Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 February 7 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Without Borders[edit]

Asia Without Borders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A recent music project written up by a pair of new accounts. The ugly set of naked URIs presented as references include links to YouTube and Wikipedia but do any of them demonstrate notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete I think this article is really useful and should not be deleted. It consists of useful information about a unique Canadian multicultural music project. Moreover, in my opinion all the URLs references look okay to me and it is not a vast issue for article deletion. The whole article is consistent and unified,too. (74.12.97.175 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)) — 74.12.97.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete As I have said before this is a grand musical project starting for the first time in march 2011 for multicultural and ethnic communities in Canada. Artists have gathered from Iran, India, China, and Turkey to start this project. This project is only a start of a continuous mission and it seeks funding from the Canadian government in the near future. Please do not delete this page since it is needed for people to understand its essence and goal. The artists named and presented in this article are renowned artists among their communities in Iran, China, India, and Turkey. To the best of our knowledge, it is the very first time that chinese and Persian Music are attempted to be blended in a musical settings. Further to that, it is the first that while the famous melodies of Asia are being musically explored, an English Storytelling is being presented for the wider western audience to follow the ancient myths of Asia.The reason the charity comes first is because it is part of the whole idea of this project. It is intended to raise money for different charity organizations in the globe. In addition the artists make up the performance side of this project each year. Therefore they have a lot to do with this article.(Habibz7 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)) — Habibz7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If it's only the start, you can add the article again once it has sufficient Reliable Sources to be considered Notable - see WP:RS and WP:GNG for what that means. At present, none of the sources there discuss the actual subject of the article. Wikipedia is not for "people to understand the essence and goal" of start-up projects. I understand the charity comes first - in fact, the charity should be all that is covered in the article, with links to the musicians articles (if they meet the notability guidelines for musicians). - ManicSpider (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I personally believe this article is in accordance with the usual standard on this website. Sources were cited and the message is delivered clearly. The article itself shows a high amount of effort was put into writing it. (99.255.46.26 (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)signed: H.K.99.255.46.26 (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)) — 99.255.46.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete Well, I find this page very informative. Author tries to state the purpose of this project_ They are raising money for Charity_ then He/She is giving information about performers in this event. Its fair enough. I disagree with deleting the document. (99.237.73.175 (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC))— 99.237.73.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete I understand that the project itself is a start-up, but most of the performers are quite notable and famous in their own community. The importance of this project (aside from being charity fund-raising) is that it is the very first time such collaboration of Iranian, Chinese, and Indian music is taking place. Also, by no means we want to use this page as promotional and advertisement material. As you can see there is no indication of actual concert date(s). The main goal is to keep this page solely as informative material, and no advertisement at all. --R m1364 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC) — R m1364 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm striking out this "Do Not Delete" !vote since user R m1364 has already !voted once (at least). --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. This article is a promotion for a music festival that is yet to happen. There is no coverage in reliable sources about this music festival. The sourcing in the article references portions of performer's biographic details but is not about this festival. -- Whpq (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have removed the huge list of biographical profiles from the article. If the artists are notable, they should or already have their own separate articles on Wikipedia. If they are not notable, this is not the place to publish information about them. I have also removed the large link farm. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability under WP:N nor WP:CONCERT TOUR. It's promotional spam. No significant coverage by third-party reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero coverage found, although the phrase has been used many times in other contexts [1]. I'm sure this is a worthy project, but it simply isn't notable by Wikipedia's criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 12 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Bradley Jackson[edit]

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

Marketing professor and author not meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 20:21, 6 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 Duchess (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). T. Canens (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess' Cook (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)[edit]

Duchess' Cook (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor character with no significant independent coverage. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge contents to Duchess (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) and leave a redirect. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Affiliate Marketing Awards[edit]

The Affiliate Marketing Awards (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 award created last month. Though the talk page assures us there will be coverage on major sites in the future, it does not seem to exist at present. This article has 9 sources, all of them are either theaffiliatemarketingawards.com or blogs. SummerPhD (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Awards are getting media coverage see http://www.adotas.com/2011/02/affiliate-marketing-awards-where-affiliates-shine-brightest/ TomSF100 (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Media coverage" from the website the creator of the awards writes for: "The brain-child of affiliate marketer and blogger Murray Newlands, who often graces these pages with his bylines". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Affiliate Marketing is important for many businesses - even major brands use it including Amazon, Wal-Mart, iTunes, Target, NewEgg, Microsoft, Google, and 1000s of others - and those who are best known in the Affiliate Marketing world are judges for these awards. The people behind Affiliate Summit would not be judges if they did not believe these awards were worthwhile. Are you saying that only what the masses care for like celebrity buzz is suitable for Wikipedia? Please clarify (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)— Please clarify (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Affiliate Marketing is a growing business model - it shouldn't be removed just because some people don't know enough about it to understand it's importance to both entrepreneurs and businesses alike, no matter what the size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MsKirie (talk)— MsKirie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This article is not about "affiliate marketing", it's about "The Affiliate Marketing Awards". The article is up for deletion, not because "some people don't know enough about it to understand it's (sic) importance" but because the award is not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New post about The Affiliate Marketing Awards at http://www.hasoffers.com/blog/affiliate-marketing-awards-hasoffers/ Please clarify (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability not established by reliable sources. I'll be nominating Murray Newlands for deletion too as even less notable. Affiliate marketing might be notable, that doesn't make this award notable. At best I can see for this is a section under the Affiliate marketing article listing major awards if they can produce evidence it is noteworthy even to that level. And producing a 'hasoffers blog' as a new post establishing it is being noticed... gah! is my response. My local school can get pictures into the paper with far less. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure spam for an award that has never even been presented. No Reliable Source has taken notice at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 12 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dole valve[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dole valve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • DELETE : This is not notable. There are multiple companies that make this type of valve. There is nothing special about this one and as such this is no more than an ad. This is simply an automatic flow control valve. --MJHankel (talk) 19:32, 6 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elemint[edit]

Elemint (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 per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion (and seconding) contested by creator. Borkificator (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the album is similiarly non-notable:

Born Fresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Having now checked the Amazon link (finished my omelette first...), I see it is there. But why is it priced at $0.00? Does this mean a free download? I see a few others at this price - one other by Elemint (can't help thinking that's a mouthwash) and others that seem to be samplers. Can someone familiar with Amazon please explain for the benefit of someone who buys over the counter from HMV? Peridon (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsigned, self published artist. Fails all aspects of WP:Notability (mustic) Safiel (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet any criterion of notability.Bill william compton (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JBC413, i really appreciates your effort to save this article, but hard work, dedication, and high quality standards alone could't justify the notability of a person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and no one is going to search hard work or dedication here.Bill william compton (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Hello, I was contacted by a listener/supporter of my album Born Fresh because he is having difficulty posting a wiki page for my project. Was fairly shocked to see the open bashing, but always welcome contrasting views... firstly, you all make very valid points about my notoriety and notability. To date; I am not signed to a major label, have yet to had national press coverage and or broke into a global spotlight in any "major" way. None of this (mind you) has stopped our project from topping a (top 5 largest: Amazon)international sales chart or qualifying our page for a place on wikipedia; whether we ever accomplish those other standards or not. Now... you may see a lack of an article telling you what a "live" (up to the hour) chart is displaying in real time, but I feel that your attitude toward this Top 10 (peaked at #1 and is currently, 6 months later, #7out of 100,794 hip hop albums)debut album is not at all justified or acceptable. Please consider accomplishing such a feat as a result of hard work, dedication, and high quality standards while attacking its very existence. Sound (music) takes time to travel without money fueling it, and this has yet to stop our successes under such constricting circumstances. Please do not consider this article as a level of achievement that I earn by pleasing your personal standards, but allow the guidelines (#2, which has been met) to certify our presence in the world... I assure you; google me, I exist, so does my album. ps Im glad my name makes you think of mouthwash, thats what i was going for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBC413 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Meijer[edit]

