Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 3

< 2 January	4 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Family Entertainment[edit]

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

Minor indie company; no evidence or assertion of notability for over three years now. Orange Mike | Talk 23:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the "Hang On" tag in order to complete edits and improvements to the page. Nebulex (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Hang on tags aren't appropriate for AFD's, only for speedy deletions. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete production company with one movie to its credit, which appears to itself not have been notable (possibly direct to DVD). Could become notable in the future, but doesn't pass WP:CORP at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Serves as promotion piece for subject (edited partially by company). I originally proposed it for deletion but template was removed by Nebulex - explanation given was not satisfactory. Nothing really changed since proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment Nebulex appears to be a role account (keeps saying "we are new to this process" and the like), probably for Avalon. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my suspicion even before those comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one film only, and that one not particularly successful. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one film production company. --Stormbay (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If circumstances change and this production company gets some decent coverage or note for more projects, the article might be considered for undeletion. But at the persent time it fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform. There seems to be a preponderance of opinion that this is not exntirely suited to a standalone article UNDUE & BLP1E/ONEEVENT are the cited argument but sufficient evidence of notability that this should be covered somewhere. Therefore the redirect appears to be the most policy based outcome. Since BLP1E has been cited and the keep votes haven't really shot that down and this doesn't appear to be a merge then I think losing the article history is also appropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary committal of Victor Győry (née Victor Győry)[edit]

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

The article is a negative, mostly unsourced BLP, which has to be addressed somehow. However, that is not the primary reason I am nominating it for deletion.

I'm not convinced that this article meets the relative inclusion guidelines. My Prod concurrence was removed by Cyclopia. I have done a fair amount of digging, and these are the sources I found:

Delaware County Daily Times – Chester, Pennsylvania – Wednesday, July 23, 1969 – Page 9 - ~3/4 column
Delaware County Daily Times – Chester, Pennsylvania – Tuesday, January 06, 1970 – Page 13 - ~1 column
Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph – Colorado Springs, Colorado – Friday, July 05, 1974 – Page 17 - 1/3 column
Christian perspectives on psychology, edited by Richard Ruble - 2 paragraphs
Mental Illness, by Marie L. Thompson - 1 paragraph
Couple of 1-2 sentence mentions elsewhere.
And of course, a Church of Scientology publication and Church of Scientology press releases, which I hardly think are reliable sources.

