Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 February 1 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a copyvio from http://shhnorthhooghly.blogspot.com/ with no prejudice for recreationErrant (chat!) 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Students Health Home"[edit]

"Students Health Home" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed twice, by different editors. PROD removed by author both times without comment. First PROD rationale was "no notabilty". Second PROD rationale was "No indication of notability. No sources. Does not meet WP:GNG", which seems to cover the situation quite well. I would also question verifiability. Where is all this verbiage coming from? How can we check it is correct? DanielRigal (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both PRODs. No notability indicated, appears to be a paraphrase or copy-and-paste of promotional material which may bring it into WP:COPYVIO territory as well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Swanson[edit]

Joe Swanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source. I doubt that the character is entirely notable, this article has no real coverage or notability. JJ98 (Talk) 10:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although being a character in a notable TV programme doesn't imply notability, I think that due to Family Guy being particularly notable, and Joe Swanson being a central character, keeping this article is justified. For consistency, I checked the presence of articles of similarly notable TV characters and found that there are articles for at least 11 characters in Futurama, and probably over 30 characters from The Simpsons. I agree that more sources are needed but I think cleanup rather than deletion is the way forward Pi (Talk to me! ) 11:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What 'Pi' said. Lots42 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pending cleanup and proper sourcing of the character's notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:52, 22 February 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, Juliancolton (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'm a member of WP:FG and can't find any coverage of him. Like Hippie said, merge until it can properly be expanded out. I also disagree with Pi's reasoning, of other shows having character pages. The Simpsons are well sourced with DVD commentary, books, newspapers, etc and many are FA/GAs and the Futurama ones are decent, the (arguably) 3 main characters (Fry, Leela, and Bender) have DVD commentary, along with a few others. CTJF83 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   -- Lear's Fool 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M-quotient[edit]

M-quotient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, only reference is blog-like.Gerardw (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Malformed nomination fixed. lifebaka++ 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please see h-index, section Alternatives and modifications. Upon reading that section I found that m-quotient is already there, only it's called m-index; using this source [1], I've added the alternate name with the reference into that section, since the definition was the same in both. Nihola (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for sound reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max (pig)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Max (pig) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability questioned. Another editor tried to AFD but instead relisted the AFD from 2006 which closed as no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meteors are notable, but they don't have their own article, because they fit more logically into the subject of meteoroids. Macarion (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets the GNG because it is the subject of multiple independent and widely read sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Celebrity pets generally should be mentioned in their owner's article as they obviously are only notable for being the pet of a famous person. This could easily be moved wholesale to a new section in Clooney's article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Beeblebrox. SpinningSpark 21:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael White (producer)[edit]

Michael White (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, Article about living person has no sources whatsover. Therefore notability has not been established. There are copyright issues as well, as the run-on material has clearly been copy/pasted from another website. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Mercer-Bailey[edit]

Amy Mercer-Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local political activist and member of the local town council. Delete per ample precedent that being a councillor does not confer notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgil formula[edit]

Gadgil formula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's content is a simple cut & paste job of its references
abhishek singh (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best political team[edit]

The best political team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was set up as a disambiguation page, but it is not actually one because it does not direct the reader to articles about topics that could be called "The best political team." It is merely is a list of similar catch-phrases used by U.S. television networks in their advertising. I don't think this topic is notable enough to merit an article; we don't have lists of every commercial product that claims to be the "best" in every conceivable category or classification. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMedia.ca[edit]

AfDs for this article:
OpenMedia.ca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish why it is notable. In the 15 days it was previously on AfD and the time since then there has been no significant improvements. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Promotional verbiage notwithstanding, the organization meets notability guidelines by way of coverage by the CBC, the Montreal Gazette and 24Hours. Nominator seems to be unclear about the differences between notability vs. the condition of the article. PKT(alk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with PKT and also will be working on it today. Nihola (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PKT. Subject is notable, even if the article is need of clean-up.--JayJasper (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchah Williams[edit]

Mitchah Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity page (apparently autobiographical) for a minor actor of questionable notability - primarily background characters. Only provided references are IMDB and TV.com - no significant coverage from reliable third party sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of DC Comics characters who can fly[edit]

List of DC Comics characters who can fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate list. See precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly. bibliomaniac15 20:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to add on to my delete vote, I do think we should turn this into a category, like Category:DC Comics characters with superhuman strength. However, we'll have to make sure that characters who get put into this category aren't overcategorized. For example, Superman is already in 18 categories. BurtAlert (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Night (2010 film)[edit]

One Night (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed without addressing concerns. Having searched, I was unable to find reliable sources to show the film as meeting WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability and no significant coverage. The director is notable, so I am fine with identifying the film on his page. It looks like there are a lot of similarly non-notable works, so the list can assist any fans in locating other films. There just isn't any coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. I'd also be fine with mentioning the film on the disambiguation page as a 2010 film being directed by Gruner. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with Erik. Delete article and merge what bits are necessary under the director's article. —Mike Allen 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : find sources- Jackie Chuck (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ponniyin Selvan (2012 film)) —SpacemanSpiff 19:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ponniyin selvan (film)[edit]

Ponniyin selvan (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:NOTFILM among other policies. Film hasn't been announced and only in talks. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee (pornographic actress)[edit]

Cherokee (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no other assertion of or evidence for notability beyond an "Exotic Dancer Award" which fails the "well-known/significant" standard. No RS sourcing for any biographical information. PROD removed without explanation by IP without significant edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 13 February 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,   -- Lear's Fool 03:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trivial award, fails every other conceivable notability criteria. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is a successful actress and filmmaker with a long resume on IMDb. There aren't that many actresses or filmmakers with a resume like that. Even if they were all flops she's obviously generating enough money to keep her career going, and some, and that's an incredible achievement. Also suggest having the title changed to Cherokee (pornographic actress and filmmaker).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not voting either way, but don't change the name. There is no reason to be that specific, as there is not another pornographic actress named Cherokee who is not a filmmaker that people might confuse her with. BurtAlert (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable pornographic movie performer. This isn't even a proper biography, being written around a pseudonym. Insufficient sourcing. Carrite (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement on the notability and sourcing, but for the record WP doesn't require articles on people to have the person's real name if it isn't known or isn't widely known. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. For a non-pornography example, see Junius. --NellieBly (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that there just isn't anything there to show that she meets WP:GNG. --NellieBly (talk) 01:00, 23 February 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, Mandsford 20:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Mandsford 20:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist rationale: Although the consensus at this time would be a delete, User:Nipsonanomhmata's point about the number of films that this performer has been in, added after the first relist, should be considered. If nobody agrees, then the result would be a delete. Mandsford 20:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A prolific career in non-notable movies does not satisfy WP:NACTOR, IMO. Also, what is the "...and filmmaker" part implying, that she is a director of porn movies? The IMDB link does not seem to support this assertion. Even if she was, I'm not sure that a porn director carries the same cachet as a real film director would. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prolificness or repetition of something without recognition for that repetition are not notability criteria. Arguably that would be original research, Wikipedia recognizing her for something nobody else has. The number of films may tend to further undermine her notability, given that an increased number of appearances would seemingly tend to increase one's chances of obtaining significant coverage, and yet for her it apparently changed nothing. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm absolutely baffled by this relist. One of the least-disputed matters in the long-running PORNBIO debates has been that a lengthy credit list is not an indicator of notability. As I recall reading, there was was a number-of-credits clause in PORNBIO, but it was removed long ago without any significant disagreement. An almost perfect example of this comes from the two Carmen Hayes AFDs [2] [3], where the reversed outcome turned quite clearly on the point that, for porn performers, "Prolificness [is] not a criteria." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be baffled. If there's a consensus of some sort that has frequently arisen out of previous debates, then it would be well to note that in WP:OUTCOMES. I'm afraid that I don't know enough about the subject to judge whether any of the films she has appeared in is an "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", let alone whether she has had a major role in any of those films, but that suggestion of stardom has been made by at least one of the participants in the discussion. If there's nothing to back up that claim, then there's nothing to worry about. Mandsford 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus that prolificness is not a notability criterion is already indicated by it not being included in the notability guidelines. Nothing needs to be added to OUTCOMES, which is a problematic page anyway, unfortunately. Nipsonanomhmata is welcome to post reliable sources for the claims, but "She is a successful actress and filmmaker" looks like OR and "with a long resume on IMDb" is meaningless, given that IMDb is not a RS (she may not be in all those movies, and they may not all be real movies) and given that porn performers' filmographies often include compilation tapes. And there is no notability inherent in even a reliably-sourced long resume. "There aren't that many actresses or filmmakers with a resume like that" looks like OR, and with regard to "Even if they were all flops she's obviously generating enough money to keep her career going, and some,": we don't know how much she gets paid, or what other jobs she may have, so nothing is obvious there. She may be continuing to work because she hasn't done well enough to leave the business. "and that's an incredible achievement" seems like OR too. There may be honor in being an adult performer or, say, a fry cook in order to pay the bills, or if they find some personal meaning in the work, but is either notable just for reporting to work numerous times, or are they really achieving anything incredible? The way you judge whether she's appeared in an "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" or "had a major role in any of those films" would be to find reliable sources for that. The former doesn't grant automatic notability, and the latter doesn't at all. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbours 2011 Ratings[edit]

Neighbours 2011 Ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE,Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically #3. Excessive listing of statistics. Muhandes (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has already been settled, the page does meet the guidelines fine, its clean and readalbe. It is also collapsable, so there is no need for deletion. Mjs2010 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you say the matter has been settled. The issue is not with the list not being clean, readable, or even collapsible. It is with a basic Wikipedia policy, which I quote above. --Muhandes (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. I redirected this when it first appeared and then PROD'd it, but I was kinda dragging my heals about bringing it here. The relevant information is already included in the main Neighbours article under Popularity and viewership. It's WP:LC and only relies on one website for sources. -

JuneGloom Talk 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, I really did think it was in regaurds to the table not being clean. As for it not meeting the wikipedia guidelines regaurding the lenght, other tables on wikipedia also have long lists of information,
  1. REDIRECT List of tallest buildings in the world
  2. REDIRECT List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
  3. REDIRECT List of most popular given names
  4. REDIRECT List of Home and Away episodes

These lists are all excessivly long, and have relevent information. Now in regards to JuneGloom, TV Tonight is Australias best and only TV website that records programing across Australia (that I know) hence why there is only onereferecne for every episode listed, if you know another site, please link me it :)

Also you say their is already information relevent on the main Neighbours page, there is, but only a small section is mentioned about 2011, and it only mentions the highest episode to air, ect, not all the individual episode ratings. Mjs2010 (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be deleted, I do propose we delete the Home and Away episode list section page, cause that is of same vaule if not less than the Neighbours 2011 ratings. Mjs2010 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb Hill[edit]

Cobb Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 18:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are quite a few references to this community (and its cheese) in news [4], examples:[5][6][7][8], and books[9], examples:[10][11][12][13]. And there's more at Google Scholar.[14] A lot of the coverage also relates to its founder,Donella Meadows, so a merge/redirect could be considered, but a lot of the coverage (such as the write-ups in various books about sustainable communities) is independent of her, so I'd lean to keeping the article separate and improving it with sources such as these.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is beyond me why anybody would want to delete an article about a worthwhile project like this. If Wikipedia only had articles about projects like these the world would be a paradise. I have added a worthwhile and notable reference.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worthwhile but it is insufficiently notable for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:06, 27 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 19:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources listed above appear to confer some degree of notability. if they are included in the article then I would lean towards keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warfieldian (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant Film[edit]

Valiant Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable, and lacks a credible assertion of importance. Most likely a vanity page of sorts. KorruskiTalk 12:10, 11 February 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, lifebaka++ 18:17, 21 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 19:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warfieldian (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Erix[edit]

Ian Erix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the article's claims (and see the history for more extravagant and equally unverified claims), I don't believe that this person is notable. If indeed he is a music and reality TV star, how come this is all that Google News has to offer? This was added by an editor, but that doesn't sound very independent or objective (despite being mirrored on AllMusic)--and I find it odd that I can find no reliable verification for this "major chart hit" "Confessions of a Killer." Drmies (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(User Sandradaba posted the following response but I beleive it was put in the wrong place so I am copying and pastin it below.) 69.113.134.143 (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — 69.113.134.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The link above was previously included as a source but has been removed several times during revisions. I believe this link alone is enough to prove the notability of Ian Erix. The MTV Network is one of the most famous and respected music aficionados in the world and a global broadcaster and media outlet that is currently featuring music, performances, and interviews by Ian Erix on their channels and websites as well as posting information on him. In my opinion, you simply cannot be a featured artist on MTV and be considered non-notable.

Furthermore, user Drmies claims alack of Google News stories is sufficent evidence that Erix is not a notable enough music star. This is a completely unfair assumption. Before the Ian Erix page was edited by Drmies it actually read that Ian Erix gained most of his popularity in Asia and parts of Europe which is where his first album was released. These are places where English is not a primary language or used at all and therefore stories written about Ian Erix in Chinese, Japanese or Russian, for example, would not show up in Google News, especially when doing a search utilizing characters from the English alphabet which are not used in those countries. Additionally, I am not sure how long news stories are kept live in Google News but Ian's first album release was in 2005 which was about 5 years ago so many stories may have already timed out.