Fred Meijer (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:N. This was a PROD that I declined as an editor had contested it at a talk page, and had also attempted to contest it with an hangon template. Unsourced BLP, there are sources which can likely verifiably note his name as a voice actor in credits, but absolutely nothing I could find that would provide any sort of significant coverage in reliable sources to argue for notability under the WP:GNG. Reason given for the original PROD was "non-notable person.". Reason given on the Talk page for contesting the PROD was "In what way is a TV actor watched or listened to by MILLIONS not notable?". The policy question, to me, seems to be a question of whether voice actors like this have inherent notability that overrides the general notability guideline. j⚛e deckertalk to me 18:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - My inclination would be to let this one stand given its stub status and the fairly broad number of roles cited. Television performers do indeed have something that approaches inherent notability in the view of many at these AfD debates. If this person did his work in English, I doubt there would have been a notability challenge launched. Admittedly this is not a really strong argument for inclusion; it's a close enough call that I'd advocate turning the other cheek, however. Carrite (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article needs expansion and improvement but that's what editors are for :-) Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way does that relate to the rationale for deletion? --j⚛e deckertalk to me 18:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Some of concerned personality's works are notable. Bill william compton (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's no sourcing in this, please anyone voting keep at least add a bare url reference to the article! i looked and didn't have any luck finding something decent.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:39, 11 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Muhammad Ilyas[edit]

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

Apparently self promotional, does not provide references other than self published, other article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammadi Hospital IMRC-PHF also being considered. Unable to find reliable third party sources OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:43, 6 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kravtzov (noble family)[edit]

Kravtzov (noble family) (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 at all. No reference. Maimai009 18:06, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Destiny[edit]

Lola Destiny (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 an article about an actress who is not yet an actress and who will play in a show that doesn't exist yet. The article has been created by an user with the same name. Maimai009 18:03, 6 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedram Moallemian[edit]

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

No evidence meets notability criteria at WP:AUTHOR and WP:POLITICIAN. Farhikht (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And what about the Canadian government website references?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 11:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • just taking part in that meeting doesnt make someone notable, the article claims he's a notable writter and journalist. from the other hand Fahikht is a an expert wikipedia editor. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Huge lack of reliable sources, but if someone could provide some valid and reasonable sources then subject can be retain.Bill william compton (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have added more references and have tagged for rescue. This individual is not just a blogger and a writer. He is an activist too. He is a notable Iranian blogger. He is not yet a notable writer although he has written many articles and contributed to a number of books. However, as an Iranian activist he is notable enough.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that Book LLC publishes print on demand paperback text from public domain sources such as Wikipedia. Also noted that Freethouths.org is a student blog, Iranian.com can't be considered as a RS and publishing one (or many) book(s) don't made him notable.Farhikht (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't claimed that he is a notable writer.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 19:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you claimed that you added some reliable sources to the article and I tried to refute your argument.Farhikht (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references claim that he is a notable writer.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong confabulate 22:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Weak sourcing, not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. SnottyWong confabulate 22:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only sources which contain anything like significant coverage are not reliable. The reliable sources such as the BBC only mention him very briefly in passing when talking about the arrest of Sina Motalebi. The Canadian government sources only note that he was a candidate who lost in an election. And minutes from a council meeting where he opposed an application - seriously?! Quantpole (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the weak sourcing, there is not even a single reference supporting notability neither as a writer nor as an activist. DrPhosphorus (talk) 18:27, 13 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post–One Year War[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. Can't find sources that WP:verify notability of the events after the year one war in this fictional series. Moreover it's an indiscriminate list of events since it leads to any number of articles that are based on "list of things that happened after X", such as "list of presidents after Gerald Ford" or "list of conflicts after the Franco-Prussian War". Shooterwalker (talk) 15:17, 6 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Cricket World Cup sponsorship[edit]

2011 Cricket World Cup sponsorship (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 fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SPAM. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:07, 6 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. Does not meet the notability guidelines, clear consensus among established editors to delete, and the single purpose accounts have failed to advance legitimate arguments based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines to support keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giblets F.C[edit]

Giblets F.C (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 contested. Reason was: Non-notable amateur Sunday league club, fails WP:NSPORTS -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could be speedied as an A7. Nothing suggests importance or notability. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one can probably go. If, as it appears, the league they play in are not notable enough for an article, then it's highly unlikely the club is. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - basically a bunch of mates getting together for a kickabout down the local leisure centre. Pretty much as non-notable as football teams can get..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - great name for a club, shame it ain't notable. GiantSnowman 15:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and Michig. Also, since only contributor (Melvsta (talk · contribs)) seems to be affiliated with the team, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE applies as well. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per nom no notability.--ClubOranjeT 06:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Great Club, Great support, Great Passion - Giblets Till i die — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvsta (talk • contribs) 15:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — Melvsta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep - A fine local team, Currently has a player training youth soccer in the U.S and a few players organising a tour of New Zealand. Has a broad following of passionate fans and has inspired many around the Sutton Coldifeld area. Soccer-7's is a well established League society and has been running for many years in the Birmingham district (see external links). To brandish this team and league "non-notable" is not only offensive to the teams involved, but to small teams everywhere. duggie_1001 — duggie_1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - How can people make an opinion whether this is worthy or not. Why does the standard matter? Using this ethos why don't we eradicate everything other than the premier league- RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT. This is a celebration of a lot of individuals who play in a league against different oppositions on a weekly basis, the standard is irrelevant. People above haven't backed up their views. Pathetic. MJB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.63.66 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — 77.44.63.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Some people have far to much time on their hands. Asking for a team to be removed because your friends wouldn't play football with you of an evening doesn't mean you have to ruin the fun for everyone else. The link is to an actual league...... enough for me. This is clearly a team. Maybe not a good team, but a team nonetheless.Nwwharton2004 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — Nwwharton2004 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Out of interest, did any of you four actually read WP:NSPORTS, which is the notability guideline for sports teams? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, in it's own words the WP:NSPORTS "guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline" since this page documents a Club History not individuals or the orginasition the club belongs too the WP:NSPORTS does not apply. Wyndley Soccer 7's is a well documented competition within the midlands district and so fulfils the criteria of the WP:GNG of "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".Duggie 1001 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid attempting to re-interpret Wikipedia's rules on notability is highly unlikely doesn't win anyone over (especially when it's coming from someone who has made no contributions to Wikipedia other than the page of your favourite local club). An article about a football club that includes three sentences about the club's history is still an article about the club. Should you be able to demonstrate that Wyndley Soccer 7s has received significant coverage in reliable sources, that might be enough for a page about that league society, but it does not mean that every club in the legaue will also get a page, because notability is not inherited. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I live within a few miles of Sutton Coldfield and I have never ever seen any coverage of the "Wyndley Soccer 7s" in any local media, it is definitely not "a well documented competition". Google turns up no coverage at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • An individuals failure to know of somethings existence does not prove it's non-existence. I don't think i was re-interpreting Wikipedia's rules on notability, i was quoting them as fact in turn proving that the application in which they were being correlated was not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duggie 1001 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I never disputed that the competition exists. I did, however, dispute the assertion that it is a "well documented competition". It's entirely possible I'm wrong, though - feel free to point me to some of the press coverage that the Soccer 7s have received..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm failing to see the relevance, this is not a page dedicated to "wyndley soccer 7's" we are not quantifying the league/organisation in turn not breaching the specification set by the WP:NSPORTS "guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline" Duggie 1001 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • FYI Quote: "Soccer 7’s (Adult Football) Birmingham’s Biggest & Best competitive 7-a-side Adult Leagues". See www.birmingham.gov.uk
                  • Yes, that's the website of a leisure centre doing a sales pitch. That's not independent coverage, and even if it was, no-one is going to accept a single sentence on a website amounts to significant coverage. (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • On behalf of myself and Giblets F.C i would like to thank you Chris Neville-Smith for your personal opinions on this matter and your generalised predictions that you understand everyone reviewing this page. I think at this point however it would be best to leave the assumptions an opinions to the people that matter at Wikipedia. I suggest if you feel the need to keep counter arguing people statements for personal gain you may consider a job in politics Duggie 1001 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not have a small team of enthuiastic lads playing in a local league represented? The taem have an excellent local following and the club name is already a global talking point extending to the USA and soon to Hez Zealand and Australia.80.195.172.182 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Wikipedia is not there to represent any sports team that wants an article about themselves, however enthusiastic the lads who take part may be. It is a collection of information about topics that have already been written about in reliable sources. No-one gets an article in Wikipedia on perceived worthiness. If you don't like that, Wikipedia is not the website for you. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The argument for the deletion of this article seems weak at best. The non- notability issue is rendered pointless with the external link to the league website. It has many teams in many leagues. A brief look at this website shows that 66 Teams currently play, with a new league commencing soon. That seems notable enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamBremner (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 February 2011 LiamBremner has made no edits except for this one.
    • Then you should read the bit of the notability guideline that says the coverage must be from independent sources. That website is not independent. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does this website not qualify as independant, the club is not promoting the league, the article is being used for documenting the clubs history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamBremner (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Come on now Chris, what's really bothering you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwwharton2004 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't !vote more than once. And please do not personalise it - your team simply isn't sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Giblets are fast becoming a worldwide phenomenon as demonstrated by the teams popularity extending to locations such as California, Fiji (of all places) and now New Zealand. I see no reason why the Giblets team should be prohibited an entry on Wikipedia as the corporation describes itsself as " a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project". Therefore, Giblets should be entitled to a page on the non profit website. (Christian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.101.247 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 February 2011
    Can you provide any reliable independent sources to support your assertions of international acclaim? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and per nom. If you read the policies, you might see reasons. No-one is "entitled" to a page. "The non- notability issue is rendered pointless with the external link to the league website. It has many teams in many leagues." That merely proves existence. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. If you really want to save the article, take notice of what we are saying. We are regular editors here - why would we bother using our time trying to delete something worthwhile? We try to help people with articles - when they are willing to be helped, as you seem not to be. Wikipedia is free - you didn't pay to come in. It is collaborative - this is a part of a collaborative process. Your article wasn't deleted at first sight by a supporter of Vale Madrid, or even by someone like us who had never heard of either you or them before. It's being discussed. But Wikipedia is not anarchy. It has rules. It's not free webspace - if you want that, you can get it at AboutUs or LinkedIn. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