Together, I don't believe that is enough to have a full article on them. What do you all think? NW (Talk) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This was fast, NW!. The article meets WP:GNG; even by applying strict BLP standards we have detailed, consistent coverage in two apparently reliable books and in several news. I agree with the nominator that CoS sources are not reliable, but other sources undoubtedly are. The claim that it is "mostly unsourced" is now false (I have now copied the sources that NW reports as well here); I am going to put them inline now. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Redirect to Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform, per the merge performed by Jayen466. As long as the information about the case is preserved, merging in a larger article is a sound editorial decision. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It really comes down to whether this unreferenced assertion "Because of this case, the United States and many other countries changed involuntary commitment laws" is sustainable. If it is, it is a clear keeper. If not, it is a Scientology related coatrack. I'd urge the keep voters to see if they can give that solid references, if they can, they'll have my support. Otherwise delete.--Scott Mac 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's not notable GNG three single issue cites doesn't make a worthwhile biography, that is if there are even three worthwhile reliable cites. If he is a single issue then redirect him there and add a comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per BLP1E, this is not the sort of coverage that justifies a biography. If the person is or was a "poster child" for Scientology's anti-psychiatry campaign, as the article claims, then perhaps the affair should be mentioned in Scientology and psychiatry. At present there is no such mention in that article. There was a controversy around Gyory, in which the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and Thomas Szasz got involved: [1], [2], [3]. Neither Citizens Commission on Human Rights (an organization supported by Scientology) nor Thomas Szasz mention the case either. ~~Leaning towards delete (or merge to one of the other articles mentioned), absent any solid evidence that the case changed law.~~ --JN 466 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the article to Involuntary commitment of Victor Győry, per WP:BLP1E. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is helpful. Perhaps we should allow Cyclopia to do a bit more work on the article and then revisit. --JN 466 23:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform. --JN 466 12:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To Jayen and Scott: Indeed, no RS strictly justify the Scientology claim, so I removed it; a book source details his release and makes no mention of the CoS. The article is now "Scientology-free", corresponding to sourcing. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing absolutely no assertion of significance except "Because of this case, the United States and many other countries changed involuntary commitment laws" - which utterly lacks any substantiation.--Scott Mac 23:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG requires no "assertion of significance" (cfr. also WP:IDONTKNOWIT for a related read) but only "significant coverage". We have the latter. I agree that claim lacks substantiation (I'm still searching for sources about that), but it's entirely irrelevant to guidelines and policy. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines are only guidelines and don't have to be followed to unsupportable conclusions (indeed, they don't have to be followed at all), when we are dealing with an unfortunate case of a living person I (and I suspect others) require there to be some importance or significance before we argue for keeping it. If this case has really had an impact on legislation then it is obviously a keeper, without that it ought to be deleted. I sure no one is arguing on the basis of not having heard of it, so I can't see the point of your reference to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. --Scott Mac 00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not an anarchy. Guidelines have to be followed, unless in peculiar cases where there are very strong and serious reasons for the contrary. GNG is one of the most respected and engrained guidelines, the basic reference point for deletion discussions. There is nothing that makes this article exceptional with respect to others so I don't see any proper reason to ignore WP:GNG. If you want to change it to include your "significance" criteria, you're welcome, but seek consensus on the proper venues (e.g. RfC). For now, it is clear that your opinion, while respectable, is not supported by guidelines or policies. --Cyclopia^talk 12:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cyclopia as much as you'd like that to be the case, you know that it is wrong. Guideliens do NOT have to be followed, never have. Guidelines do not proscribe, they merely describe. They describe what consensus tends to do in deletion discussions - and consensus is not static. Guidelines are not legislation - we change as discussions change and then people update the guidelines to reflect that. Personally, I don't read notability guidelines. I choose to consider each case on its merits. I know others find them helpful - and that's fine. However, they bind nothing and no one. That's the way Wikipedia has always worked. If you wish it to be different, then you need to change fundamental policy.--Scott Mac 12:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to mention the fact that notability guidelines merely provide help with the bare minimum requirements for entries vis-a-vis notability. Editors like Cyclopia appear to treat these guidelines as rules governing which entries should always be kept, and that is simply absurd. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not wrong. WP:GUIDELINE (a procedural policy) says: Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Common sense and occasional exceptions, fine. Now, either you explain why you think this is a case worth an occasional exception, or you should accept it and follow it. And yes, in general AfD consensual practice is that if a subject meets GNG then the article is kept (again, with occasional exception, e.g. a notable subject may be best merged somewhere else for other reasons). It is you both that are misrepresenting WP. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The statement that editors "should" attempt to follow guidelines is simply wrong. There has never been consensus for that. As for deletion discussions, unless the article violates actual policy, the decision to delete or retain rests with consensus. People may choose to be influenced by the notability guidelines when opining - personally, I don't. I take each case on its merits, discuss it, and attempt to shape a consensus. --Scott Mac 13:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The statement that editors "should" attempt to follow guidelines is simply wrong. There has never been consensus for that - It may be wrong in your personal imaginary world, but in the real world of WP it is policy. I know that humbleness is not your strength, but could you admit that perhaps you may be wrong, sometimes? --Cyclopia ^talk 14:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Repeated supporting of low quality , low notability and uncited content is extremely detrimental to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Cyclopia, you have also not dealt with my point at all. WP:GNG is not a mandate to keep any entry that qualifies, and nothing you have quoted disproves that assertion. Besides this fact, the applicable sub-guideline here is WP:VICTIM, and it complicates your claims quite a bit. The existence of sub-guidelines, like WP:PEOPLE, or WP:VICTIM, speaks exactly to Scott's point btw. Not every context, or every subject matter fits neatly into the WP:GNG scheme. We have sub-guidelines for that reason, and in the end we have case by case analysis as well. You can chose to deal with this reality or just repeat your self to absurdity. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh here is what WP:GNG says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. - Yes, there is the famous presumption clause, but to appeal to this you need to bring further guidelines/policies that the article violates. I don't see any. I don't get why you cite WP:PEOPLE or WP:VICTIM, since the article is (now) about the case, and not about the person, and as such it is compliant with WP:BLP1E and falls out of the scope of WP:PEOPLE guidelines. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course the entry is about a victim. The fact that you changed the title to represent the act of victimization, instead of just the victim, doesn't change the nature of the content. Despite the incessant wiki-lawyering and policy wonkery you are continually failing to address my other point. GNG does not say that every entry that is "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" ought to be in the encyclopedia. It certainly does not say that every article that meets the general inclusion criteria, as opposed to more specific guidelines ought to always be kept. There are clearly cases, all the time, when GNG is met but relevant policies overrule inclusion in the encyclopedia. There are also clearly cases in which someone such as yourself argues that it is met but others disagree with inclusion and delete entries. Why does that happen? Because as Scott has tried telling you repeatedly GNG is not a policy but a guideline ... something to help us navigate the issues only. I'm done. Keep on wiki-lawyering for inclusion if you want. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The entry is about a case: this is not wiki-lawyering, it is a fact. More specific guidelines extend GNG, do not substitute it. About Scott, well, he is convinced that policies are "wrong"; it may be that you two agree on that, but seek consensus to change WP:GUIDELINE and come back before saying "it's just a guideline": policy says we ought to follow guidelines apart from occasional cases requiring an exception. And, yes, if something satisfies the inclusion criteria and does not break other policies/guidelines, no reason to delete it exists. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. This debate has been brought to the attention of members of the "article rescue squadron" which is dedicated to saving articles. You may wish to take into account the ways in which this may impact on consensus in this debate.--Scott Mac 00:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is dedicated to source and edit them in order to make them policy-compliant in deletion discussion. I very rarely tag stuff for rescue: this is a case where more eyes and hands helping with sourcing/editing could be essential. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can agree to disagree on the effect of your template, and the closer can make their own assessment.--Scott Mac 00:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue I have seen that is worth considering is that a group of people that are dedicated to preserve articles and that is fine it they come and improve an article but if the template attracts keep comments from there and no article improvement then that is a clear consideration as regards closure. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, but I examine each article on the merits, and improve the article if I can. In this particular instance, I am unsure about notability of the article, and also whether the reader gains any insight into involuntary commitments. So, I would lean toward the deletion side, but I am really undecided. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What causes you to be unsure? There are multiple RS covering the subject. I also don't understand why "whether the reader gains any insight into involuntary commitments" is of any relevance: what is important is coverage of that case. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- in my opinion the coverage is sufficient to meet our verifiability policy and our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to the opinions expressed above there is absolutely not indication of significant coverage here. "Significant coverage" requires multiple sources discussing the subject in detail. Two psychology text books mention this event anecdotally and a handful of local newspapers reported on it. This is hardly an event of note to be reported on by an encyclopedia. The fact that it is a WP:BLP makes it absolutely clear that it should be deleted at once. On a sidenote the entry was in an atrocious state and tagged as such for years. Why aren't people "rescuing" bad entries before they make it to AfD? That would be a much more productive exercise. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is explained by WP:GNG as: sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. - The sources absolutely do that, dedicating detailed paragraphs to the case.
This is hardly an event of note to be reported on by an encyclopedia: WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy.
Article is no more a BLP, since it has been now renamed and refactored to cover the case and not the person, in compliance with WP:BLP1E. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to any article with biographical content in it. You're just wiki-lawyering now that you changed the title. I get it, you don't like BLP sensitivity, and I believe you've stated as much before, but at least people who try to protect BLP's are following policy mandates and aren't just trying to protect the sheer volume of the encyclopedia. Nothing of use can come from any future responses from me to you, so I bid you adieu.Griswaldo (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources. I had to remove one of the three sources used for the entry because it was not itself discussing Gyory or the event in question. The source, Mental Illness simply reprinted a blurb about Gyory from a Scientology publication while discussing a Scientology organization. Misusing references like this is not helpful to the process of figuring out if the event meets our threshold of notability or not. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- note - the AFD link appears to now be broken from the article afer it was moved. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AfD notice's msg is fine, it is the ARS flag-waving template at the top with the redlink. I'm sure they can figure it out. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classic WP:BLP1E, despite the lipstick-on-a-pig article rename. We have a story about one person who got a bit of press of one event. This is a person who would otherwise be completely unknown to the public save for this unfortunate circumstance of involuntary commitment, and he certainly has not sought publicity in the aftermath; no book tours, no visits to Oprah's couch. Exercise a bit of editorial discretion and snip this tawdry crap out of the project, please. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article as such really doesn't assert any real notability. Oh, it's a shame and a travesty that it happened, and there should have been greater publicity over this and significant reforms should have been spurred by the case... but we work with what is, not with what should be. Delete. DS (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - if Mr Gyory's case had actually led to reforms comparable to those of which resulted from the incarceration of Ernesto Miranda, there would be much more coverage of him. There is not. Quod erat demonstrandum. DS (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However nothing of what you said has to do with our general notability guidelines, which only require coverage by multiple reliable sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines are not proscriptive.--Scott Mac 22:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - per nom and WP:BLP1E. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or redirect to write-up by Jayen466 mentioned below. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a write-up of the case at Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Efforts_for_psychiatric_reform. One of the sources, Ferguson, Larry (1974-07-05). "CCHR Using Publicity to Improve Mental Care". Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph., called it the CCHR's "first victory", so it is a notable case to mention within that article. It's probably better housed there than in a standalone article. --JN 466 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally happy with the merge -sounds like a good compromise --Cyclopia ^talk 23:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the Google book results. Most of this comes from the Scientologist and their Citizens Commission on Human Rights. They published a pamphlet of this case, and state it was one of their organization's first major victories against psychiatry. I think a lot of the sources are from the Scientologist, not just the most obvious ones which have "Scientologist" in their title. Was this a notable enough case to change laws, or be mentioned in any books not related to this organization? Dream Focus 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Even Dream Focus isn't sure if this is a keeper. I propose we introduce a new speedy deletion criterion: "CSD G13: If Dream Focus doesn't submit a knee-jerk Keep !vote for the article, then it should be deleted immediately." SnottyWong ^chat 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a less provocative version of that criterion. "CSD G13: No conceivable argument for keeping, as evidenced by DreamFocus not supporting retention of the article." :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a news source and does not provide an article on every newsworthy event. In order to overcome this policy, the event would need to have wide demographic or geographic impact, be the precursor to or result of another notable event, and/or demonstrate sustained discussion sufficient to found a claim of historic importance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Citizens Commission on Human Rights#Efforts for psychiatric reform. A mention on that page seems appropriate, and since he's mentioned there, a redirect would do no harm; but he's in no way notable enough to justify a separate article, especially as he may be still alive (raising BLP concerns). Robofish (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both title as per Robofish. The case is already written up in the CCHR article and certainly fails WP:EVENT - it's remembered by nobody but the CCHR, a separate article would be pushing their POV far too far. Cyclopia, I don't understand why you think this is a suitable article, we don't decide on inclusion simply by robotically counting references. Fences&Windows 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about mere robotical counting: once we have multiple reliable sources that cover a subject, however, a strong case for notability exists, and I've seen no compelling reasons to merely delete the information. However you will notice that I changed my !vote to redirect per the merge on CCHR. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Dark[edit]