Regardless, the fact remains that there are many ways to prove that Ian Erix is a notable person who should be more than qualified to have a Wikipedi aarticle on him and numerous sources to prove such have been sited in his page before the revisions were made by user Drmies. Billboard.com, the online home to Billboard Magazine lists Ian Erix in their artist database and in their short syndicated bio they refer to his launch in Europe and Asia, his role on a reality TV series as well as his Top 10 chart success with his song and album.http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/ian-erix/695708

Moreover, evidence of Ian's notorietery and popularity can be seen on his various social network sites which are his official pages that were linked to the article prior to the revision made by user Drmies. On his Bebo page, Erix has over 200 thousand registered fans www.bebo.com/ianerix and on his Myspace page www.msypace.com/ianerix he has over 100 thousand fans and millions of song plays. Those 2 official social network pages alone prove that he has a considerable following consisting of well over a quarter of a million people. That in itself should justify a claim of notability for Wikipedia.

In addition, user Drmies calls into question the fact that Ian Erix has actually appeared in reality television programming despite the fact that a link to a video clip of the TV series was posted as one of the sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmtE0_jS3cc If you click the link, you will see a 7 minute clip of the TV series entitled Journey Of A Rock Star, starring Ian Erix. It is impossible to deny that. The Ian Erix article never claimed that the TV series was #1 in it's time slot or that it was the most successful series in the world. If it did, then I could understand flagging it for propaganda-like phrasing. However, the article only claimed that Ian was starring in the series and that is a simple, neutral and verifiable fact. www.ianerix.com/journeyofarockstar

I could elaborate here even furhter but I do believe that I have already suffiently proven that user Drmies has made a mistake in recommending this page for deletion. I ask that you remove it as a candidate for deletion at once. Additionally, I would like to inform you that I intend on replacing some of the wording which was removed during several revisions. I will take every measure to make sure that I write in a neutral tone and I will make sure that proper sources are sited. I do kindly ask that Drmies and other editors respect any revisions I make that are properly sourced. I am not looking to turn this into a trivial back and forth argument. As Wikipedia clearly states in its own guidelines, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true".

Thank you.

  • Delete - The only available coverage that can even be described as possibly an independent reliable source is the All music profile that seems to have been copied all over the place. The assertion that he has hits in other countries is not substantiated beyond this one All music guide profile. If there is coverage in non-English sources, please bring them forward as there is close to zero in English. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

The person nominating this article for deletion has even himself admitted that there is an independant reliable source citing Ian Erix as a recognized music artist of merit with chart hits in other countries. Who is he to second guess what All Music Guide has published about Ian Erix? The fact that you can easily find numerous media on Ian Erix in an online search such as professionally created music videos, clips from TV shows, and appearances on MTV it makes it painfully obvious that Ian Erix has some sort of professional music career, at the very least. At this link alone you can see several music videos of his that have receieved hundreds of thousands of video views by the public. [15]

It makes perfect sense like another user stated that since Ian's music was released in China or Russia or Japan that an English google search would not turn up as many links as would had the music gotten a full release in English speaking countries. This fact is perfectly aligned with what All Music Guide states. His first album was released in parts of Asia and Europe where they dont speak English.

But Ian Erix does have 13 songs featured on itunes in English [16] and has announced on his website [www.ianerix.com] that he has a new album coming out for America and is planning a world tour.

At the very least, he must be considered a public figure by Wikipedia since he has released music to the public, and has appeared in professional music videos, interviews, performances and TV Shows. [17] It is also easily established by looking at his official social network pages like Bebo and MySpace that he has almost half a million fans follwoing him. He certainly more than meets the requirements to keep a page on him here and I believe this entire nomination for deletion is frivoulous. Brokeradar222 (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Nobody doubts that Ian Erix has a musical career. At issue is whether this article meets the inclusion guidelines in general, or specifically for musicians. This can be established with sources writing about him, and not by linking to video clips of his performance. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Keep"' - Reply to your "'Comment"' - It has already been proven that sources have written about him. Links to All Music Guide, Billboard, and MTV were provided above and cited in the original article. The MTV link is not only a performance video, but there is information written and published about Ian Erix by MTV and obviously they are a huge media outlet so that should certainly carrie a lot of weight. See the words they published about him here: http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/ian-erix I honestly don't understand how this can even be a debate at this point. Ian Erix meets many of the general inclusion guidelines for musicians. If that's not enough, here are some more links to published articles about Ian Erix, one of them is from one of the biggest celebrity magazines in the USA. While I realize that some may consider Star Magazine a tabloid, it doesn't change the fact that they have published articles on Ian Erix and that they are talking about him and that means besides meeting the Wikipedia guidelines to be included as a musician, he also meets guidelines to be included as a public figure. Again, I don't understand why this page should be nominated for deletion. It doesn't make any sense as there has been more than enough proof provided that it should be kept. Additional links are : http://indiependentmusic.blogspot.com/2006/07/ian-erix-for-conformity-album-review.html , http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qRZZf3sCj34/TDFe95nqZWI/AAAAAAAAAAM/tBmrFJDDpTM/s1600/star.jpg] and http://wildwritings.homestead.com/InterviewArchive/InterviewIanErix.html

Brokeradar222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep - I have read the inclusion guidelines in general, and specifically for musicians, and I believe that this article now meets the guidlines. The guidelines state that at least one criteria for [[WP:BAND|musicians] must be met and I do believe it has. As editors have made a good faith effort to re-write the article in a neutral tone, and since the articles meets the criteria for established musicians, I move to close the discsussion on the proposed deletion of this article. Giftlists123 (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Giftlists123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. No evidence whatsoever that this person passes any of the notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Those here who assert that it does will have to name which of the criteria it meets and provide evidence for it rather than asserting over and over again that it does. I have not found anything on the internet about him that wasn't generated or written by him or mirroring this Wikipedia article or his own publicity blurbs. The fact that he offers his music for sale and does something in public does not make him a "public figure". His "TV series" is homemade. Can someone please explain which television station or major internet media actually broadcast this? Who produced it? Who has reviewed it in a notable independent publication? His MTV live session is specifically in the section for "emerging artists" and "future stars". It seems any member can upload one of their live sessions. MTV doesn't appear to be selective about these videos either. They currently have 79,473 of them. The Billboard reference is completely spurious—simply a copy of his standad publicity blurb. Click on the "Chart History" tab there: "This artist hasn't charted yet, but keep checking Billboard for the latest updates." Voceditenore (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Non-notable.  -- WikHead (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepComment Voceditenore's comment above regarding MTV is absolutely erroneous. MTV is very selective of anyone appearing on their network and Ian Erix appeared in their London Studio where he filmed his live session. The idea that it was filmed in his bedroom or something and self uploaded is absurd. MTV is not a community for amatuer artists and it is a complete lie that 79,000 people have uploaded a video session to MTV like his. It is just completely and totally unfactual. It is true that MTV UK has an emerging artist section. Most new artists who are getting buzz when they first appear on the channel are featured in that section. Acts like Fall Out Boy, Bruno Mars, Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga all appear in this section and they all remain listed there to this day even after they have exploded into mainstream worldwide fame. See the MTV section here http://www.mtv.co.uk/music/live-sessions/browse - All their artist sessions are listed alphabetically and you will find there is a small amount of proefessional performers, maybe 100 or so and Ian Erix is right there in the list with them. Furthermore, if you go to to www.mtv.co.uk and type Ian Erix into the search field, you will see he comes up as a featured artist on MTV. MTV does not feature any random Tom, Dick or Harry that uploads a video so Voceditenore statement that his work on MTV is self published is completely ridicolous and untrue and anyone who knows anything about the music industry knows that. Additioanly, in their official artist section, MTV UK published the following statement about Ian Erix "Ian Erix is an international Pop Punk rock star. An American bloke, with top ten singles already under his belt in parts of Europe, Asia and Africa, his brand of infectious Emo/Punk/Powerpop music is on course to launch worldwide with the debut of his interactive television series, "Journey Of A Rock Star". Brokeradar222 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And since MTV is an independant media outlet that is well known and respected music auhtority aroudn the world, they are a reliable source and should be considered as such and the written information they published on Ian Erix should go to his notabilty. Here is a link to what I copied above about Ian Erix from MTV. http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/ian-erix Brokeradar222 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I stand corected. I was misled by the search results. There are about 150 Live session videos. Having said that, MTV has the same empty blurb that appears at Last FM and Sound Maven. I have yet to see any evidence that he has had a top 10 single, despite the claims. He's an emerging artist, not an emerged one as evidenced by the continued inability of the article's editors to provide multiple independent reliable sources which attest to his notability. Provide the evidence for him passing even one of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO and I'll change my opinion. Voceditenore (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This disucssion can quite simply be summed up by following the Wikipeida Guidelines.

1)First and most importantly, please note the first paragaph taken from WP:VERIFY reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true".

Therefore, I submit that the following two sources, All Music Guide[[18]]and MTV [[19]], should be sufficent enough to justify a Keep.

2)As listed in the Wikipedia Guidelines for songwriters here: WP:COMPOSER, Ian Erix has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. His writing and subsequent major label publishing of the songs can be verified at this link [20]

Warner is a major label and publisher and Erix is listed on their roster in Scandinavia. Erix has written "Confessions Of A Killer" and the album from which it was taken, and according to All Music Guide, it has been notable in foreign countries. All Music Guide is listed as a most reputable source by Wikipedia and again as per WP:VERIFY there is no cause to loook beyond that.

(Note: You may have to log in to the Warner Bros. website to view the roster as their content is protected, however, the information is public and it is free to log-in) Krties (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)— Krties (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was Already speedily deleted (CSD G7). (non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bribertise[edit]

Bribertise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unreferenced ,non notable neologism WuhWuzDat 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Greenough - Artist and Anti War Activist[edit]

Lowell Greenough - Artist and Anti War Activist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist. Article created by a gallery which has a close connection to the subject. Has a couple of hits by other galleries which are also have a relationship to the subject as they are selling his work, but nothing as far as I can see in terms of reliable third-party coverage. Travelbird (talk) 09:27, 21 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SaFire[edit]

SaFire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not sufficiently notable and article lacks reliable sources. The article is self-sourced or sourced via SEO channels of promotion. Advertising.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:05, 21 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 18:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FilKONtario[edit]

FilKONtario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. While Filk music may be notable, this particular convention is not. StAnselm (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to be a tiny con of little importance (indeed, even calling it a con might be a bit of a stretch). Their home page links to a PDF of everybody's who's registered to show up, and even including the staff it's only a few dozen people. I'm sure some people will just show up at the door too, but even if the numbers multiply twentyfold it still wouldn't be notable by encyclopedia standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An event does not have to be large in order to be both influential and notable. Netmouse (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as one of the most important filk conventions in North America, home of the Filk Hall of Fame. - Dravecky (talk)
  • Keep I'm not even much of a filk music fan, and I live in California, and I've certainly heard of it through various news sources within the SF fan community. The size of an event isn't necessarily related to its importance. Kevin Standlee (talk) 16:34, 27 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a link to Interfilk, a 501c(3) charity which recognizes FilKONtario. This con is about to celebrate its 21st consecutive year, and we have records to substantiate attendance of about 130 per year. It is overseen by the Filk Society of Upper Canada, an incorporated nonprofit. It is one of the major filk conventions in the world, and the Filk Hall of Fame adds international attention. This year's attendees will include filkers from England, Germany, SW and west coast USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGarthson (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs some work and especially inline citations (I have added a few), but it is clearly a notable topic. I say that partly as a conrunner myself - I am not a filk fan at all but I am familiar with FilKOntario and regularly see it referred to. The Filk Hall of Fame is an important entity and tradition within the community and the event that hosts it logically ought to have an article. A list article for Filk Hall of Fame inductees would not be out of order either. Netmouse (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in inpdependent reliable sources to establish notability. Can those above who claim they found some please put them forward for evaluation as I can find none. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has been extensively revised, updated, expanded and referenced in the last week. Note that it is very difficult to find references in many media that even mention filk, let alone any specific con. This article is far more extensive than the one for OVFF, the biggest of the filk conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilkerJude (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — FilkerJude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep This convention attracts international attendees, documented on the home website under "Who's coming". The next con will celebrate its twenty-first year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue Jeffers (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Sue Jeffers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The arguments initially put forward for deletion were that the convention is not notable, because it is small. As a musical genre, filk is small by the measure of the number of its aficionados, representing as it does the intersection set between science fiction fandom and (predominantly) folk music. (Yes, there are other musical styles and influences; this isn't the place to launch into a "What is filk?" debate.) Nonetheless, the genre is active and vibrant, and has grown beyond an activity done at general science fiction conventions, to the point of being able to sustain specialized or dedicated filk conventions, at last count a total of nine around the world, all of them recurring annual events. These conventions are a principal mechanism whereby participants meet to share and enjoy their music, and all of them are notable within the community, no matter how trivial they (or it) may appear to outsiders. Among the nine established conventions, FilKONtario falls in the middle of the size range, and is one of the longest-running. HScrimgeour (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added links to two published academic articles directly relevant to this entry, and am searching for a link to a third, earlier article. The two I added were written by a tenured professor of law at the University of Arizona. JGarthson (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC) JGarthson March 3, 2011[reply]
  • Keep per being home of Filk Hall of Fame, and per added sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the largest, oldest, and most noteworthy filk conventions, home of the Filk Hall of Fame, attracts an international membership. Avt tor (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAs per Netmouse. Presence of the Filker Hall of fame lends strongly to notability. Simonm223 (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 King of the Hill#Setting. Content may be merged by editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arlen (King of the Hill)[edit]