im from washington, ive heard of Giblets F.C, i heard it through the grapevine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im marvin gaye (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — Im marvin gaye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • This is a keeper!: What is wrong with the wiki-police? I live in the Sutton Coldfield area and have heard good things about Soccer 7s Wyndley. How do you think Clubs such as Manchester United and Real Madrid began? It all must start somewhere and I believe deletion of this page would be a huge injustice and deprive the Giblets with the platform they deserve! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.59.167 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — 86.137.59.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • See WP:CRYSTAL. In the hypothetical situation where Wikipedia was around when Manchester United or Real Madrid was just starting up, no they wouldn't have had articles back then, no matter how many people in a deletion debate made unverifiable claims about hearing good things about them. They would only have got articles when they were getting enough attention for the newspapers (or something similar) to start writing about them, they joined a national league, or something similar. Wikipedia is for things that are notable now, not things that might be notable one day in the future (and certainly not for clubs that, in all probability, will never ever attain notability). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • i would just like to say that i appreciate the support to keep the page open from all of you from around the world, i will do everything in my power to ensure that Giblets FC will one day be a household name like Chelsea. i think Duggie 1001 has made valid points and answered the questions that Chris Neville-Smith put forward to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvsta (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally, I'd be delighted to see a club called "Giblets" win the Premiership or the FA Cup, or whatever. And should they one day achieve such notability, I'd be very happy to help develop their Wikipedia article myself. But until then... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- definitely a notable club... wont anyone who said it wasnt feel silly when they win the Premier league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeegs (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — Skeegs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

When they win the Premier League, I'll be happy to write an article for them myself :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of interest, why are you all so desperate to have a page on Wikipedia anyway? You do realise that, unlike your Facebook page, anyone can edit your page, and it won't necessarily be nice. It is not unheard of for people who created articles about themselves to later request deletion after someone digs up dirt about them, and in some cases the request has been refused. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If an article had been put up on Wikipedia in 1880 about Newton Heath F.C. - a railway company side playing at first only against other railway company sides, it would have been deleted - especially them after being defeated 6-0 by Bolton Wanderers Reserves... Railways? Newton who? What've they got to do with this? See Newton Heath F.C. for further thrilling details. Will you get this through your heads - this is free, but it is not free webspace for every Tom, Dick, Harry, Duggie (Ryan?), or Luke (visiting America but not Marvin Gaye who's dead). This is an encyclopaedia. Edited by many hands who may be professionals in their other lives in various fields. Not a place like AboutUs or LinkedIn, where you are free to publish any gibbletish gibberish about your club. Stop drivelling and produce the references, without which your article is as doomed as Downby in the Swamp Academicals would be when they met Tottenham Hotspur (Downby have only 10 players since their goalkeeper got arrested...). Peridon (talk) 19:14, 11 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. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andover New Street F.C.[edit]

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

Sunday league team JustEase (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a case where I think we'd be better off making a decision on all the articles in clubs in this league than an individual decision on one club. It seems the claim to notability for all these clubs is identical (i.e. they're football clubs somewhat down the league pyramid), and it's going to be confusing if articles for clubs in these league are present or absent based arbitrarily on which pages happen to have been nominated for deletion. Unless there's a good reason why some clubs in this league are any more or any less notable than the others, I think the sensible options are to keep all, delete all, or merge all into one article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This club belongs to a 10th tier league where the consensus was to keep the article belonging to 10 tier clubs. So it deserves its own article. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - suggest speedy closure unless the nominator comes up with a better rationale. The club is not a Sunday league team, so the nomination as it stands is false and misleading -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Nominator is wrong - this isn't a Sunday league team, but rather a club playing in the national pyramid (and one that plays in the FA Vase). Number 57 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for all your support, friends! At least I know that my hard work years ago did not go to waste! --Siva1979Talk to me 12:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I find ChristTheDude and Siva1979's arguments convincing. Cheers, Eisfbnore talk 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plays at a high enough level, as determined by WP:FOOTY. Nominator is 100% incorrect in his/her assumption that this is just a "Sunday league team." GiantSnowman 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recommend a speedy close. The nominator's account is less than a month old, and theirs have been indef-blocked at fr:wp and three-day-blocked at no:wp.[3][4] Eisfbnore talk 20:27, 8 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. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnshire Bombers Roller Girls[edit]

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

Self-promotion, non-notable team JustEase (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be enough coverage in various sources to warrant keeping. Much of it is local, but the coverage and interesting touches like being sponsored by Motorhead seem enough. I've trimmed it back and moved the "media" section into references, and removed the clearly promotional text. - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article feels encyclopedic enough. ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the changes made since nomination have resolved the self-promotion issues. Seems to be sufficient coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Keith D (talk) 01:05, 9 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. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding highly composite numbers[edit]

Finding highly composite numbers (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. This is a "how to" page with very poor sourcing - a mathematical equivalent of "here's my favourite apple pie recipe". No indication that these methods are notable or have produced any notable results. Wikipedia is not a textbook. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:HOWTO unless the algorithm (under some name) has become independently notable. Sources look like WP:SELFPUBLISH vios. composite numbers seems like it's about a notable topic, but has got similar problems with sources. Yakushima (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources. Not covered in neutral, reliable publications or websites. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the author of the article, I have to admit that it is partially my own work (although I later found that similar work has been done elsewhere). This is what makes it difficult to produce citations and references. However, I provided proof and reasoning for the algorithms and that should be enough for verification. I note that nobody has contested the mathematics behind them. I also have a Java implementation for the successive prime factors method (it's not very long) which produces the same results as what other people have on the net but I don't know where to put it (I'd be happy to email it to whoever is interested). One would think that for any group of numbers in mathematics, there is an obvious need for algorithms to find those numbers. There wasn't anything there, so I put something there which is mathematically solid. I am happy for it to be replaced with something better or more notable, but it seems a bit drastic to delete the whole article and leave a gaping hole behind. Nevertheless, it looks like I am getting a fair hearing and I will gracefully accept the decision of the umpires.Torkel1001 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for both WP:HOWTO and WP:NOR. (Edit: As well as WP:N and WP:RS.) Nageh (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. The article is valuable, but is not encyclopedic.

