Indonesian Throughflow”. Pandey presented papers in 2006 in International conference.

^ “ TIFR, NCRA-RAC- Conference Otty, Tamilnadu on topic Difficulties in exact ITF transport Measurement”. Pandey presented papers in national conference.papers.

^ “Member of Oceanographers.net”. Profile of Vivek in Oceanographers

^ “Effect of Indonesian throughflow on the biogeochemistry of the equatorial Indo-Pacific region”. Project carrying by Prof. Avinash Chandra Pandey, Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey (E Mail: [email protected]), Dr. Suneet Dwivedi, Dr. Shailendra Rai, Mr. Sudhir Singh, Atmospheric and Ocean Science, AU, on SGI Unix Sysytem

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]