Arlen (King of the Hill) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely in universe info. No citations besides fan-submitted TV.com Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Karasev[edit]

Ivan Karasev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns, lack of sources

This page has been tagged since May 2009 with notability concerns. This Ivan Karasev apparently is the author of a constructed language whose page was deleted then (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 10#Arahau). At the time the nominating editor suggested nominating this page as well. A sysop on ru: states there that most Ivan Karasev related stuff that wiki seemed to be PR work by one person or a small group of people. There do not seem to be any English language references on this person, although that in itself doesn't mean much, but as I don't speak Russian I can't really comment on the quality of the available sources. I came upon this page because I found a single issue editor spamming WP with ELs to this guy's conlang, and eventually found my way here while reverting his edits. Eniagrom (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had nominated the article about this person for deletion in ru.wiki (link for those who can read in Russian). After long debates participated mostly with unregistered users (presumably Mr. Karasev himslef and his friends) the article was finally kept due to the fact that Karasev is rather frequently contributing to Rossiyskaya Gazeta with reports from his region (see the list of his contributions, in Russian) - it is sufficient reason for keeping in ru.wiki. The problem is that the articles both in Russian and in English are treating Karasev mostly as writer and creator of artificial language; these activities of Karasev are not covered by reliable sources and he is definitely not notable in these aspects. I suppose there are no sources observing his activity as a journalist as well. Therefore probably the article should be deleted in en.wiki. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I am pretty sure this is an autobiography. The language is definitely not notable. Since notability requires that he is himself the subject of substantial coverage his journalistic activity doesn't make him notable - unless he is publishing articles about himself which I doubt. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gill's Delicatessen[edit]

Gill's Delicatessen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Nothing here that indicates that it is notable. No WP:RELY citations. Appears to be WP:SPAM. Student7 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to pass general notability, since it has no sources other than the store website itself. If we could find a local news article and one national coverage (on a TV show or national publication), this might barely meet WP:NOTE. Article creator is clearly in love with sandwiches, perhaps including spam... BusterD (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. gNews search reveals a number of mentions-in-passing of the restaurant in the Rutland Herald ($). The portions of the articles available for free make it clear that none of them are significant in focusing on the restaurant itself, but that the restaurant is mentioned as a backdrop or incidental focus, as in the obituary of the original owner or as a backdrop for life in town. Nothing appears in any other news publication visible through gNews search, so there is no notability beyond the town where the restaurant is located. And not much there. I agree this restaurant fails WP:NOTE. Geoff Who, me? 18:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very limited sources on article which at any rate fail to meet WP:ORG since none of them cover the subject in depth or make any attempt at showing the article's significance. This one will have to go. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 19:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benipal[edit]

Benipal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surname associated with either a village or a king - how many of those are there? Acabashi (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 plagiarism issue has been addressed. Can be speedy renominated with a different deletion rationale. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the Judiciary in the Maldives[edit]

Evolution of the Judiciary in the Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

evidence of plagarism, please see article's talk page for full details. Nihola (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---Ouch...sorry. You were right, I've never heard of that 'publisher'. It wasn't obvious to me, just like the hundreds of other things with wikipedia that are simple once experienced, but not obvious to the uninitiated. And probably too late in the evening/too many articles to boot. I think the article is interesting/important, and worked on it when I came to it from 'wikify'. However, not being able to find any online info about this subject except that one is a problem, and is still going to be a problem, no? How to deal with this? Nihola (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be best to withdraw the nomination and consider what can be done with this content. A rename could help, simply to Judiciary in the Maldives, and that's sure to have sources on it. We have an unsourced section at Maldives#Judiciary which could do with improvement. If you do withdraw, let me or WT:AFD know and we can speedy keep. Fences&Windows 06:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, withdrawn nom please. thnks. Nihola (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Tinnenbaum[edit]

Alfred Tinnenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a massive hoax; none of the footnotes actually support that which they are being cited to support!!!! Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some work on the Iowa Territory article especially with the territorial governors and I never came across Alfred Tinnenbaum's name especially with the territory's last goovernor James Clarke. I agree with OrangeMike this is a hoax. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious hoax.--JayJasper (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Like the proposer, I have checked the references none of which refer to an Alfred Tinnenbaum. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breakaway, North Carolina[edit]

Breakaway, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Breakaway is a commercial development that is supposedly "in progress." It is not a Census Designated Place, village, town or any other established locale. The only item given for reference is a commercial website which no longer works. Arx Fortis (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a real estate development that has only found some local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a non-notable housing project. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The village is named in this Lot for sale listing, but its location on Google Maps is not named and just lies on the outskirts of Mars Hill. - Dave Crosby (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Real Estate listings aren't a very reliable indicator for actual neighbourhoods or named geographic areas. Real estate agents will make up names for areas or expand desirable neighborhood boundaries to cover other areas. In this listing, Breakaway is listed as the area and neighbourhood and does nothing to indicate why this location is notable. It certainly does not verify that it is an actual village. -- Whpq (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingswell Theological Seminary[edit]

Kingswell Theological Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The subject institution has not even opened its doors yet, and given that the scheduled opening is over a year away (Fall of 2012), any number of events can happen that could prevent the eventual opening of the institution. Also to consider is the conflict of interest of the article's author, whose name is the same as the institution's "Communication Team Leader" as listed on their website. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jose M. Sanchez[edit]

Jose M. Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Article is basically a vanity page / resumé. The only sources that mention the subject are his own linkedin.com page and what amounts to a "company" news letter. Arx Fortis (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find mentions in press releases like this but no coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only minor notability claimed, and those claims are unverified. For example, the article credits him with "one of the first integrations between medical knowledge data bases and clinical documentation modules in conjunction with SureScripts and Florida Shots," but the linked FloridaShots newsletter mentions him only as the winner of a drawing! --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season[edit]

List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List cruft. We don't need a page to document all 73 of his 2001 home runs. All pertinent info should be at Barry Bonds or 2001 Major League Baseball season. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that's why I see this as different from 1998 record chase. There there was massive and continual attention from outside sources, the entire chase was notable and has coverage. On the other hand Bonds' chase really didn't, so this type of article really has no reason to exist. Same way we don't have List of Ichiro Suzuki's 262 hits during the 2004 season: The overall record is notable but the individual events weren't (same here, each of Bonds' home runs weren't notable, and those that are are already in the Bonds' notable HR list). Staxringold talkcontribs 15:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so if I understand your argument correctly, 1998 was about the chase, and showing their parallel progress helps define the chase better. That would perhaps account for the lack of articles about Ruth 1927 and Maris 1961 also... or Ruth 1921, for that matter. Interestingly enough, 1927 and 1961 coverage tended to compare game-by-game with the previous record holding seasons. Likewise with Mantle in 1961, Greenberg in 1938 and Foxx in 1932. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely, though I do think there'd be a case for the '61 record chase (seeing as how it got a movie made about it and everything). There you actually had competition and heavy coverage, the controversy over 154/162, etc, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guy who created it 4 years ago or so is still active, but has yet to come here to defend it. Looks like it's headed for the last roundup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would guess the reason for their being articles on the 1998 and 2001 chases but not 1921, 1927, 1932, 1938 and 1961 is due to recentism and the availability (and lack thereof) of sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I posted this for discussion at WP:MLB about a week ago. Not much discussion, though. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I was the only one who responded. I thought it should be deleted and figured an AfD would generate more discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hīt. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navea Training Center[edit]

Navea Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a training center in Iraq has no sources. After searching I found two reliable sources--one in CNN ([24]) and one a DoD press release ([25]. Both mention the base only in passing. This seems to be just one of many US bases in Iraq part of the Iraq War, which has no particular claim to notability. Without WP:RS, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Frazer[edit]

Zach Frazer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am as big a college football fan as anyone else, but Zach Frazer fails all measures of notability or even the prospect of being notable. None of the sources on the page pass WP:NOTNEWS and I do not see more sources which would indicate the article's passing of GNG. He is not the recipient of any major awards nor is he a prospect for the NFL, given that he has thrown 17 touchdowns and 21 interceptions over 3 years at Connecticut. TM 13:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone actually show the non-trivial, non- WP:NOTNEWS sources you are referring to? Otherwise it is WP:JUSTAVOTE.--TM 03:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's four: [26], [27], [28], [29]. –Grondemar 03:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note also it literally took me less than a minute to find those sources. There are a lot more where those came from. –Grondemar 03:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Extensive non-trivial news coverage as mentioned above. In addition to the articles cited by Grondemar, here's another example: [30]. He was the starting quarterback for a Division IA major college football team; starting QBs on major college teams are almost always going to receive sufficient coverage to establish notability. And he led the Huskies to the first BCS bowl game appearance in school history. Cbl62 (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Verbal Surgeon[edit]

The Verbal Surgeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indicatiobn of meeting notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO. References given are eithr not independent of the subject or are trivial. Disputed prod. Google searches find nothing that would indicate notability. noq (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you google search "The Verbal Surgeon Hip Hop" dozens of sites will come up with content on the artist. If you look around certain sites you will see his independent fan base is growing throughout the US.Also if you reset your search filter on google images to normal instead of filtering for "images for reuse" you'll find there is small coverage on the artist. I searched numerous independent artists on google images with your filter settings and nothing came up. Without filtering anything on google images, things seem to work as they should. WP:ARTIST,WP:CREATIVE WP:CHANCE Give the article time to grow and develop. Heaveninsideyourhell (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:ARTIST WP:CREATIVE WP:CHANCE criteria. Heaveninsideyourhell (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the citations in the article are nothing but track listings, which are not enough to build an article on. There are no hits on Google News. The best I could find were things like Facebook and MySpace, which are not to be used as sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of locations in the Honorverse. Specifically, delete as unsourced and non-notable, and then redirect.  Sandstein  06:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erewhon (Honorverse)[edit]

Erewhon (Honorverse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, and unsourced. Article was PRODDED with the reason given as "long unreferenced, non-notable fictional element". PROD was removed with an edit summary which does not make the reason clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as I suggested after the initial prod. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, let's speedy close this as "redirect" after a carried merge then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Revolution[edit]

Jasmine Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, duplicates 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution   Cs32en Talk to me  08:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, no its not, it is widespread name for this international revolution, regarding China, Iran, Algeria, Yemen, Morocco... Keep, there are numerous sources on web for this name. Quite pointless nomination for me... Also, extremely important factor in "Colour revolution" geopolitical nomenclature. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Jasmine revolution is not only related to Tunisia and it is giving jitters to many other countries affecting billions of lives. Thus the article need to be expanded instead of deleting. --Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the events in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as their effects on other countries, there is 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete (or redirect to 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution), completely redundant, copy and pasted over from the main protests article. There are no citations backing up the fact that these collective protests are so named the "Jasmine Revolution", only that Tunisia's was named so by Western media. No notability. No originality. No verifiability. Delete. --haha169 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not right, Jasmine Revolution is name also for China, Iran, all named country. And we HAVE sources for that... :) --WhiteWriter speaks 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Google | search on this topic will clearly how it a not a single country phenomena, but a greater than that, as world media is covering it for different countries.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are using the same argument for each delete, that a separate article is needed for all the protests. Is that not what 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests is doing? Repetition... --75.28.160.165 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Tunisian revolution - as it originally was. If, as the article indicates, the Chinese protests are also being called the Jasmine Revolution, a hatnote can be included in the Tunisia article. (Although the Chinese Jasmine Revolution article was created by the same user and is not very good.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though it started in Tunisia, but it is doing revolutionary things in Egypt and other countries like China, thus it surely deserves a separate article.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has received a great deal of press coverage this week. I don't think that it should be rolled in to the Tunisian article. I think it deserves an independent article.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No revolution has happened or is happening in China at this time. While the current protests that are taking place in China may be described in a separate article, that article cannot be named "Jasmine Revolution".  Cs32en Talk to me  21:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just another name for the MENA protests, of which we already have an article on. There's no need to duplicate that information in another article just because it has a special name. A name that violates NPOV, by the way, considering you should be using a more neutral title and then just note in the first line that it is also referred to as the Jasmine Revolution. Either way, this article is unnecessary. SilverserenC 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a history, the event is currently going on and millions or probably billions of people know it by 'jasmine revolution' as they read the name in media. As it is not related to a single country, so a separate article is needed, as other articles are related to particular countries.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should be just about the places having protests outside the MENA area. Which means you should remove everything but China and Algeria. Otherwise, you're just copying content that is already used in the MENA article. SilverserenC 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is now a worldwide phenomenon of sorts, and has spread out from the Arab world and the Middle East region. It deserves an article of it's own. The Scythian 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A10 This has been copied from the main article and pasted here under a title not agreed or discussed on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
90% of the article's content are collected from internet from 10s of sites and is not copied. Sufficient references are also provided.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A great deal has been copied over from the main protest article, though some indeed were added. Well-referenced does not mean it wasn't copied... --haha169 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Redirect to 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution per below, the Jasmine revolution is another name given to the Tunisian revolution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tunisian revolution is suggests that the movement and protests for that country, but this is becoming international in nature, so is better called 'Jasmine revolution' for international level, and 'Tunisian revolution' for that country specifically.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the term ″Jasmine Revolution″ becomes more popular and important a single page for it is important. dpw (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does not even make sense and goes against WP:Crystal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except not every country THAT HAS BEEN INVOLVED has used the term "Jasmine Revolution" In Iran it is called the Green Movement, is there a source that is saying that in every country involved it is referred to the jasmine revolution or can this be a bit more POV? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I direct you to this wonderful little article: 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. --haha169 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Countries like China are not part of Middle East and North Africa, thus a separate articles name need to be 'Jasmine revolution', the other article might be merged with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.145.248 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be renamed.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge with Tunisia protests. Article is either unsourced OR and thus POV or replicated ingo in an attemtp to be like the umprella page 2010-2011 Arab worldprotests.Lihaas (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Many OR edits.