--Cerebellum (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The main article on highly composite numbers is poorly referenced and seems to have OR issues of its own, so it's not surprising that it would spawn more OR. It would be appropriate to add a summary of published (in peer reviewed journals) algorithms for generating HCNs to that article, but this article doesn't seem to have that so I can't even suggest a merge.--RDBury (talk) 19:15, 11 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 Speedy delete g3 hoax, g10 personal attack on someone. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings syndrome[edit]

Hastings syndrome (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 thought it was a hoax, then there were some websites, but they seem to be talking about something different... thoughts? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:20, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T. T. Rangarajan[edit]

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

An advert, no sources to support inclusion under the policy for biographies. Wikidas© 10:46, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Muni Narayana Prasad[edit]

Guru Muni Narayana Prasad (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 "guru" WITHOUT any sources to assert notability, and orphan for a year. Wikidas© 10:44, 6 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 Flight of the Navigator. T. Canens (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max (Flight of the Navigator)[edit]

Max (Flight of the Navigator) (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 meet notability guidelines. Article contains no information that can not be found in the Flight of the Navigator article. Jedzz (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Flight of the Navigator. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Sorry for not being clearer on this: I think this article should be outright deleted because there is no sourced information and the subject is not notable. A merge would be pointless, in my opinion, because almost all of the information in this article is already covered or mentioned in the movie article. Jedzz (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability independent of the film. The character's in-universe actions are covered in the film article's plot summary, and any out-of-universe details can be covered in the film article. I support deletion because it is not a reasonable search term. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Flight of the Navigator Dream Focus 21:35, 9 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, non-notable and spammy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Gold[edit]

Sophie Gold (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 business-person, advert masquerading as encyclopedia article Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It should also be noted the sources come from the company the woman owns. Η936631 (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no independent notability. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, no reliable sources. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity/spam. Added evidence: zero hits for this name in the online Biography & Genealogy Master Index ("Biography and Genealogy Master Index is a comprehensive index to more than 12.7 million biographical sketches in more than 3,400 volumes and editions of current and retrospective reference books, covering both contemporary and historical figures throughout the world."). That includes several of the dubious Who's Who publications as well. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:27, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itzhak Brook[edit]

Itzhak Brook (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:AUTOBIO - subsequent edits made by SPA whose other-article edits are all about inserting subject's work into references Nat Gertler (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although autobiographies are strongly discouraged, they are not forbidden. This is an article about a professor of medicine at Georgetown University. The decision to keep or delete should be based on the notability of the person, rather than shortcomings in how the article was written. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is more involved in strongly discouraging something than merely saying it's strongly discourage. At the very least, it should flip the presumption of proof; the creation of an article is testimony that at least someone thinks the topic is important, but in the case of an autobio, that is mere self-importance. Just going off of the article, I don't see anything that unequivocally qualifies him by WP:PROF. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With GS h index somewhere around 50 he passes WP:prof#C1 clearly and also C8. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep based on Xxanthippe's analysis of WP:PROF. If the article is kept, I will edit to improve it stylistically. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To add to Xxanthippe's findings, WoS shows h-index > 20 for a search restricted to papers in pediatrics. (If he has other papers, say in general medicine or allied areas, his citations might be higher.) Pediatrics are not one of the fashionable, high-citation areas of the biomedical sciences, so this seems like a pretty conspicuous pass of WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, but warn author to be more circumspect in editing about himself, or citing his own work. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why. The article seems proper whoever wrote it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Because we discourage WP:PROMO. User in an SPA, and the single purpose he has apparently set himself to is promoting himself and his work, adding reference to his work in other articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nat Gertler, you linked to our policy on spam. Please think this through. The subject of this article is a 70 year old professor at one of the most prestigious medical schools in the United States. What goods or services is he allegedly spamming here? His school only accepts about 3% of the students who apply. He is not selling get-rich-quick schemes, phony weight loss products or the ""world's best pizza". He's not the lead guitarist in a brand new rock band. This article is not spam, and that guideline doesn't apply here. By the way, you haven't proved that Itzhak Brook himself is responsible for this article. It could be one or more of his relatives. Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, you may wish to review WP:PROMO; it refers not just to selling product (although he did post a link to a sales page for his self-published autobiographical book, which I deleted), but also to "self-promotion", also mentioned as "personal promotion". No, I haven't proven that "Dribrook" is that Dr. I. Brook, but the user's identification as that in their efforts to post about a Dr. I. Brook and post his work as reference in multiple articles makes it clear that the name is supposed to suggest that it is. The user has been cautioned about autobio in multiple locations, and has certainly not posted any contradiction to the claim. (As for his being a professor, while that was his claim, another editor clarified it as his being an adjunct professor, not the full-time or permanent position one normally associates with that term.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nat, the topic is notable, the article as it now stands is in pretty decent shape, and the solution to any shortcomings in the article is improvement through the normal editing process, not deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that neither WP:PROMO nor WP:AUTOBIO are valid reasons for deletion. Instead, the solution to such problems when dealing with an article about a notable topic is to edit the article to eliminate such problems. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the question of whether this is WP:AUTOBIO, here the user indicates that he is the author of the blogs that have belong to the article's subject, so either its autobio or we're dealing with a fundamentally dishonest editor whose inclusions are not to be trusted. As for the article being in pretty decent shape, it has significant chunks that are unsourced, and has no criticism of the subject. Is there criticism to be had of Dr. Brook? I don't know, but I don't expect we'll find it when we allow him to be the one to build the article. I think we should concur with guidelines and strongly discourage autobio, rather than encouraging it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that further discussion of these issues should take place on the article's talk page if the article is kept, and that the shortcomings you see in the article should be addressed through normal editing. He does not own the article, you know.Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 9 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 Withdrawn by nom.. AdmrBoltz 20:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water Street, Vancouver[edit]