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She was nominated for an AVN Award for multiple years, 2006 and 2007. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Multiple awards over different years, and notable to the genre, meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has just won a major award. Epbr123 (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Connors (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Prior AfD Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the name porn actresses of the 70s, never mind PORNBIO; she meets C1 and C2 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Ravenswing 16:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the aforementioned reasons + she's the mother of actress Thora Birch. -- fdewaele, 4 January 2011, 19:12 CET
Keep Conners was the title character in both the Erotic Adventures of Candy and Candy Goes to Hollywood, as well as the nurse in Deep Throat, by some measures the most profitable film of all time. Should keep for her appearances on US national on The Gong Show. K8 fan (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons given are exactly WHY this artist should be retained. Minutiae is a forte of Wikipedia and giving that up just because a person isn't significant enough, when the article IS informative, hurts all users, a little at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.205.167 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While PORNBIO notability may be dubious, meets both WP:ENT and the GNG through her association with Chuck Barris and Thora Birch. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabatha Cash[edit]

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria. Also fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. NW (Talk) 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. This page has been on my watchlist for some time. Most of it is sourced to IMDB and IAFD. Neither is a reliable source. What's here from other sources does not establish notability. Failure to meet WP:PORNBIO is icing on the cake. I hadn't thought of WP:CREATIVE, but re-reading that for the first time in a while, that citation is spot-on, as well. David in DC (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has won a Hot d'Or in 1993. Her move to a Radio station was also covered extensively in the French press. Several of your nominations have missed easily found information like this. Please check more carefully so as not to waste other people's time. Francis Bond (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beside the Hot d'Or, Cash has starred in mainstream films such as Rai (see WP:PORNBIO #4). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes the GNG after reviewing the Google News and Books hits. She was a host for a terrestrial radio station in France and her feature role in Rai passes the 4th criteria of PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Rast[edit]