174.24.197.143 (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's policies and precedents to say definitively what should be done, but I do think we tread on eggshells by trying to determine the validity of a given label in current-events situations: Aside from the fact that the events are still developing, to have a Wikipedia article under a certain title reifies it in the minds of those who hear the term somewhere and inevitably end up on the Wikipedia article when they google it. For now it seems clear that this at least needs to be a disambiguation page or redirect with a disambiguation note, assuming the China article isn't deleted or merged. Whether there's enough to justify this being a separate article or it needs to be merged with 'Tunisia Effect' or some other solution, I'm not sure. Gonfalone (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems to be what the outcome of this discussion will be. Which is good, because that just means that we are saying that the subject doesn't meet notability standards for now. If more events happen later, then the redirect can just be reverted, so all the old content is back in the article and the new content can be added. So, if more stuff does end up happening, then this is just a temporary thing. If nothing further does happen, then it's a moot point anyways. SilverserenC 09:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. The only non-MENA regions mentioned here are China and Iran, of which the Iran section does not have any references. Even some of the other sections are problematic, for example, ref 30 for Libya says "...he had openly worried about during Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution." Nowhere in the reference is the phrase Jasmine revolution explicitly used to describe the Libyan revolt. Other sections may also have similar problems. Maybe we should include a line in the MENA article saying "the term Jasmine revolution was used to describe some of these" or something to that effect. SPat talk 11:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests per SPat. Kmusser (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per Silver seren. Moreover, there are some significant issues regarding verifiability and original research. Also, as somebody has pointed out above, several articles with the same content under different names are popping up. If not a deletion, my second choice would be to redirect to 2011 Chinese protests, as that looks like it's going to be kept, and as which is the origin and is a by-product of the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. –MuZemike 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Redirecting to 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution obviously doesn't work as the article discussed various countries. Redirecting to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests also doesn't work because we got China in this issue (which is pretty clear that China is not in Middle East nor North Africa). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are multiple items called by the same name, then it should be a disambiguation page, but not a single article talking about disperate events. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider "White Revolution". This is a nickname for the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and the Iranian reforms of 1963. Just because two revolutions share a name, doesn't mean we must create a separate article talking about how they share a name. Sure, we can mention in the Tunisian Revolution article its impact in China, but that doesn't warrant two articles, one about Tunisian Revolution and the other about Tunisian Revolution and its influence on a similar movement that didn't even materialize in China. 140.180.14.79 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Delete/Redirect Oh my dear god, either people have no knowledge of the present situation, or haven't read the article at all. First of all, there are only two revolutions called "Jasmine Revolution" by at least numerous sources, one in China and Tunisia, not the however many present in the article. As someone mentioned, in Iran, the nickname is "Green Revolution". Keeping this doesn't makes ANY SENSE. The Chinese one is not even a real revolution. NOTHING happened. As in, just a bunch of police showed up and some people who didn't really do anything. That's it. We can mention the effect of the Tunisian Revolution on China in the 2010-2011 Tunisian Revolution sure. But stop creating almost identical wikipedia articles for no reason. 140.180.14.79 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests._ morde t .. 12:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete outright to the Tunisian article; the term has no notable relevance or connection to anything else, this is just made-up nonsense. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bloomburg journalist are connecting the Middle East revolutions with the Chinese Jasmine protests. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Bloomberg journalist saying x, y and z means absolutely nothing. Journalists are not "hurr experts in geopolitifications" like you claim them to be. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of these articles on the collective events into one. We need an article to describe the events as a whole, but what it should be named remains to be seen. Let's see if anything pops up between now and the AfD. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge: Redundant, and has the potential for widening a POV fork. The association of many unrelated protests (i.e., that of the "protests" in China and demonstrations in Tunisia) is WP:OR. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is an ongoing event and the fact everyone is overlooking is that the nomenclature is still very fluid as to what exactly this whole thing might be called. This article should be kept if but to be developed into one covering the collective protests that have flared up and been inspired by one another, facilitated by increased internet usage by those involved. The advantage to having a non-geographic home article is that, since the protests can seemingly pop up anywhere - and have - until the protests have concluded, it's very difficult to give them a comprehensively-named article, not to mention how clunky such a titled article would be ('Pan-African-China-Middle East Protest Movement Via Twitter'). While it may not be the most globally used term, it is an identifiable one, and with more usage may very well become the accepted term for these events in a world context. Yes, each one may have a different variation on the naming, but this thing, as of yet, does not have one big, overarching title. Let's give it one and develop the article from there, and if it ends up being known by some other term, rename it at that time ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crtrue (talk • contribs) 07:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet even so, the title "Pan-African-China-Middle East Protest Movement Via Twitter" is still WP:OR simply because it has the word "China" in it. There are many scuffles in China every year, and as said time and time again, linking the most recent one with the Middle East protests is entirely WP:OR. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except, journalists themselves are linking the current protests in China with what is going on in the Middle East. So, if there is any OR it is by the subject matter experts in the field themselves. I saw a journalist on MSNBC just today link Chinese protests with Middle East rebellions/revolutions.*shrug* Right now the situation is fluid, I recommend keeping the article on that basis, and if any revision needs to happen going forward then it can be at a later time. Right now, I'm seeing ... from the prospect of watching news coverage here, the undeniable linking of the two.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
This is because the removal of contents from this discussion, together with blanking of the article and replacing it with a redirect, may have prevented participation by some editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : - For long the people of china have longed for human rights. Democracy is the only way this could be ensured. More and more articles on Jasmine Revolution should be kept to increase the visibility of the revolution and the cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActiveSaurabh (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 going to quote King of Hearts' closing summary for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010-2011 Worldwide protests, because I think it applies just as well here: "It is not up to Wikipedians to judge whether something is particularly remarkable; what we need are reliable sources...For comparison, the Revolutions of 1989 are naturally coherent because of their common, specific theme (abolishing communism), which of course led to widespread coverage on the topic as a whole. The Revolutions of 1848 are not as related as those of 1989, but scores of historians have discussed this as a lump sum that it is worthy of an article. If future historians do the same for this event, of course the article may be recreated." NW (Talk) 17:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010–2011 anti-government protests[edit]

2010–2011 anti-government protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Copied from the talk page): This article seems to me a case of synthesis - yes, there have been lots of protests around the world in 2010 and 2011, but that doesn't mean they're related. Do the protests in Egypt, Kyrgyzstan, Chile, Cote d'Ivoire and the United States really have anything in common with each other, except for taking place within the same year? I doubt it. Robofish (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete It seems to me that this article is salvageable in principle. I wouldn't be shocked if there existed reliable sources that compare and contrast these protests and/or hypothesize a common cause. That said, the only cited comparison so far is between Wisconsin and Egypt, and that's just not enough. Melchoir (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yeah, some of the protests have one or two sources linking them to the Arab world protests, but I think we'd have to do better than that to create "anti-government protests." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, some of these protests are not even related to the ones in the middle east and we do not need an article of every protest that happen every given year. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While I would not be surprised to soon see the news media come up with the theory that protests in one part of the world inspire more protests in another, with the internet as the germ carrier, it's original synthesis for any editor here to jump to that conclusion. The premise of the article is that these are all connected, and I think it points out the problems that would come with trying to group protest incidents by year (i.e., 2008 anti-government protests, 2009 protests, etc)-- people would start synthesizing patterns. I'll say "weak" delete because if the press began to push its own theory of worldwide protest, a non-OR article could be made. Mandsford 04:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep-the topic is salvageable...there have been an abnormal number of protests in various parts of the world thus far this year which do have mainstream coverage. Provided sources are added, the topic is notable enough.Smallman12q (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, keep the info in the MENA article for now; if there are substantial protests in other regions and there's some kind of pattern, we can always re-split. —Nightstallion 10:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is the essence of WP:SYNTHESIS; taking disparate events and tying them together into a topic of one's own creation. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article that matters is at 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. There's no recognised connection to anything outside of the MENA region. MLA (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really guys...we need to stop making a whole bunch of articles on the same topic. --haha169 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, which is an article on the major protests. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed that this is textbook WP:SYNTH. Each of the events described is itself notable, but that doesn't make an overarching article worth writing, unless there's some overarching movement. Which, really, there isn't. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 02:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010-2011 Worldwide protests and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Revolution Active Banana (bananaphone 20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept, there's certainly no need for three articles. Jasmine Revolution, 2010-2011 Worldwide protests, 2010–2011 anti-government protests should merge together (whatever articles survive deletion). 65.93.15.125 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 2010-2011 Worldwide protests. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC) See directly below:[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Concurrent related protests Alinor (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Just because we don't have a catchy name for what's been going on in the Middle East/Africa doesn't mean we should dismiss the significant impact that the various movements have had on perpetuating others. Long after the dust has settled, there will be some aspiring anthropologist or sociologist that will better get at the source of these conflicts and hopefully assign a name. Necessary for deletion would be the argument & proof that these conflicts are not interconnected at all, and I just don't see that argument having legitimacy. If we were able to group these under a title, like has been tried with the Jasmine Revolution. Then there would be considerable merit. cdsaylor (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.1 (talk) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
This is because the removal of contents from this discussion, together with blanking of the article and replacing it with a redirect, may have prevented participation by some editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & others, clearly WP:SYNTH. Merge proposed by Alinor is worthy of consideration, however.--JayJasper (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep They all happened in 2010-2011; this is cited. They were all anti-government protests; this is cited. The assertions of SYNTH are groundless, and further connections between the protests are neither required of nor asserted by the article. I have never seen SYNTH used correctly in an AfD. It seems to be a devil's playground for overreaching of almost paranoiac proportions.
"...except for taking place within the same year?" As I have shown, the argument that there must be further connections other than the year they happened is unfounded, there are no further connections asserted in the article, nor should we add any.
Although the core argument is already refuted, I contradict the notion that it is common sense that there are no other connections also: "...Do the protests...really have anything in common with each other...I doubt it" I would agree with an assertion that these protests are not necessarily related, but to assert that they are necessarily not related? Rubbish. The protestors read the news, they know of the other protests, and it seems likely to the point of certainty that they were, in some part, inspired by the others. Anarchangel (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore phenomenon[edit]

Baltimore phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this term is actually used. A Google search for the term shows it having multiple uses - none that I could see related to maps. Baltimore Phenomenon was deleted in December as an expired prod. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My searches turn up nothing that the nom's didn't. -Selket Talk 10:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be original research, specifically synthesis of articles from several scholarly journals into a new, unpublished concept. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. RadioFan (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Roydon (2nd nomination)[edit]

Todd Roydon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no signs of notability about this footballer Wrwr1 (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Source regarding the article for football/soccer player Todd Roydon on the website (http://santafc.ning.com/ ⇄ Agia Paraskevi F.C. - Official) Website could not be accessed due to the website being temporarily unavailable, I'm sure the footballer would soon be notably known if not yet widely known and I'm also sure that sources would be available very soon as the player is a Free Agent and should be joining a new team soon after playing for professional Greek club Agia Paraskevi F.C. in the Football League 2 (Greece). So I Would be grateful if you can reconsider putting the article for Nomination for Deletion Todd Roydon on Temporary hold, Thank's. WhizzSheep (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the words of WhizzSheep: "I'm sure the footballer would soon be notably known", so you are saying it is currently not notably known. --Muhandes (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep - in the words of Muhandes: "So you are saying it is currently not notably known", what I'm saying is that due to the only reliable sources not being currently available to access from the website of Agia Paraskevi F.C. who last played in the (Football League 2 (Greece) ⇄ Fully Professional League), (http://santafc.ning.com/ ⇄ Agia Paraskevi F.C. - Official Website) could not be accessed due to the website being currently unavailable, and the club recently withdrew from the Football League 2 (Greece) due to Finacial-Difficulties. The footballer is now a Free Agent and should be joining a New Fully-Professional club in a Fully-Professional League soon, so Reliable sources should be available then if not available at present and the footballer is possibly to be notably known if not known by you Muhandes, Wrwr1 and any other Wikipedia-Editors at present who may decide to Challenge the Article of Todd Roydon, that is why I have pleaded that the Article for the professional footballer Todd Roydon should be at least Strongly-Considered for a Temporary-Hold and NOT to be considered for straight Nomination for Deletion just because you or others find the footballer is not notably known at present, Thank's. --WhizzSheep (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 02:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Greek 3rd Division is indeed fully-pro - but we have no evidence this guy has actually played in it. GiantSnowman 02:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, and therefore fails WP:NSPORT. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG, and to say that there will be is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amram Musungu[edit]