Water Street, Vancouver (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. Article makes no effort to prove its notability. This is a non-notable street that could be easily covered in List of roads in Vancouver. AdmrBoltz 06:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —œ™ 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't we have a CSD criteria for articles that make no indication of their notability? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. sadly there's not CSD for non-notable subjects except bands and businesses. Imzadi 1979 → 06:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historic Vancouver street with many landmarks. And WP:JNN is a poor argument for deletion. -- œ™ 07:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you go by the guidebooks, Water Street is one of Vancouver's major tourist destinations, both for historical reasons (one of Van's original streets) and for shopping/restaurants. Lacking a specific notability guideline for streets, this should meet the GNG. The Interior (Talk) 07:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For supposedly being these things, the article makes no mention of that (aside from "several landmarks, including the steam clock"). These points are moot. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So? That only means the article is incomplete, needs expansion. That's not a reason to delete a notable topic. -- Ϫ 08:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly a good reason to redirect it to a list of the arterial roads in Vancouver, where that information can be added until such time as it merits a seperate article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But it already 'merits' a separate article.. the topic is notable.. it's just an incomplete article, meaning it needs 'fixing' not deletion. Redirection is indeed an option, but only for the fact that noone currently has the inclination to improve it and low-quality stubs adversely affect Wikipedia's professional appearance, not because it's an unnotable topic. -- Ϫ 08:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every notable topic merits a unique article right now. It's almost a flipside to WP:DEADLINE if you think about it. Regardless, there is no prejudice against recreation when someone does have the time to make something of it besides a couple short paragraphs. Preserving the current article history is a benefit of redirection that makes it a far cry from outright deletion; the old article will be there for someone to start with. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I read you right, we should proceed to start redirecting all stub articles that meet the GNG to other lists and articles? Or just this one? The Interior (Talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Where it's appropriate to create an article that merges a group of articles that share a very common trait which don't quite merit a seperate article at this point, resulting in one good article rather than a bunch of not good articles, without losing any information from those merged articles: Yes! This is essentially the pokemon test. The articles can always be split out at a later date when there is enough information to write a suitable article; the article history is available as a starting block and to attribute the old edits that were merged. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 09:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. You'd like to this street included in a Vancouver version of an article like your own - User:Floydian/List of roads in Toronto. Which is an admirable solution to stubs on marginally important streets. In Vancouver's case, there is no such article. But honestly, if one were to collate a list of notable Vancouver streets that did warrant individual articles (like the navbox at Water Street does), this would be one. The Interior (Talk) 09:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally yes. I intended to do the same with Toronto; redirect all its terrible stubs to a nice article that sums up all the roads. Unfortunately too many editors are concerned with the number of articles on the encyclopedia, and not the quality of content. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this landmark (or is it the clock that is the landmark?) is so important, it should be discussed in the Vancouver article, as a couple sentences do not make an article. And not every landmark in every city needs its own article, mind you. I am sure Vancouver has numerous tourist attractions and landmarks without mention in any article, let alone their own freestanding article. Η936631 (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of roads in Vancouver. Dough4872 16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The coverage is in depth, thus passing WP:GNG and it confirms the street is one of Vancouver's tourist destinations. The proposed redirect is to simply a list article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What coverage? How is this even remotely in-depth, it doesn't even say where the road begins and where it ends! "Water street is a street in Vancouver." That's what you consider in-depth? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rough Guide alone devotes a whole section to this street not just "Water street is a street in Vancouver." Don't know where you got that from. There's no requirement that a source states "where the road begins and where it ends!" Sorry you're angry. --Oakshade (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that can't go in the notes on the list because...? And actually yes, that is the bare essential information for one of these articles, various wikiproject guidelines denote that, and this one doesn't even have that basic essential information. Its a two sentence note that can be merged until it is not a two sentence note. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more than a "two sentence note" now. Even if it still was (which it wasn't btw), there was no reason to delete an article on a notable topic and redirecting only would've served to discourage editors who would want to expand it.--Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a frequently expounded upon topic outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the world, just because our article is a piece of crap does not mean that there are not resources in the world to make it a good article. As has been pointed out, there are alot of sources to draw upon, since this is an oft-mentioned street in connection to Vancouver, and not some slightly-mentioned street. As the current state of the article is crap, temporarily redirecting it to the list article would be fine until a better version is written, but it should not be an enforced decision to always redirect the article. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not, that's why we have to discuss these sort of changes unfortunately. It seems almost common sense that if all the information is moved somewhere else, and readers will be redirect to that infomation, that nothing is lost in that process. There are resources to make almost every one of our 3.5 million articles into good, referenced articles. Editors just need to invest time into actually researching a topic before they add it here, instead of making a new page to add two sentences. Why can't there be an article on the streets of Vancouver, instead of an article for each street in Vancouver? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a good article now, but is clear that it could be someday. - SimonP (talk) 18:39, 6 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 nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Market abuse[edit]

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

Nothing more than a definition, with an odd template attached. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Well it is currently just a stub and you are just describing what it is now, not what it potentially could be after expansion. It looks to be a common phrase on google.--Penbat (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A widely used legal and regulatory concept, especially in Europe. Here's a book: The mechanics and regulation of market abuse: A legal and economic analysis, by E. E. Avgouleas, 2005, Wiley. Improve this stub on a notable topic through normal editing. Don't delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I have spare time, I will write on it. In Europe the subject is well identified since the Market Abuse Directive enacted by the European Union has been transposed into national laws. Bmathis (talk) 18:59, 7 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. Davewild (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Street (Toronto)[edit]