Amram Musungu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very weak assertions to notability - unless I'm missing something, which is always possible. Dweller (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are no sources for this content, and compliance with the core policy WP:V is not optional.  Sandstein  06:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Libyan protests chants[edit]

2011 Libyan protests chants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not likely to ever have reliable sources for the list of chants. Otherwise, it just duplicates information at 2011 Libyan protests. -- Selket Talk 08:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be happy to invest more time into referencing news articles with video recordings in which these chants were gathered from if you feel that would be a sufficiently reliable source? Abdulrahmansalem (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course I am rooting for the protesters, but this is just a collection of quotes. Even if every one was sourced it would not be a suitable premise for an encyclopedia article. Otherwise we could have lists of everything anyone was quoted as saying. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'd have to disagree. This is a very notable event in history in which these freedom cries are echoing around the world. It is valuable to document the voices of the people during this turning point in history, and an encyclopedia seems like a very reasonable place to do so. People are looking for this information, and many have found this page to valuable already. Admittedly, I'm the creator of the article so have a vested interest in keeping it alive. I'd be happy to invest more time into referencing news articles with video recordings in which these chants were gathered from if you feel that would be a sufficiently reliable source. Or if you feel this page should be merged with other pages that is also reasonable, in my opinion. Abdulrahmansalem (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep While I agree that an encyclopedia is not the place for lists of quotes without foundation, this page chronicles the unified voice of a nation. These quotes should be chronicled in Libyan history just as other famous quotes and speeches are referenced on other historical pages linked to historical events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.100.12 (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friendly comment I'd like to suggest WP:WEBHOST Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to some other project, like WikiBooks or WikiSource. These are full-texts of songs and chants, and should not be on Wikipedia. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These chants are likely to be significant to historians researching this event in years to come, including showing the mood of the people. Again, "one man's cruft is another man's important relevant matter". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree 100% that the material is important. It's just that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia with articles about important (as well as less important) topics. Not a place to store and display the important source material itself.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may as well stay here until we agree where else to put them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transfer to Wikiquote maybe? --Selket Talk 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to sister projects (source?) - Matt 92.104.114.119 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. References to Adonis DNA? Trivial information. If any of these chants in particular become a documented rallying cry to unify the resistance, that's one thing, but as it stands now, these are simply a collection of chants that may not even be reliable or verified properly. Cmiych (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Content is fascinating, but sourcing is abysmal. WHO collected this information? HOW was it compiled? WHERE has it been published? A few vague comments and dates about "uploaded" material doesn't really cut it, does it? Userfy this to the creator until it can be properly sourced. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Okorocha[edit]

Henry Okorocha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by cheater Zombie433 so club career could be wrong, no signs of notability Wrwr1 (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Chidozie[edit]

Henry Chidozie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

he's reportedly played in first division, but it is not fully professional league Wrwr1 (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Towing and Recovery Hall of Fame and Museum[edit]

International Towing and Recovery Hall of Fame and Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible notabilty from the article and no references or secondary reliable sources. Warfieldian (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability - though might get a reference to the museum in Tow truck. Springnuts (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC) keep ivo sources available (though they are pretty much pot-boiler articles).Springnuts (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After a quick search, I turned up these independent sources amongst all of the non-independent secondary sources. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I think this museum is notable enough for Wikipedia.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The museum is already listed as a link in the Tow Truck article which seems adequate without a separate article. Warfieldian (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Yuri Yampolski[edit]

Johan Yuri Yampolski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I wrote in my prod: "Unreferenced BLP. Name doesn't sound Polish, google search gives no hits, pl wiki has no article on composer under Jampolski. Possible hoax.". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Race Driver: Grid 2 (correct name format) already redirects to target. The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race driver grid 2[edit]

Race driver grid 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL: Not announced by company. No reliable sources found. Contested PROD. Jarkeld (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing concrete from Codemasters. Plus horrific title grammar and capitalisation! Jonathan McLeod (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. There's coverage of the sequel in the first game's article, I corrected the redirect link. --Teancum (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morassina[edit]

Morassina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be about a cave in Germany. There is a claim that it is in the Guinness Book of Records, but lacks citations. There is an interwiki to de. Also, the creation entry in the edit log suggests some COI problems. Selket Talk 05:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - According to Mindat.org, it's a mine that operated from the 17th to the 19th centuries. It's now a tourist attraction. [31]. The German Wikipedia article is a lot more in-depth. Nominating an article for deletion for it's 2nd edit and within six hours of its creation is not cool. It should be made lest advert-like though. --Oakshade (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would tagging it with {{db-spam}} have been less "not cool"? This process gives a week to see if anyone can come up with sources or if anyone other than the PR firm hired by the tourist attraction to promote it on Wikipedia cares. --Selket Talk 09:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Morassina article exists already in German language. With that background I started with Morassina in English as well. If this article survives, I personal will take care for the permanent improvement and the quality criteria. That’s way my proposal is, NOT to delete it. VR HHaeckel — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHaeckel (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The entry in the Guinness Book of World Records appears to have been only in the 1996 edition; I can't track it down. However there's a 2006 article on the minerals produced by the mine, "Das Alaunschieferbergwerk „Morassina" bei Schmiedefeld am Rennweg (Saalfelder Höhe) im Thüringischen Schiefergebirge", and that snippet view shows in the footnotes 2 further articles entirely about the mine. That article also talks about the stalactites, from a mineralogical point of view. Here it is in a guidebook as "worth a visit." There's likely more of a mention in Birgit Grosz, Museen in den neuen Bundesländern: Kultur- und Freizeitführer, but I can't see it online. This guidebook entry confirms the information I added to the article from the de.wikipedia entry: the dates and the fact the people who rediscovered the mine were looking for uranium. Putting the reference to "radon healing galleries" there together with the mine homepage, it seems exposure to radon is offered as a spa treatment there. I think it squeaks by as a notable mine and an existing tourist facility, but I'm puzzled how little there is online about the stalactites if they are really Guinness-worthy. --Yngvadottir (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Anarchangel (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Anarchangel (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing weak about those cites. Selket also has had a week to care, but I got Oakshade's citation in the article first. Score! Anarchangel (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay B. Reznick[edit]

Jay B. Reznick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to have one or two published articles, but even after removing the advert/resume tone the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guideline for notability of an individual. tedder (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi rategreat88, none of the additions help to meet Wikipedia's guideline for notability of an individual. Let me go through them.
Overall, there's plenty of proof that Reznick exists and has a commercial practice. There's indication he's active in his commercial field, but to me, he doesn't meet the burden of WP:BIO and other standards, such as WP:GNG. In other words, having published some papers is different than being widely cited for those papers, or being the leader in a very specific field. One good rule of thumb for the many links given (above) is to see how many of them have articles on Wikipedia. For instance, CEREC does, but not CEREC Doctors or Dental Journal. tedder (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's notablilty guidelines and is nothing more than free commercial advertising. Moreover, there are many clues which lead me to believe that the principal author User:Rategreat88 is the subject of the article.--Hokeman (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails to meet notability guidelines and smacks of a spammy vanity bio in tone: A front-runner and consultant for emerging technologies that are revolutionizing dentistry... Carrite (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fritz Theater[edit]

The Fritz Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find and sources for this article. It appears to be a non-notable theater company. No improvements in over 2 years. TJ Black (talk) 00:49, 14 February 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) 02:31, 21 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I live in San Diego and I can tell you that the Fritz is/was as non-notable as they come - a very small, very experimental company that rarely rated a review in the local paper even when they had a place to perform. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although there has been coverage of plays that occurred a said theater by the LA Times and SDUT there doesn't appear to be sufficient coverage of the subject of this article to warrant it passing WP:GNG. Subject of article may be sufficient to be covered under WP:LOCAL, however, it needs to pass WP:GNG first, and it doesn't look like there is sufficient secondary or tertiary reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article as the primary focus of the writings. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mondrians[edit]

The Mondrians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a Swiss band was created on 2 January 2009 by a user who has not been seen since. The article was tagged for notability in January 2010, and none has been suggested since. It remains unsourced, despite request in November 2009. A quick Google search brought up no independent sources to testify to this group's notability; links were to Wikis, blogs, facebook and other sites belonging to the group itself. The article says that the band has recorded some home-made demos (not notable - what band hasn't?) and has recorded one album, though no sales or charts figures are given. Unless I'm missing something (which is possible - I'm not genned up on modern bands) this article fails on notability grounds. Emeraude (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because same reasons.

The Mondrians (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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) 02:14, 21 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia at the 2011 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival[edit]

Estonia at the 2011 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as they are just a list of non-notable people.

I also nominating the following articles

Merge in to ONE article and Delete ALL of these stubs. Delete ALL and Merge in to ONE. These could easily be merged in to one article called 2011 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival. What's the point of creating all these articles for one event unless the article is too large to handle.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 21:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It would be too long to handle per your suggestion. And a parent article does exist: 2011 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival. The question is really whether a listing of all athletes (like is done at the olympics/major regional games/some world championships, etc.) is needed for an event of such minor, relatively, notability. Ravendrop 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is a bad thing to merge in to the 2011 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival. It's not a small event and as youth opportunities go it's a very special event. I think that there should be an article about the event itself because it is a continental event. But it' is overkill to have all of these stub articles. I understand the point that you are making. Well made.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk)

Delete ALL I hate to see so much work go to waste. But Ravendrop is right.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 22:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - give people time. I'm sure the point of these articles are not to list people. The event itself is notable, and the participating nations also. Number of participants, whats sports they reprsent, what medals/places they got etc - makes a quite wide coverage. Look also articles in Category:Nations at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, I don't think they should be deleted. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Event is notable and even more popular than many multi-sport events that also have different articles about every country in wikipedia. Bearas (talk) 13:23, 25 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis (brothel)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Atlantis (brothel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable former brothel. Article is unverified, and while I'd love to add some sources, there aren't any. Google News searches for 'Atlantis brothel Frankfurt' as well as 'Atlantis Bordell Frankfurt' reveal nothing. In Google Books the English permutation gives one hit, a mere mention in a book from a barely notable publisher; the German permutation provides a little bit more--with the caveat that it's from a print on demand book. So, no. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: I just noticed that the article had been through AfD in 2004; this is one of the versions of that time. The AfD discussion is interesting, if only because of a complete lack of references being brought forth, let alone cited, and because it ended in a keep. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone needs to put the work in and list the references.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying there are references? Drmies (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. I'm saying that if there are any worthwhile references that someone has to put the work in and add them to the article. Otherwise this article should be deleted. I'm not spending any time searching for a brothel.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is actually its third deletion nomination. The first is preserved on the talkpage. That was in 2003; the 2nd was in 2004. I believe they both predate the requirement that articles have references. I'll do some digging later and see whether I can find anything. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I suspected, one has to search for Altenstadt rather than Frankfurt. FKK Sauna Club Altenstadt gets a huge number of hits on adult listing sites and forums, in both English and German. These confirm the details of the article, and I have added back the useful contextual mention of Freikörperkultur and linked it, and added the size of the club. I have also added the later incarnation of the club (seems to date to 2007) in a different municipality. However none of these are RS. Nothing in Der Spiegel on this one, but I got 4 hits in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung archive, all regarding the closure, which I think establishes notability. I added the earliest 2 articles as refs on the closure, but they are paywalled and I can only see the headlines, months, and first line or so of text; someone with a subscription needs to go look at them for specifics. I left the legal grounds for closure since the forums all agree on them, but strictly speaking that is unreferenced at present. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there is anything, other than the closure, to establish notability mentioned in any of the references? The closure of a brothel, mentioned in newspapers, doesn't really make for a notable event (if it does then Wikipedia will be deluged with articles about places that have closed down with a mention in a couple of newspapers). Was there anything special about it? Was it in a famous movie? Or were any famous people exposed for having attended it? Or basically, anything that isn't just about the closure. I'll withdraw my delete if there is anything that establishes notability.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 21:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an awkward one. I really hope there is someone with access to the newspaper archives; without that, I don't know whether there is - in RS. (The articles will presumably mention earlier discussion of the topics that predates the online archive, if there is any.) On the other hand, it is all over racy sites in both German and English. If ever there were a notable brothel in Germany in the last decade, this apparently was it. But I hope I didn't infect my computer searching.--Yngvadottir (talk) 22:02, 25 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It has been closed for a while, and is not notable enough for an article here--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability does not expire - if it was notable, it doesn't matter that it no longer exists.--Yngvadottir (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable for the wikipedia. I say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient indepth sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Chan[edit]

Bryan Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Admittedly, reading the article the subject certainly appears notable, two Best Supporting Actor awards, unfortunatley I am unable to verify that anything in the article is true. J04n(talk page) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source to show this person is notable. Please avoid the deletion. Many actors and actresses from these regions do not have enough (or any) English sources coverage, even the more famous people. Benjwong (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems notable from article, but lack of an entry on another wiki is telling. Disambig here - http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%99%B3%E5%9C%8B%E8%8F%AF - has no current actor with the name, only a Hong Kong politician and director. Google search for his Chinese name brings up half a million hits, but may just be a common name. Google images seems to have lots of pictures of him. I'd like to hear from a Singapore Chinese before I made a judgment on this one. Bienfuxia (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the "appears notable" comment, but without reliable, 3rd party verification confirming the claims I would have to lean towards delete. Additionally, if he won the Best Supporting Actor Star Awards twice in 1998 and 2000, how come he isn't listed on it's WP page as a recipient for that award category (admittedly, this not necessarily a good measure for inclusion)? Chen Guo Hua is listed as the recipient. 14:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep Chen Guo Hua link redirects to Bryan Chan. After looking a little deeper it appears that Bryan Chen is the chosen English name for Chen Guo Hua. I am unable to find a reliable source to confirm this, but I can find content linking some of the content in the Bryan Chan article to Chen Guo Hua. Perhaps at least a redirect back to Chen Guo Hua. Barkeep Chat | $ 15:42, 18 February 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, Jujutacular talk 03:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: article is a BLP. Jujutacular talk 03:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His name should be Chen Guo Hua, MediaCorp biography link[34], listing his 2 award wins for supporting actor. As he mainly act in chinese drama, english articles will be hard to find. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G4) by Chrislk02. Non-admin closure.Deor (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Donovan (porn star)[edit]

Rick Donovan (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of porn performer with no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. IMDB lists no awards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Starred in more than 30 movies and has a 10" penis is notable. I'm suspect there may be some sexist/anti-gay bias behind this nom. There's plenty of other porn stars up here on Wikipedia you could nom, but you chose this one. Same line of work, different sexuality/gender. What gives? Maybe you need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself what it is that makes you hate this article so much. Maybe you'll find it's really something you hate within yourself. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your relevant and insightful comments. I will be sure to ask myself those questions the next time I find myself near a mirror. Also, your user talk page seems to redirect to Fuck off, which you might consider changing so you look sightly less trollish. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done. I ran into user at another AfD, without a ten-inch penis. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - is this it? A list of not notable movies and a single bloggy external? Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not WP:NOTABLE. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP without any proper sourcing. No verified claim of notability. Allowing this is like letting some random YouTube user list all the videos they're in, to prove notability. Being in a video just means somebody hit the "record" button. It doesn't mean anybody noted it. --Rob (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless you can come up with some reliable sources about him and his work, then he does not meet our notability standards. LadyofShalott 15:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the many valid reasons already listed. We really should reconsider the practice of allowing the claim of being a "porn star", standing alone or with nothing more than a laundry list of credits, to be sufficient to survive A7 speedy deletion. And Moonlichen's comments certainly resemble those made by various sockpuppeteers in other discussions regarding the notability of gay porn performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at Google Books you'll find plenty of evidence for a gay pornstar named Rick Donovan, known for the large size of his penis. Whether there's enough reliable material there to write an article about I doubt, but comments here make it obvious that nobody has made any effort to look for sources. I'm pretty sure that we should have articles about gay porn stars like Donovan, but I'm also fairly sure that we don't currently having the sourcing to keep it. Fences&Windows 01:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've nominated the page for speedy deletion; Rick Donovan was deleted in 2009 for lack of RS-sourcing [35], and the current version seems to be little more than a skimpier version of the original with even less reliable (non)referencing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reliable sources exist, but they are difficult to tease out because of the commonness of the name and the reduced likelihood of said sources to be available online. The article is in terrible shape but that's not an excuse for deleting it. Lafe Smith (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Apparently the version I have seen is the "Clarion Dispatch" which matches the description given here but is not the actual "main" newspaper. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Clarion[edit]

Peninsula Clarion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a free weekly paper of limited distribution. Basically, it is an advertising circular and not a "real" newspaper.Most weeks it is five or six pages of ads with two or three short articles thrown in to create the appearance of being an actual news reporting organ. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh: The Hero[edit]

Gilgamesh: The Hero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school play lacking GHIts and GNEWS.. ttonyb (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James McDonald (artist)[edit]

James McDonald (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The deletion is complicated by having multiple matches available for the name. Searching GNews and GBooks finds no relevant matches for this McDonald when refining by year of birth or by Falkiner Award. Examining the self-published bio page at www.jamesmcdonald.co.nr shows nothing to unambiguously demonstrate notability against WP:ARTIST such as nationally or internationally recognized awards or permanent public exhibition. A PROD was rejected in 2008 on the basis that sources might be found, however in the intervening 3 years this has not improved and it seems unlikely that the issues of verification and notability will be addressed in the near future. Fæ (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All working artists have exhibitions for sale, and these count towards notability, but depending on how prestigous the gallery, the media coverage, and ultimately perhaps, what the prices are - prices are one crude test of notability. But little of the small coverage these get nowadays is online. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 20 February 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) 02:17, 21 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olvoband[edit]

Olvoband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. No reliable independent sources could be found about this school band, only Wikipedia copies, and personal pages like Facebook. Nothing in Google News (Archives) or Google Books. Fram (talk) 14:02, 14 February 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) 02:16, 21 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank M (Martinez)[edit]

Frank M (Martinez) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real assertion of notability. Created by an editor who has no contributions elsewhere and so is likely an autobiography. Lots of padding but very little real content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Notability is at best marginal and much of the content is completely superfluous. (RT) (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to disagree. Some verifiable references have been added and many articles on Wikipedia are created by editors who focus on one particular article. This article definitely concerns a person of notability, substance, depth, and some longevity. There are other articles on creative individuals in Wikipedia which seem to emphasize the superficial aspects of notability over and above actual achievement. Is this what Wikipedia is evolving into- A place marker for anyone heavily connected to Pop culture. Fpm1949 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Fpm1949 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes, it is evolving into that. I moved the article to Wikia, which is as sadly underused, in many categories, as WP is abused by deletionists. I suppose there is potential for a compatibility of sorts between the two. http://musicians.wikia.com/wiki/Musicians_Wiki . I just wish I had gotten to the vid game, martial arts, and to a lesser extent (because I personally don't care) soccer player articles and moved them all, too, but it is pretty much too late for that. Anarchangel (talk) 21:05, 20 February 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) 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is also no place for deletionists to dominate and force their opinions based on assumptions with little or no evidence. I'm no inclusionist, but unsubstantiated objectivity and overconcern for the "reputation" of Wikipedia can cloud any attempt at fair mindedness. A sort of false or quasi-jurisprudence is the unfortunate outcome. Fpm1949 (talk)
I'm much more of an inclusionist than you think, but this does not extend to autobiographies. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. --bender235 (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can readily be observed, by reading the article carefully, that the multidisciplinary artist, Frank Martinez, already has a website. Therefore, the suggestion of creating one in lieu of the Wikipedia article seems unnecessary. Also, in reading the discussion that accompanies the article, one can see that I (User:FPM1949) am not that person, but have been interested in multidisciplinary artists for many years. It seems that any editor who is attempting to delete this article should read it in its entirety, as well as the full discussion that goes with it. I still believe there is a deletionist bias at work here, but cannot prove such a thing, so will retract that assumption. Fpm1949 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Dude, it is pretty obvious that you are Frank M. But you need to realize that an article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. --bender235 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE?????? Everything seems so obvious to you, doesn't it? This no longer seems to be a discussion, but rather, a personal attack, lacking in objectivity, and above all, a breach of "discussion guidelines." Valid arguments citing appropriate guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. Also, commenting on people, rather than the article, is disruptive and unproductive. Fpm1949

I already commented on the article. None notable + self-promotion = delete. --bender235 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

₵ Some notability has been established through secondary references and self-promotion is an assumption, and a false one at that. Fpm1949 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.161.58 (talk) 06:48, 26 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's published, he's been published about, therefore notable. I don't think you have any solid proof about who wrote the article and even if you're right, it is a fallacy to say that someone close to a subject can't write a good article on a subject. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No proof for WP:AUTO? I guess anyone has access to "personal letters addressed to Frank Martinez", right? And by the way: where has he been published about? --bender235 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanispam. My favorite reference is "Villa Lobos, Arminda, a personal letter addressed to Frank Martinez, 1976." Drmies (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked through all the references and they don't appear notable. One is a grainy jpeg of a gallery program uploaded by Frank Martinez himself according the Wikimedia Commons. Another one is a link his self-published CD Baby album with direction to look at a review posted at the bottom of the page. This review that could have been written by anyone including the subject himself since all you have to do is log in to write a review. This all appears to be a vanity project. Warfieldian (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable, independent evidence of notability has been found. (RT) (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Edidudevanitas. This is a portmanteau which represents all of the self righteous editors who replace true notable content (TNC) with defiant editorial judgement. I have not received one ounce of true editorial help to clean up or make this article better. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process." (This is a quote from Wikipedia:Consensus) Also, he (Frank Martinez) has been published in the New Orleans Times Picayune by Frank Gagnard (Sept. 13, 1979) as well as by Louis Nicholas, The Tennessean, 3-Instrument Performance Shows Talent, 1975 as well as numerous other publications.Fpm1949 —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I have not received one ounce of true editorial help to clean up or make this article better.
The reason for this is that it's not the article that is the problem. It's the subject and its (lack of) notability. --bender235 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edugeek[edit]

Edugeek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Article does not meet the criteria for inclusion found at WP:WEB. Notability has not been established through significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Sources provided equate to primary references and trivial mentions. Little content actually about the subject of the article. Cind.amuse 16:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the largest independent IT support forum in the UK, has featured in multiple national media outlets (The Guardian, TES, The Register, and on organisation sites such as the BCS, NAACE and in reports by organisations such as Becta and the NAHT). If that doesn't show notability, then no site on the net is notable.-Localzuk(talk) 16:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, it is seriously worrying that an article is given barely a few minutes after a prior incorrect speedy delete to put notability in place! It shows evidence of bad faith by the nominating editor, and the admin who previously speedy deleted it. How are users supposed to create an article? Are they supposed to arrive on this site with all rules memorised, and with their entire articles perfectly formed? If that's the case then there isn't a single article on here that would have survived a few years ago, as they all have to start somewhere!!-Localzuk(talk) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our standards have tightened considerably in the last half decade or so, and numerous articles from back then wouldn't pass our current guidelines. However, we've never been a directory of every website ever, not even in the beginning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, a list of national news media sources, national agencies and organisations isn't notable then?-Localzuk(talk) 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cindamuse. Little content actually about the subject of the article sums it up pretty well. Decidedly weak Alexa rank of 26,000+ doesn't exactly suggest notability either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rank is not an accurate measure of worldwide site rankings, as it is mostly US-centric. Wikipedia is not a US-centric site, so it should not be used to gauge how notable a site is. Not to mention, the article has only had a few hours to actually allow editing! You are really putting off new editors by persisting with an attack on new articles like this.-Localzuk(talk) 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, 26k rank is not notable? What planet are you on? There are hundreds of millions of websites online, and this one is in the low 10k's by their ranking, and you think that's not notable enough!?-Localzuk(talk) 20:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide some clarification - the GB ranking on Alexa is 3089!-Localzuk(talk) 20:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I went looking for sources in Factiva and didn't find anything not already listed, except a one-paragraph listing in The Guardian Education Supplement. The reliable sources we know about so far do mention the site in passing, but they don't include coverage of the site itself. There isn't the kind of evidence that would satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web) or Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Melchoir (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Some coverage in third-party sources, but all so far seem to be articles about something else where Edugeek was mentioned. Who knows, with the demise of BECTA, Edugeek may grow in prominence, but we can revisit this page if and when more coverage appears. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just looking around at it's peer articles, there are ones that I believe exercise less notability than this, and aren't even English based to begin with. Though, the strange thing is that the notability and stance in the UK. Yes, it is fairly neich-y, but I know doing SysAdmin work that this quite often appears high up in search links. Reedy (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep UK ranking is respectable considering that the site targets a very specific target audience. Also as Reedy said, threads on the forum often appear quite high up in search engine requests although this isn't necessarily a factor of notability. The publicity the site has received is reasonably small and whether this is notable enough to be on wikipedia is questionable, although the sponsorships and affiliations with some most definately notable companies I think is for now enough to let the article stay. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note In case nobody has noticed, another article EduGeek.net on exactly the same subject has been created on 28 Jan 2011. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note EduGeek.net is the website (which is what the entry should be for) and EduGeek is the term used to describe members (generally IT Professionals working in education) but the term has also been used in US as part of EduGeek Journal, an online publication / site mainly contributed to by 6 teachers. The initial entry I put in place a few years ago was to do with the term, but there was insufficient noted use for the entry to stay. The site and online community of EduGeek.net has more credence as an entry and it is obvious that the entry on this page will be superseded by the other entry. They were created by different contributors, one who took an existing deleted entry (without much understanding of the need to promptly include significant references) and one which has been more carefully created to include the relevant references. Tonyshep (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In a word, BS. You can't have it both ways. The sources that establish notability ARE the content that you decry for not being directly about the organization. If you want to quickly go and get rid of the stupid awkward poorly defined "article must show reasons for its own notability" rules, that lead to so many newbs writing peacock material, I'll wait; that would be more than OK with me. Instead I finally get to see them a deletor slip on them like a banana skin.
The points after the first paragraph of the History section report on what Edugeek does and what others said about it, as is inevitable for reporting by news sources that expect any stories they write to actually be read by people who are not paid to do so. They establish notability. And if you have a problem with them not being about what you choose to define as the subject of the article, I have already given you some advice about what to do about it. Anarchangel (talk) 23:32, 26 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Angel - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is about the process here, rather than the article under discussion. From past experience, when I see a deletion debate about a web site turn like this from Delete towards Keep, it's often from a flood of WP:SPAs. Usually because the site itself rallies the troops to "vote" to support the page. Looking through all the Keep votes on this one, I see none of that. Just regular WP editors expressing their opinions. Maybe I'm becoming a bit cynical from my time around here but, in this current case, I am pleasantly surprised to not find what I was expecting to find. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VEMA High Angle Rescue[edit]