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

Speedy redirect to List of roads in Toronto#John Street. This was merged by consensus not even a month ago. SimonP has decided to recreate it, rather than adding this slight bit of new infomation to the redirect target, where it easily fits. Not a notable road and doesn't deserve its own article, as was determined a few days ago; it travels a few city blocks and is classified as a local street by the city. The street itself has no claim to fame, it just has important places at major intersection with other actually notable roads (Front/King/Queen). Important places on a road don't in themselves make the road notable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, close, and TROUT- What part of "this is not Articles for Redirect was unclear? Umbralcorax (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Learn wikipedia policy. This is a venue to discuss articles. They don't have to be nominated for deletion to be brought here. Talk pages of many articles are unwatched. When you've been here a little longer and know the rules, you can apply to be an admin and then you can perform the unprecedented closure you did last night. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In all honesty, I think Articles for Deletion needs to be changed to Articles for Discussion, similar to RFD, TFD, etc. With this change, any deletions, proposed mergers, or requested moves can be discussed at this venue rather than on article talk pages. Dough4872 20:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do know wikipedia policy, thank you. There's one called WP:BEFORE, which says "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case". All you're doing in opening these afd's is wasting everyone's time. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was already done. Every single one that has been nominated here in the past few days was recreated with content that duplicates what is in the redirect target (or adds a fact or two to it at best). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, there was consensus to actually perform the redirect, so when someone undid your move, you brought it here make a POINT. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...No...
The article was listed for deletion. Consensus was to merge (see first AfD). This action was performed by User:Spartaz on January 16.[5]. SimonP recreated it on February 5, adding an infobox and a table with various buildings along the road.[6], but otherwise changing the prose very little. It was quickly nominated with CSD G4 by myself as a recreation of material from a recent AfD. An admin declined this request,[7] with the summary of "As much as this feels like an obvious G4, I think an AfD would calm everyne's nerves in thr long term". So I did exactly that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major Toronto street and there's far too much topic-specific content to merge into the already far too large "parent" article. Very in-depth coverage demonstrating passing WP:GNG. [8] --Oakshade (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the potential target article is a completely seperate issue that has no bearing on this discussion. One source does not make a topic notable, WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not require multiple sources (it says multiple sources are generally expected, not required). What's important about sources establishing notability is the depth of the coverage and that one cited is very in-depth. Here's another government one.[9] Oh, and here's another from the National Post. [10] And another from the Toronto Star. [11] So even under your criteria, this topic easily passes WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you take all these great sources and actually make an article with them? Will either you or SimonP stick around after these afd's close to continue to improve all of these sub-par street articles using the sources you are presenting here, or will you run off to "save" whatever other roads are being nominated for deletion? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you've shifted your position that from it doesn't pass WP:GNG to "every article must be very long incorporating every word ever written about its topic from every source and if that's not done immediately, the article must be deleted." That's just silly and childish and not worth responding to.--Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, every article that isn't long enough to merit seperation from a list of very similar articles (other roads in Toronto) should be merged until its big enough to be its own article. Otherwise they sit as permenant stubs for years without anything being done to them... that is of course until someone comes along with a hot poker. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now your argument has shifted yet again to "it's too small." First of all, there are no WP:TOOSMALL disqualifying guidelines in Wikipedia. That's what stub notices are for. Secondly, it's a already beyond stub status and too large to merge into another one. Thirdly, it easily passes WP:GNG. You're fighting a losing battle here. --Oakshade (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed. Crappy articles rejoice. Like I said, I'm sure once these AfD's are done that these articles will rot for another few years without a single reference being added to them. Hopefully one day opinions will change. We should go around making placeholders for other topics that could potentially have a good article. As long as they pass GNG it doesn't matter how good or bad the article is, right? When this nomination was made, the article was more than small enough to be merged until the time came that someone made it like it is now. Of course it is only when the threat of the article going away comes around that any work is actually done on it by the people that want to keep it so badly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep per Oakshade. There are more than enough references available to satisfy WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It didn't take me much work to find a bunch of sources for this article. I'm sure with a bit more time a lot else could be found. - SimonP (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Original merge was correct, but there's clearly enough new content and coverage to justify retention now. Significant coverage in at least three reliable sources makes this road easily notable under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK #1: fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you fucking blind?
    Speedy redirect to List of roads in Toronto#John Street. This was merged by consensus not even a month ago. SimonP has decided to recreate it, rather than adding this slight bit of new infomation to the redirect target, where it easily fits. Not a notable road and doesn't deserve its own article, as was determined a few days ago; it travels a few city blocks and is classified as a local street by the city. The street itself has no claim to fame, it just has important places at major intersection with other actually notable roads (Front/King/Queen). Important places on a road don't in themselves make the road notable.
    Use common fucking sense. That is a reason and an argument. Your vote is useless. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This an unacceptable personal attack and only succeeds in diminishing Floydian before the WP community, whatever one thinks of Colonel Wardens' !vote. I've placed a warning on his User Talk page, for what it's worth, and asked him to remove this and apologize. Geez, it's a deletion discussion about a street, for heaven's sake. Let's act like adults. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no personal attack. I will continue to use profane language as I please, there is no rule against that (or can you provide to the contrary?). Colonel is spamming every nomination with the same inapplicable crap, and it is simply unacceptable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, Wikipedia:Civility. Please read it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shawn in Montreal beat me to it, but the line you may want to pay particularly close attention to is this: "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." freshacconci talktalk 01:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Civility only refers to attacking another member, not to general use of profane language. In both cases, my use of "fucking" was as a modifier / adjective that expressed frustration. I didn't call Colonel a fuck, or a fuck up, nor assert that they were fucked; I asked if they were blind (perhaps less than civil, but if we're supposed to act like adults here, then we should have skin thicker than a baby), and then stated "Use common sense". Mass stamping of AfD's with speedy keep based on a personal interpretation of WP:SK is far more disruptive than two swear words. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, please. Cut the semantics and the drama. "Are you fucking blind?"; "Use common fucking sense"; "Your vote is useless". Those are attacks, with profanity, directed at one editor. freshacconci talktalk 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll repeat myself: if we're supposed to act like adults here, then we should have skin thicker than a baby. This was not intended as a personal insult at colonel, but as an expression of my frustration at their unconstructive comments; that is all there is to it. Any continued drama beyond this point is the doing of those initiating it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Exactly, act like an adult, admit you're in the wrong and apologize. You violated Wikipedia policy. It's clear and simple and no amount of redirection is going to alter that. You're frustrated that this AfD isn't going like you planned. Your comments on this page, not just to Colonel Warden, but to others you disagree with show a great deal of immaturity. freshacconci talktalk 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Floydian, your behavior in both this attempted mass deletion effort and your lack of civility has only served as a disruption to editors and exposing your poor judgment. I don't know if you're embarrassed, angry or outright humiliated that these AfDs aren't going your way, but that is absolutely no excuse for that kind of language you have demonstrated here as well as your own talk page. Presuming you are over 18 years old (correct me if I'm wrong on this), as the previous user said, start acting like an adult. --Oakshade (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and Keep, too. We now have enough refs indicating notability for John Street, which appears to be a main axis in TO's Entertainment District. Clearly notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 8 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 Yogi Bear (film)#cast. T. Canens (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Brown (Yogi Bear)[edit]

Mayor Brown (Yogi Bear) (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 character in a film, user has been repeatedly asked to stop creating similar articles Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very non-notable and generic villain in a critically derided movie, no notability. If the editor continues to insist on creating this, a salt may be suggested. Nate • (chatter) 06:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. Minor character appearing in a single film (independent of critical derision). Notability not established by reputable third party sources. Mention of character would be appropriate in other articles, such as the Yogi Bear film. I already see it (appropriately) mentioned in the Andrew Daly article. I went ahead and added Daly's voice credit to the appropriate listing of voices in the article on the film. Editor might consider contributing to those articles instead of creating single articles about non-notable characters. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minor character recently introduced in the new Yogi Bear film, no historical significance or significant referencing outside the film itself. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable character. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a reasonable search term to Yogi Bear (film)#cast where this minor character has as much mention as he could possible merit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried redirecting the original article multiple times - article creator constantly reverted that, which led to this AfD. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate that valient efort. The author is not a total newbie,[12] but from his talk page seems to still be feeling his way through our processes.[13] Hopefully this time the redirect will be protected by the closer so it cannot be undone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yogi Bear (film)#cast per User:MichaelQSchmidt, just as we did with the Ranger characters. Let's be consistent. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question Is "Mayor Brown (Yogi Bear)" really going to be a reasonable search term? I don't particularly care either way, but I'm not sure if anyone would likely be searching this (on a side note, I'd find it unlikely that anyone would be searching at all for a generic stock character from a not particularly successful movie, but that's really just my opinion.)--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If some reader (not me) is a fan of the film, then yes... it is a reasonable term that at least for that reader and for him, not generic. And as we do have disambig links to articles on a Mayor Brown of Buffalo and a former Mayor Brown of San Francisco and a Mayor Brown of Knoxville and a former Oakland Mayor Brown (now California governor), the disambig would be needed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I'm talking more about what to do with the actual page "Mayor Brown (Yogi Bear)" than with the disambiguation page. It seems unlikely that anyone will ever search that with this exact phrasing; it makes more sense to just list it on the disambiguation page I made with a link to the movie.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's always an option, certainly... but even as someone created the article in the first place, its not that unlikely or unbelievable that someone else might come searching. A reader might have seen the movie and or even appreciate the character of the Mayor who wanted to shut down Jellystone Park. In cashing in on existing audience interest (not mine), its conceivable that the film could have a sequel or even that the Mayor character might eventually gain notability. That the actual page becomes a redirect serves both Wikipedia and whatever reader that might come looking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yogi Bear (film)#cast. Protect the page if you think the user might un-redirect it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:47, 10 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. Opinions are split on this one but the spanish language source and one of the sources provided by king of hearts (the other one doesn't seems to show an article, he may have mistyped the URL) barely push this to the "keep" side. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Faro Restaurant[edit]