VEMA High Angle Rescue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Queried speedy delete db-copyvio. Its author pleaded this in Talk:VEMA High Angle Rescue: (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • This article does have a resembelance to an article appearing on another website, however both this article and the one appearing on the other website are both written by myself and the there is no copyright on the text appearing within this article.--Nic.holmes (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There are many articles about rescue organizations on Wikipedia, but notability is not inherent. The existing references in the article do not establish notability because one is the group's home page, one is a blog, and the last is not about the organization. This at a weak delete for me due to the mild inherent bias of the guideline: I think an identical organization from North America would meet the WP:GNG but local media in KwaZulu-Natal might have less of an online presence. I agree with the author that the similarity to other works does not justify deletion on copyright grounds here. VQuakr (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further references have been found, but as the previous comment states that online media presence in Kwa-Zulu Natal is not widely plublicised and unfortunately limited to NewsWatch blogs and related sites. The organisation does however appear in many local news print publications but these are not placed online as well. It is unfortunate that there are a few similar organisations on Wikipedia from North America that have their own pages simply because the online presence of their organisation is greater than that of VEMA's. One in particular is the 911th Engineer Company who only have two references. the only difference between them and VEMA is that 911th is military and VEMA is voluntary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.94.58 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further more, if you have a look at other organisation that are present on Wikipedia, many of them listed in Cave Rescue such as the Irish Cave Rescue Organisation that have a page minus any notable references doing the same or similar work as VEMA High Angle Rescue I feel that it may not be fair to delete this page when there are other pages available for similar organisations.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:50, 19 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I am open to seeing another article which is better sourced and more in line with WP:NPOV policy. The current article seems promotional in nature, the clearest example is the paragraph beginning with: "VEMA HAR as an organization has attained extremely high standards of service and excellence", and is is sourced to VEMA's Facebook profile. The independent sources mention that VEMA HAR conducted this and this rescue mission, but I have yet to see substantial reliable sourcing about VEMA. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 of merging or renaming can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digsy Deary[edit]

Digsy Deary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is mostly copied from this [36] bio and is composed of unsourced and unfounded claims about his connection to Oasis or alleged fame. Unsignificant singer. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete. Copyvio edit had left the article as an empty stub with no context at all, so I've edited a bit to provide some info needed to asses it. It looks like the Oasis link is on the level and I've put in a decent cite to back it up. That's not by itself enough for notabillity though, per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. However, his previous band Cook da books have an article (albeit a pretty thin one with only one citation) so they might have had some notability. His current band 'The Sums' appear to be unsigned. As it stands I think a delete, but if any citations could be dug up around cook da books I could be persueded to keep (with a move to his real name).--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:04, 11 February 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, Stifle (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the mention of "Digsy's Dinner" to Cook da Books and redirect. Member of a notable band who Oasis fans at least are likely to search for here.--Michig (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)...or maybe even Keep. Deary was also drummer/songwriter in the band Smaller (I'll start an article at some point), which had UK top 75 hits in 1996 and 1997. I've added the relevant information about "Digsy's Dinner" etc. to the Cook da Books album - it's a 'keep' as far as notability is concerned for me, but the amount of verifiable content suggests the merge to Cook da Books is probably the better option.--Michig (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have started an article for Smaller (despite one source stating that he was the drummer, he was singer/guitarist) - I think maybe keeping this here now as a stub would be the best bet.--Michig (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move I think the additional citation and information about the other band puts this over the edge. Article should be moved to his real name though, with probably a redirect from 'Digsy's Diner' as well.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:28, 21 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultraman Leo monsters[edit]

List of Ultraman Leo monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

17,000 words and just short of 100KB of unadulterated, uncited, and non-notable plot summary and original research. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 19 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not plot-only articles. 74.198.9.234 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Xbox Live#Programs. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SentUAMessage[edit]

SentUAMessage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no outside coverage, no claim of notability. A show on X Box Live doesn't automatically receive notability in the way a regular show on a major broadcast channel might have notability conferred. MLA (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so that people may find out what SentUAMessage is, and also use it as a reference to find answers to their questions that may have already been answered. Also, as there are new people registering to Xbox live all the time, they can use the page to find out the background behind the show, as they can for any other TV show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashUK1983 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. Those would be primary sources. WP:N is established through secondary sources - has the show been mentioned or written about in gamer magazines, handbooks, or major industry websites? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 28 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge somewhere. It was nominated for "best games broadcast/podcast" at the 2010 Games Media Awards [37] (but didn't win). GameDaily sometimes link to their videos [38]. Cited by Kotaku. Not notable enough for its own article, but worth mentioning somewhere. Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a new article, Xbox Live media which would cover this, Major's Minute, IGN Strategize and the Kinect Show. --Teancum (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling female R&B groups[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of best-selling female R&B groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly all of the content of this article is already shown in List of best-selling girl groups, which although is in need of more sources, includes all genres and worldwide regions. No compelling reason for separation of R&B genre, and this R&B list is exclusively U.S.-based. The section at the end with the chart tally doesn't seem to have any method by which groups were included. Suggest deletion or at very least merging with the main List of best-selling girl groups article. - eo (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a matter of personal preference toward this sort of list not being on Wikipedia. "Best-selling" is so vague... does it refer to traditional album sales only? Does it refer to iTunes sales only? Does it include downloads via Amazon or other download stores? Even if such a list were to include all possible sources, it would be an ever-changing list and difficult to maintain. Strikerforce (talk) 05:40, 27 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, genre definition is indeed a problem; in fact, the sources cited don't identify these as R&B groups, and several of them use variations of the language "one of the top-selling female pop groups." Chick Bowen 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Waterston[edit]

Elisabeth Waterston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP for a non-notable actor. "Major film role" (in The Prince and Me) is for a character not mentioned in the plot summary of that article. No significant roles, not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ENT. no evidence of significant multiple roles. the emphasis being significant. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

League of Romanian Students Abroad[edit]

League of Romanian Students Abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never mind the strong promotional tone, the uncited (often uncitable) statements, the one-hit author. What's problematic here is the lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as required by WP:GNG. Let's go through the footnotes:

  • This note refers to the group's own website, and thus is not independent.
  • This note makes no mention of the group. [See reply below]
  • This note is a blog post and thus not a reliable source.
  • This note is a press release noting Romania's Foreign Minister attended an event sponsored by the group. First, note that this is a press release, with material for the most part probably supplied by the League itself, and thus not really an independent source. Second, the Minister is constantly attending private functions ([39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]); this doesn't automatically confer notability on them.
  • This note gives passing mention to the group in a human-interest story in a college newsletter; this hardly establishes any sort of notability.
  • This note gives even more fleeting mention about a website the group co-launched; again, not exactly significant coverage.
  • This note is a blog post and merely mentions that the group signed a petition; obviously irrelevant for our purposes. Biruitorul Talk 06:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the reviw of "Biruitorul". For instance, Note 2 -- follow the link to identify a clear mention of the group. Also, the LSRS is one of the most important NGOs in Romania just based on the number of members and global spread of this globalization; the facts speak for themselves. Note 4 - it is a press release of the Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry, quoting the Minister himself. There is no such release anywhere else to suggest it was put out by anyone associated with the LSRS.

Moreover, I have adopted a neutral tone and pointed out controversial/problematic issues about the group when necessary. A simple Internet search for "liga studentilor romani din strainatate" shows over 100,000 results! The relative scarcity of English sources should not necessarily disqualify this group from inclusion, but I'll let the wikipedia community judge that.

There is also a relation to the Organization of Serbian Students Abroad (OSSI), which has a nice wikipedia article as well. If the policy of wikipedia is to delete this article for lack of references, it is regrettable in my opinion.

Finally, there should be more time allowed for gathering "reliable" sources. I could have added many more in Romanian, but I'm trying to include English language sources! I appreciate the input! Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanian Maverick (talk • contribs) 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Romanian Maverick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Four points:
  • 1) We actually don't have an article on the Organization of Serbian Students Abroad, and anyway, see WP:WAX.
  • 2) I was mistaken; [45] does indeed mention that the League conducted a survey, but that hardly rises to the level of significant coverage.
  • 3) I invite readers to peruse this press release. Based on the tone, it seems highly likely the Foreign Ministry didn't write the entire text, but rather that much of it was supplied by the League itself.
  • 4) Whatever the Google count (and see WP:GHITS for that), there are only a little over a hundred unique results, most of which fall afoul of WP:RS. - Biruitorul Talk 19:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: new links inform us that this guy and this lady (scroll down, on the right) have won awards from the League. Interesting, but handing out awards is not necessarily a determinant of notability. Neither is organizing a conference.
  • What is telling is that the League is not mentioned in depth by any Romanian newspaper: either not at all (Gândul, Jurnalul Naţional), or just barely in passing (Evenimentul Zilei, Cotidianul). An organization that can't attract notice from the press in its own country (one with a perennial focus on Romanians abroad, I might add) shouldn't feature in this encyclopedia either. - Biruitorul Talk 19:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • a brief google search shows there are many mentions in the Romanian press about the organization. Besides the 4 you have picked to support your argument, there are a lot more, from more reliable newspapers: financiarul, realitatea are just the two most obvious one can find in under 10 seconds. It is unrealistic to expect a newspaper to write a story about the organization, as opposed to about the events of the organization. Furthermore when the press constantly writes about the events and projects of an NGO, that means the NGOS is notable. The fact that most major newspapers, a bunch of local newspapers and a handful of glossy formats, plus a few national prime time television shows (news and entertainment shows) plus the Romanian embassies mention the organization, should be relevant. If nothing else, I believe giving the article another 3 months time to develop is appropriate. Deni120 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Deni120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The first source you provide is largely lifted from the League's FAQ. The second one mentions the League handed out some awards — again, handing out awards does not automatically make someone notable. Whatever is or is not unrealistic in your view, I do expect at least one (genuinely) independent source to cover an organization itself, if it is to have an article here. This is the case for, say, the Writers' Union of Romania or ASTRA, but does not appear to be so for the League. - Biruitorul Talk 23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Handing out awards is extremely notable when you are the only organization recognizing the best Romanian students abroad in a given year. There are more than 50,000 Romanian students around the world, fellow members of this community, and when an Award Ceremony brings together the most important Romanian academic and political stakeholders, from Ionel Haiduc, president of the Romanian Academy, to the Senate's President, to the Foreign Affairs Minister and the president of the National Liberal Party -- that is very, very notable, especially in front of over 800 people.
    • It is completely unfair to demand extensive coverage in the English language as a criterion for notability -- but I don't think wikipedia does. It seems to be, however, the opinion of certain individual users. I'm not sure why.

How about sources like this one? http://www.dilemaveche.ro/sectiune/educatie/articol/studen-ii-romani-strainatate-gindul-romania Dilema Veche is one of the most reputable journals in Romania.

Or here: http://catavencu.ro/liga-studentilor-romani-din-strainatate-breaking-news-38034

And this: http://www.a1.ro/cautare/liga-studentilor-romani-din-strainatate-942857.html One of the top-3 news TV stations in Romania...seems notable, I think.

And Pro TV, a rival TV station: http://www.protv.ro/noutati/protv-international-alaturi-de-liga-studentilor-romani-din-strainatate.

And studentie.ro, the largest student portal in Romania: http://www.studentie.ro/campus/LIGA_STUDENTILOR_ROMANI_DIN_STRAINATATE/c-70-a-50391

Ziare.com: http://www.ziare.com/scoala/studenti/cei-mai-buni-studenti-romani-de-peste-hotare-premiati-in-tara-1067141

What exactly do you mean by "genuinely independent source"? Would you suppose an NGO like this one has the capacity or resources to get this kind of coverage from rival media outlets?! Sorry to say, that is unrealistic at least in Romania.

        • As a general note, I think it is reasonable to expect the Wiki community to make judgments based on whether enough people care about one organization or another. In this case, I think LSRS passes the test.

Also, since you asked... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Serbian_Students_Abroad

Finally, do you really think the Foreign Minister of a country lets an NGO write press releases that appear on the Ministry's official website?! We may be poor, but not that poor... the minister has his own staff for that kind of thing. And while the tone may be promotional, I don't think it promotes LSRS but...the Minister :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanian Maverick (talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite I'm leaning toward a keep in this case, even though the article reads like promotion, and some "sources" need to go per WP:RS. Judging from the links above, the League did get some coverage (I myself find mention in Dilema Veche particularly convincing for that). Dahn (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Brevity is a virtue in these sorts of discussions; clear and concise posts tend to be more effective than large walls of text. Decisions are made based on the strength of arguments, not how many kilobytes each argument takes up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reviewing the sourcing, I'm not convinced that this is a notable organization. The nominator summed it up quite well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been improved since the nomination and the sources appear somewhat more reliable. All things being equal, it's more difficult to find sources for Romanian organizations.--PinkBull 01:04, 28 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taqi Nazeer[edit]

Taqi Nazeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD - apparent autobiographical article about a stage actor of questionable notability. Might just barely pass A7, but I'm not convinced - one of the provided sources is YouTube, and one only mentions the person as part of a larger subject. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:16, 14 February 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) 02:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced and since cleaned up. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although calling this "well-sourced" is rather an exaggeration--basic BLP information, for instance, is not verified in the sources. But there are two articles that pay significant attention to him, and I think he passes notability standards per GNG. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasbih Cinta[edit]

Tasbih Cinta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be a non-notable television series. A google search did not turn up any reliable sources, or significant mentions. The article fails to meet the television series notability guideline. Alpha Quadrant talk 20:58, 14 February 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) 02:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I speak a little Malay, which is very similar to Indonesian (enough for me to get a sense, anyway). I see no significant coverage, just some synopses released by the TV station and some very brief mentions in news stories. These would not be considered enough if they were in English either, I don't think. Chick Bowen 00:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out Of Court[edit]

Out Of Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article gives no indication of notability. google search shows one link proving the movie exists, but unfortunately proving film is not notable, as it says that the film has not even been submitted to any film festivals. unless someone can find some really solid references, this should be deleted (article would of course need massive rewriting and trimming, and removal of obvious promotional links, but those are not reasons for deletion) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i agree the official bar for films, books, records is too high, as many items that dont meet the criteria are likely here to stay. i try to only delete clearly (to me) nonnotable items, and err on side of inclusion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A9) by Chrislk02. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Cult Classic[edit]

Another Cult Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album by non-notable musician. Suburban Noize Records is hardly a major label, and the artist himself is far from notable, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have tied this to the artist's AfD--please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakelika (V.A.). Now that the article is deleted, the album is eligible under A9, but I'll let this ride. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A9; there is no indication that this album is independently notable. VQuakr (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Smokin' Word[edit]

The Smokin' Word (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album by non-notable musician. Suburban Noize Records is hardly a major label, and the artist himself is far from notable, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers Grimm Spectaculathon[edit]

The Brothers Grimm Spectaculathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this is a notable work. I could find no professional reviews or productions. Cmprince (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Sixth-most produced one act" would need a citation, and even with one I don't think that amounts to a sufficient claim for notability. Wikipedia:Notability (books) addresses books that are the subject of instruction in high school, but not plays performed on the school level. Chick Bowen 00:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and unreferenced. It gets a lot of mentions on Google search but nothing from a Reliable Source. Google News provides even less, and again, no Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power Render Terminate[edit]

Power Render Terminate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of notability that I can find Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN plugin/software. Nakon 00:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of The Venture Bros. characters. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Venture[edit]

Hank Venture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no third party sources and real world coverage to establish the notability. Most of The Venture Bros. characters are not notable. JJ98 (Talk) 10:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added Rescue to the article with the hope that more references may be added.Artw (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:PLOT, although I don't see any issue with it redirecting to the show or a character list Yaksar (let's chat) 04:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the character list per the other Venture Brothers character article AfDs recently. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of The Venture Bros. characters. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Venture[edit]

Dean Venture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no citations, no sources and no real world coverage to establish the notability. Most of The Venture Bros. characters are not notable. JJ98 (Talk) 10:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Venture Brothers character list. This article has six refs. Four to are to other Wikipedia articles, something I have never seen before and hope to never again. The other two are to a livejournal blog and a video. So the article has no refs. This is why I have not said "merge", as there is no sourced info here to merge. And this entity is not notable, it a character on a cartoon show. Herostratus (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have seen alot of articles that uses Wikipedia as their only references. It's hard to correct that since someone on page patrol will revert people removing "references", and then slap a vandalism warning on you for your efforts. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • They will? Who are they? Tell them to stop doing that, and if they won't, get somebody else to tell them. Wikis are never good sources, are almost never allowed for any purpose, and Wikipedia is no exception. (Well, Wikipedia has more editorial control than many wikis. But it's still not a reliable source). In fact WP:RS says: "Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Period. For any purpose. Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment _ I have added Rescue to the article with the hope that more references may be added. Artw (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a character with no info outside of WP:PLOT. No issue with a redirect, though. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kent (poet)[edit]

Thomas Kent (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biography. I don't see any notability per WP:AUTHOR. bender235 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mudh Mudh Ke Na Dekkh Mudh Mudh Ke[edit]

Mudh Mudh Ke Na Dekkh Mudh Mudh Ke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film that was in production that seemingly has now been shelved. No indication that it will ever be completed and no indication that it meets our criteria for inclusion. wjematherbigissue 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources except blog comments from a fansite. Article can be recreated if the movie ever actually gets produced and released. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ishq Unplugged[edit]

Ishq Unplugged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No guarantee the film wil be finished and no indication that it will be notable if it is given this article [46] indicates that the star's last film was only released in a single cinema. wjematherbigissue 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only source listed is the "official website" and it contains no information - I mean literally no text at all. The article can be recreated if the film is actually released and meets notability guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kajraare[edit]

Kajraare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable film that was barely released. wjematherbigissue 17:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly notable; it was profiled in The Times of India.[47] The Times noted that it is "first Hindi film to be shot against the backdrop of Petra, the eighth wonder of the world". The unusual release schedule is discussed at length by OneIndia.[48] I'll add these links to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep117.201.64.86 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A New Love Iisshstory[edit]

A New Love Iisshstory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rumoured upcoming film release with no indication that it will meet criteria for inclusion. wjematherbigissue 17:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The article can always be recreated if/when the movie is released and qualifies as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle TheHustler[edit]

Pinnacle TheHustler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Claims to notability appear to be that he's part of a band (the band has no releases and is not notable) and that he appears occasionally on a radio show in Seoul. Some refs, but none that establish notability, and I don't see anything else online that might help. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage found under various versions of his name. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active inertia[edit]

Active inertia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this a solid business term, or a non-notable neologism? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per coverage in The Economist and Harvard Business School. And let's remember WP:BEFORE, took only a moment to find these. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonathanwallace. It took me a moment between teaching classes to add the sources to the article. Off to class! Bearian (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into larger article. This appears to simply be a dictionary definition. See WP:DICT] I presume there is a larger article about the general overall concepts, of which this is a part. If such an article exists, then this should be merged into it. Otherwise, it needs to go over to Wiktionary. Montanabw(talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a word made up by Donald Sull. The two references say, in essence, "Here is a word made up and used by Donald Sull". If and when other people start to use the word in their own books and articles, then it'll be a real word. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem isn't the title, the problem is that this is nothing but a dictionary definition, and as such needs to go to wiktionary or else be expanded to something far more than a definition, or, if a larger article on related concepts exists, then merged into that. That it exists isn't enough for an encyclopedia. Montanabw(talk) 20:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DICTDEF and point made by Herostratus, unless it can somehow be expanded beyond that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the points raised by Herostratus. This article has no real prospect of being expanded beyond the two vague sentences it currently has. Reyk YO! 08:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ALS Society of Canada. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALS Society of Ontario[edit]

ALS Society of Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've tried to find WP:RS indicating ALS Society of Ontario meets WP:CLUB, without success. Google's turned up a couple of appeals for charitable donations in the press, but no notable coverage. At the very least, merge into ALS Society of Canada (which also lacks independent WP:RS, at this time). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by Robofish, per usual practice for local affiliates of national/international organizations. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quantros[edit]

Quantros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Company does not seem to be notable, and while the article does contain sources, they are all press releases or dead links (WP:GNG). The article was created by what appears to be a Single Purpose Account created to promote the company. The user has since become inactive. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep. I have no finantial ties to the company, but I do do medication error research. This is certianly a significant company for people in my line of work. PCAndrew (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable they may be, but I cannot find any reliable secondary sources to support that claim. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that these articles show that the company is notable.Cullen328 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Drive[edit]

Mercy Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I spent some time on cleaning up this article, and when I was looking for sources (for the supposed deal with Virgin, the hit, etc.) I discovered that they are far from notable: see this and this, for instance. There is no reliable coverage to speak of anywhere, no verification for selling 130,000 copies of a song, etc.--nothing but some claims and a few webhits related to wrestling. They do not pass BAND or GNG Drmies (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep received a lot of attention for 3 different songs. Crisis.EXE 18:30, 26 February 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, J04n(talk page) 01:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyahu Federman[edit]

Eliyahu Federman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN orphaned, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1saleaday and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1saleaday (2nd nomination) Aaabbccz (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. On the 1saleaday AfDs, the first closed with no consensus, and the second closed with a speedy keep, because the nomination was made by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked user. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. This debate was never transcluded onto a log. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Skin Lightener[edit]

Super Skin Lightener (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable, nothing to say except some question its efficacy, apparently Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Promotional article about an unsourced/non-notable product. --DAJF (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deletion - db-author.  7  03:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Leja[edit]

Santa Leja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist appears to fail the applicable notability guideline. The existing external links in the article appear to be press releases, and she has not released an album. The article appears to have been created by her record label. VQuakr (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; non notable, as well as pure spam by her label. WuhWuzDat 02:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also....Speedy delete G7 per this edit summary from the apparently angry COI editor who created the article. WuhWuzDat 02:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Code Lyoko. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyoko[edit]

Lyoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt that the article is notable enough, this article has no sources and no real world coverage to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issac Kannah[edit]

Issac Kannah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, highest level played is with the reserve side of a NPSL (pyramid level 4) team. All references are either extremely brief profiles (name and stats) from teams he's played with, or are trivial, routine and mention him only briefly. Contested PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 00:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Feldmann[edit]

Vera Feldmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claim to fame is, "oldest living descendant to 19th century Marxist Philosopher Joseph Dietzgen" and proving information about Joseph Dietzgen in an 2008 interview. In the article about of her father, Eugene Dietzgen (which could be nominated for AfD?) and in the Joseph Dietzgen article, some references provided are from, "Feldmann, Vera Dietzgen, interview by Joshua J. Morris. Joseph Dietzgen Research (April 16, 2008)". I'm unable to find anything about "Joseph Dietzgen Research" or Joshua J. Morris Bgwhite (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Probably not notable, but regarding Eugene Dietzgen, I would recommend either keep or merge. He founded the Dietzgen drafting company, widely known today. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Infinity Gems. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (Ultraverse)[edit]

Nemesis (Ultraverse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article cites only primary sources, comic books themselves. It does not cite secondary sources, and will never do: this is a one-time character of a single story, the Avengers/Ultraforce crossover, which isn't much notable in itself either. Even the Thanos Quest is not described with good context: there is no "Nemesis" in there, that would be done with retroactive continuity at this character's single story. See here and here. As you can see, the story talks about God, albeit in vague and cryptic terms (as Marvel Comics always do, avoiding to take a stance in the question of the existence of God). So, of two stories, it's actually only one.

If you need real-world context to understand all this, Marvel comics published many comic books in the 90's with the Infinity Gems as part of the storyline. This fictional objects gave omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and all God traits to the character that wields it. The "The Thanos Quest" story used the panels I cited to explain the origin of those gems. The Avengers/Ultraforce crossover, where this "Nemesis" appeared, is one of those stories. However, being an Intercompany crossover the plot is not part of the Marvel canon. This character, or even the existence of a seventh gem, have never been mentioned in more recent comic books featuring the gems, such as those of She-Hulk, Thanos or the Illuminati.

By the way, there are comic book characters that may be notable even appearing in a single story, such as those of Watchmen or V for Vendetta, but this one is not one of them. There is zero character development, Nemesis is just a punching bag for the Avengers and Ultraforce to defeat, and nothing more. MBelgrano (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is deleted, the non-free image File:Nemesis (Ultraverse).jpg would have to be deleted as well MBelgrano (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_February_28&oldid=1142638509"