El Faro Restaurant (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 restaurant. The Spanish paper linked article is mostly about a documentary on Little Spain in New York, and not on the restaurant itself. Contested PROD. PROD removed citing restaurant's age. Ravendrop (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Follow the link http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/genteytelevision/2011/02/05/00031296925866719507292.htm Citation: "Mejor suerte corrió el restaurante El Faro, fundado en 1959 en el 823 de la calle Greenwich por el celanovés José Pérez y por su socio Andrés Lugrís. «Todavía somos socios, pero hoy son nuestros hijos, José A. Pérez y Mark Lugrís, quienes dirigen el negocio», explica José Pérez, cuyo testimonio es uno de los más destacados en el documental Little Spain. «Durante la ley seca -recuerda Pérez-, el restaurante era un lugar de bebida clandestina, como muchos en torno a los muelles. Después fue una bodega portuaria, especializada en lo español. La clientela de los años 60 y 70 era variada: en gran parte, de marineros gallegos que trabajaban en barcos americanos, en su mayoría como fogoneros; pero otros eran políticos españoles exiliados. Y luego había clientela americana y artistas de Hollywood, como Marlon Brando, que venía muy a menudo»." And please see the second picture of the article, citation: "UN RESTAURANTE FRECUENTADO POR MARLON BRANDO. Detrás de la barra de El Faro, en una imagen del año 1959, los socios fundadores José Pérez (sirviendo una copa) y Andrés Lugrís. El restaurante tenía una clientela eminentemente española, pero también fue frecuentado por celebridades como Marlon Brando y logró tres estrellas en la crítica gastronómica del «The New York Times»."
It says, among other things, that the restaurant had clients like Marlon Brando in the 50s, and that achieved 3 stars at the New York Times Review.
This NEW reference states context in the landmarks of Little Spain and gives years for the citation. Little Spain and its landmark will be recognized in the WP as an important part of the history of Manhattan. Thanks. --Lolox76 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
La Voz de Galicia is oldest and most important newspaper of Galicia, and the galicians were the best represented Spaniards in Manhattan. --Lolox76 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The restaurant is still not notable. It doesn't matter if Marlon Brando ate there. He surely ate at lots of restaurants all over the world. They are not all notable just because he ate there. It also doesn't matter that it got a good review in the New York Times. The idea of the location being recognized by someone or some newspaper as a landmark in Little Spain has not been established. --Crunch (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but with all due respect you cannot read Spanish, because thats all about. Otherwise, why to include in the documentary...?? --Lolox76 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its historical value is not subject to your own interpretation. You need to provide reliable, third party references (above and beyond the spanish article, which has issues, that is in there already) to prove that it is considered historically valuable and noteworthy. Ravendrop (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, Ravendrop, "above and beyond" of understanding capabilities is dificoult. It is obvious: what I did explain in the paragraph above is not a personal interpretation, is an explanation based on the facts: years of existence, place where it is since its origins, link to the Spanish history of this part of Chelsea-West Village, and why it has a significance, which indicates notability as a landmark. No one is saying that it is a famous restaurant, or the most expensive of Manhattan (probably that could be enough for you as indication of notability), but it is about the history of the restaurant. I don't have personal interest in the matter, but it is a landmark in the history of Little Spain. And the Spanish article does not have issues -unless we consider an issue the fact that probably your Spanish knowledge suffers a lack of lexicon or is structurally poor. Keep in mind the WP rules: this is an article that states notability in terms of historic value of the restaurant, in the context of Little Spain. --Lolox76 (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historical value doesn't matter; it meets WP:GNG. The Spanish-language source is actually quite substantial. And add to it [14] and [15], and you've got significant coverage in reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the coverage identified by King of Hearts which I think is enough to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 10:01, 13 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 Alvin and the Chipmunks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks (film series)[edit]

Alvin and the Chipmunks (film series) (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 series does not need it's own article. The franchise itself already has its own page, from which this entire article was just copied and pasted, and with only 2 movies (none of which were particularly esteemed) and one more planned, a page for the series is completely unnecessary. Other than a comparison of cast members, there is no new information in this article that is not just taken from the individual page. It is is, quite literally, a copy and paste of a section of the main Alvin and the Chipmunks article. Only for movies where the series itself is incredibly significant (Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind) is a page on the film series needed. With a series like Pirates, or Toy Story, or Shrek, there's been plenty of coverage, analysis and discussion of the series as a whole, not just the individual movies. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Only for movies where the series itself is incredibly significant (Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind) is a page on the film series needed" - is this only your opinion or a statement on the standards of wikipedia, which may (and usually does) have a page for any notable film series? Keep Bienfuxia (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe there's something stated to that effect, although I'm having trouble finding it at the moment. Regardless, the article still suffers from problems regarding REDUNDANT and Content Forking.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But I can't see any good reason not to let it be. Bienfuxia (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it would make Wikipedia a cooler place, we unfortunately can't base our policies off the philosophies of Beatles songs. :)--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if it were merged with the main article and cleaned up a little bit I think it is salvagable, unlike the movie itself. I can't believe I am not trying to delete something...I feel so wrong. Imasomething (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see your point. I really didn't notice the similarities until you pointed them out. I was going cross eyed from reading so much about Alvin and the Chipmunks. I think the better argument is for deleting it is the one you presented to me, that it looks like a cut and paste job from another article. I agree with the delete. Imasomething (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it even needs to be merged. It was copied and pasted right from there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are animated films as well mentioned there, so its more than just two films. The article's infobox reads: "Budget $100 million" and "Gross revenue $904,476,638". Someone thought these films fairly significant to spend that much money on them, and they are proven significant by how much they made. Dream Focus 21:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the nominator mentioned "none of which were particularly esteemed", I'm just wondering if you think that is a valid reason to delete something? They made a ton of money, so someone liked them. My sister's young daughters watched those films many times and enjoyed them. WP:Idon'tlikeit is not a reason to delete something. Don't be a hater. Dream Focus 21:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was just one fact I noted, not the main argument for deletion. I also want to once again point out that this article is literally just copied and pasted from the main article on Alvin and the Chipmunks, adding almost nothing else.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More information can be added. I tagged it for rescue. Dream Focus 22:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More info could be added about the individual films, but there's not reason to; they already have their own entire articles. As you yourself pointed out in an edit summary, the sources are all about the individual movies; none about the general "series". Contrast that with something like Shrek or Toy Story, where there's plenty of notable coverage, analysis, and documentation of the series as a whole.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – If the argument for deleting this article is that the content can be adequately covered on the franchise page, the obvious step is to nominate the articles for a merge. If the article is deleted all the information about the films will be lost. Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not just covered on the franchise page, it is literally just copied and pasted from it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete – Copyvio. Sorry, I didn't realise it was a wholesale cut and paste job in its entirety. In that case there isn't really a debate here, it has to go. The copy vio stuff has to be removed and there just won't be an article left after it is. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright violation. Wikipedia rules have been followed. See below. Dream Focus 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus is correct, see below. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I think it's also worth mentioning that the page seems to violate Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This is something that I normally would have PRODed I think, but I felt bad for the user who created it (who had gone on a spree of unencylopedic articles, all of which are not deleted I believe.)--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a phantom edit so the history summary will show where the information was copied from. [16] There is no rule against starting an article with content from another, and leaving it there to expand. Anyone wishing to see the history of the article to see who came up with what, will see my edit summary telling them where to look. Dream Focus 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus has the right idea here – the missing attribution can be provided, rather than deleting the article, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution. If the article is kept here, I'll add the necessary {{Copied}}s. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. The copyright issue was really just a side-note I brought up later though (I'm not familiar enough with all that to be comfortable concretely referencing it.) The other points about it being an unnecessary copy and paste job still stand. But thanks for clearing that all up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there the potential for growth for this article? Is there information which could expand it? Dream Focus 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There possibly is, but at the moment it's just duplicated everything from the main article. As a copy vio it has to go. If the editor or other editors decide that the series would be better off with its own article rather than part of the franchise article they should propose a split through the proper methods so the authorship of the material can be properly accounted for. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cast table was written by User:ChipmunkRaccoon (diff, history), with later edits being an infobox merged from the individual film articles, a copied paragraph, one sentence, and minor changes. WP:Merge and delete (ChipmunkRaccoon's attribution in an edit summary) is possible here. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two movies don't make a series to me. Any material in this article can go in the franchise article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now with support for recreation when the third film comes out. If it is recreated, it should provide overviews of the cast and crew, the box office performance, and the critical reception. I would prefer to see the franchise article's "The Chipmunks' future" film-related section being rewritten and presented in the film series article, with the franchise article having a summary section about it. Of course, right now, a reader can see one film article or the other to find out details. Three is a reasonable threshold for comparing details across the series. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely redundant to Alvin and the Chipmunks and to the articles on the individual movies. Reyk YO! 00:15, 12 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) 00:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skulduggery Pleasant: Book 6[edit]

Skulduggery Pleasant: Book 6 (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 template removed by article creator without explanation. This article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Logan Talk Contributions 02:02, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karlina Leksono Supelli[edit]

Karlina Leksono Supelli (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 General notability guideline. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May well be a worthy person but I cannot find any reliable sources inside or outside the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Google news archive and Google books searching for "Karlina Leksono" [17] [18] found what look to me like enough sources to pass WP:GNG. There are also some relevant looking hits in Google scholar [19] including a claim that her arrest at a protest sparked a media furor [20] and this intriguing excerpt from a book that is unfortunately unavailable for preview (The making of women's activism during the Reformasi years, M Budianta - … in Southeast Asia: Comparing Indonesia and …, 2003): "The expansion of Karlina Leksono-Supeli's career from an apolitical scientist to a committed activist is a good example. Known as a brilliant young scientist, the researcher ..." Here is another book with nontrivial coverage (two long paragraphs) about her. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 January 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) 01:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources, particularly the book, noted by David Eppstein above. RayTalk 05:18, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Y. Ting[edit]

Alice Y. Ting (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 more or less a call for clarification: is the National Institutes of Health Director's Pioneer Award sufficiently prestigious to fit under WP:PROF's #2 criterion? If so, perhaps it should not be deleted. If not, I see nothing about this professor that is sufficiently notable otherwise. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:51, 30 January 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, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Publication record insufficient to meet WP:PROF C1. The one national award she received is not sufficiently prestigious as suggested by the nom to meet WP:PROF C2. It's an award given to support research with potential and promise. This is not what C2 is getting at. I have little doubt that within a few years Ting will easily pass WP:PROF on several criteria levels, but not yet. --Crunch (talk) 13:27, 6 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) 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phèdre nó Delaunay[edit]

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

A fictional character with no real-world significance D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:48, 1 January 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, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A fictional character who has not developed real-world significance in that little to no independent reliable sources have about this topic. Fails WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:09, 6 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) 00:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moon+ reader[edit]

Moon+ reader (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 yet notable mobile application. After a contested prod, the article was expanded without refs and still looks like all those semi automatic blogs and feature listings Google turns up. Reliable sources seem scarce, best I found is this [22] (in german) but it's still a mere specialized blog. Tikiwont (talk) 18:15, 30 January 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, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A Cnet blog is a reliable source, but the coverage is only borderline substantial. Mobile apps are numerous and fleeting so multiple sources should generally be required to establish notability. --Pnm (talk) 00:40, 12 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) 15:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Cox (tennis)[edit]

Jordan Cox (tennis) (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:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What senior level tournament has he reached the final in? Ravendrop (talk) 23:39, 4 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) 01:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:NTENNIS. See His ITF profile. As a junior, his highest ranking was only 36 and he had no grand slam titles. Reaching the finals may be notable in the world of tennis but Wikipedia has specific standards for junior tennis players and he does not meet them. --Crunch (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet any requirement for notability, neither he's winner of any junior Grand Slam title nor he is in top junior players list. Bill william compton (talk) 13:29, 7 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) 15:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moons of Ida (Xanth)[edit]

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

Content appears to be Kruft and is fictional content not appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, looked through google searches and didn't find any discussion in anything reputable. Sadads (talk) 01:00, 22 January 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, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep Articles on fictions, even details of fictions, are appropriate; consider March Hare, which is much better written. But this complex concept is worth explaining as part of our coverage of Xanth; a merge might be appropriate, but it's too long to fit well into, say, Magicians of Xanth and shortening it would make it even more obscure than it is. As with any fiction, the sources are the fiction itself: Cube Route and Swell Foop by Piers Anthony. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the books are notable but this particular feature is likely too minor for reliable sources to exist to build an article around. A redirect to Geography of Xanth might be okay though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 29 January 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 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Summarize this in 1-2 paragraphs at Geography of Xanth#Moons of Ida. No independent, reliable sources address the topic sufficiently to justify a standalone article. When a google search (minus the "()") finds a video game forum as the first hit, that's never a good sign. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 6 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) 15:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take me To The Water[edit]

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

Procedurally completing nomination on behalf of Logan (talk · contribs) as it appears Twinkle broke. I assume the nomination rationale is on the lines of unreferenced article on a non-notable song. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not to be confused with Take me to the river as sung by Big Mouth Billy Bass, as was my first thought. Edison (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent evidence it is a notable song, such as its having gained a high position in a "chart," or reviews, or significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If anything, this should be properly tagged with the appropriate stub and expand templates. Just because an article is in its infancy does not mean that it should be deleted. The author of the song is notable enough, so there is potential for the article. If no editors find it worth their time to expand, then that is the time to reconsider deletion.Agent 86 (talk) 00:14, 29 January 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, 29 January 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 00:53, 6 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 Speedy deleted per A7 - no indication of notability. Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Tasleem[edit]

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

Okay, this is approximately the 7th time the CSD tag was removed. Non-notable person, promotional personal page. Reads like a linkdin profile. Fbifriday (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD-A7: no credible assertion of notability. GILO   ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY 00:57, 6 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) 00:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-pop[edit]

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

Original research which would require a ground-level rewrite. Sources provided are not WP:RS. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; searches for the term reveal a handful of references in a musical context, none of which seem to include the genre suggested in this article. It seems that this is WP:OR based on unreliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; most sources use last.fm wiki pages, unsourced claims and also lacks reliability. Jonjonjohny (talk) 17:01, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Sweeney[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Craig Sweeney (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 news story, and a fleeting one at that, masquerading as a biographical article. The article was previously nominated for deletion and survived without consensus, but since that nomination was back in 2006 when the events were still current and before concepts like WP:BLP1E ("If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."), I decided to renominate it.

There is very little in the way of biographical sources about this person; the sources are all news stories from a very short window in time in which a verdict became somewhat controversial. That is not a basis for an article on the person. Dominic·t 02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although a case could be made to keep because of the controversy. However in general WP should not have biographies of common criminals. If changes in law or policy come about because of this case then his name could redirect to an article on that. Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Craig Sweeney sentencing controversy. Per WP:BIO1E: "In considering whether or not to create separate articles [about an event or person known for their role in the event], the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Given that the coverage of the events/controversy center around one individual, I am OK with leaving the title as is unless a more acceptable one is suggested. Examination of GNews, GBooks, GScholar reveals even more coverage since the first Afd in 2006, so there is no doubt that the subject matter meets WP:GNG. Location (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the intention of the policy you quote. The example cited there is the political assassin who precipitated the First World War, a very historically notable incident; the event we are talking about here is not. Murders and rapes, though, happen everyday, and the perpetrators frequently make the news. While it is true that those individuals are a major focus of the coverage, you seem to be suggesting that any murder covered in the news necessitates a biographical article about the culprit. There aren't actually biographical sources from which a biography could actually be constructed, rather than simply news stories surrounding this single event and controversy. Dominic·t 07:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am definitely not suggesting that any murder covered in the news necessitates a biographical article about the culprit. Nor do I believe that subject matter needs to be the equivalent of the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria for it to be included in Wikipedia. This particular perpetrator and his criminal act precipitated "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and which exists beyond a short news cycle. In other words, it is not the "fleeting news story" that you have suggested. The intention of the guideline I quoted is to clarify points that should be considered when deciding whether notable subject matter should fall under the name of the event or the name of a person. Given that the event is centered on one particular person, I am OK with naming the article after the person or the event. Location (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per House of Commons. also rename to Craig Sweeney sentencing controversy.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:36, 9 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_6&oldid=1142638495"