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

A two-line WP:BLP, unsourced for 3 and a half years...time to do something about it. Ms. Rast does appear to be a respected, working photographer--Google searches turn up plenty of pix of notable subjects...but none of the sources ever talk about her. Without sources dedicated to the subject, we can't meet any reasonable inclusion criteria for WP:BIO let alone WP:V. — Scientizzle 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Google search of individual finds nothing of significant value other than the occasional self promotion page and cybernetworking page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I quote her website: <meta name="description" content="Daisy Rast is a fashion photographer in Los Angeles, CA whose time has come to emerge into the limelight. Her photography really captures the essence of her subjects with a strong emphasis on the clothing or acessories [sic]. Daisy has had her work appear in numerous magazines and has had an image on the cover of LabelHorde Magazine."> I infer that Ms Rast believes that although she should "emerge into the limelight" she hasn't done so yet. When she has books, exhibitions, etc, she can have an article here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. A clear shortage of information 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unfortunately the "delete" !voters make the stronger arguments here. All the sources provided, including the new ones added during this discussion, are not the in depth coverage required by WP:GNG. If this changes then this article can be recreated/restored. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti4Hire[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is a recreation of a page originally created by a banned editor (thekohser) as part of a paid editing bid. The company is nonnotable as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. I can't find any more coverage than the primary sources, press releases, and passing mentions used to source the article currently. Also I would argue WP:DENY should apply here due to this editor's past history with the site. Them From Space 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle misfired on another user. Sources seem mostly unreliable or trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think WP:DENY is relevant, but I can't find any significant coverage of this company, as would be required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the user that recreated the page. Upon seeing the Google Cache version of the page, I thought there might be some notability to the subject and that it certainly shouldn't have been deleted under G11 (or G5, for that matter). I tried discussing it with the deleting admin, but he wasn't really interested in talking, so I just went ahead and recreated the page. I'm not going to vote in this AfD, I feel that, if this article is going to be deleted (or not), that it is proper for it to get a full discussion from the community. Silver seren^C 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this the same version that was deleted, or did you write it yourself? SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is close to the same version, yes, though I did reword some things and re-arrange some parts. That's why I made the comment on attribution on the talk page, which was mentioned to me afterwards (I hadn't known that you have to attribute to other editors if you use their work on Wikipedia). Silver seren^C 19:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - honestly, it's just not notable - Alison ^❤ 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to weak keep - the new references that have been recently added put it over the line, IMO - Alison ^❤ 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we are better off having this than not. The current sources while not spectacular, make this acceptable I think anyway... And I really don't think that how the article was created should influence its outcome provding it doesn't contain POV... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources are quite a way below spectacular - they are pretty rubbish - 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all primary sources (no use for establishing notability) and 5-7 are trivial mentions in either local (6+7) or unreliable (5) sources. 8 does not mention the comany except as a credit and the text in the article is obviously trying to use the celeb's notability to demonstrate that it is notable. 9 could possibly provide some evidence of notability, but since we can't see it, this is difficult to say and it sounds like it might well be similar coverage as to in ref 8. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but nearly the entire content of the sources are devoted to the company's output. Birmingham Mail is an acceptable source as is the West Midlands Police.. It notable enough to be mentioned in multiple publications... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources (8, 9, and 10) from Birmingham Mail (two different features) and West Midlands Police about two newsworthy installations directed by the company. Even though these are only "local" coverage, that hasn't stopped Wikipedia before. This would seem to bring the article just over the notability line, and previous comments may wish to reconsider. Disclosure: I have not been paid to act here. And, I work one Saturday morning a month with troubled youth, some of whom have been arrested for illicit graffiti. - Juicy mailman stews (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those mentions discuss the company in any detail, they only reference it in passing mention as a part of different news stories. Them From Space 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne032009 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Anne032009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Of course we are better off having this than not. Several independent print newspapers have focused on the company's community work, and one of its exhibits (the T-34) is itself a Wikipedia article. The only explanation for deleting a properly-sourced article about a verifiable company is simply spite over its author. We don't do that here at Wikipedia. Don't call me shorely (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, none of the sources discuss the company in any great detail, which is required by the notability guidelines in order to have an article. Them From Space 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what's found at your link to WP:GNG, it informs us: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The entire contents of some of the referenced news articles here focus quite entirely on the community involvement and projects of the subject company. Therefore, it exceeds the codified standard of "more than a trivial mention", and your "none... in any great detail" is a misinterpretation of the rule. Sorry, but even the policy instructs us that this is a clear keep. Don't call me shorely (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Only two "reliable source" citations are provided at the article, and they mention the company only in passing (one a paragraph, one a bare mention). Nothing found at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Celada[edit]

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

This apparent autobiographical entry (created by Jcelada (talk · contribs)) has been unsourced since 2006. The claims of notability are modest, but further scrutiny suggests this individual does not meet WP:BIO. A search on PubMed only turns up one likely publication (2nd author) for this person (this one), so any WP:PROFESSOR claims seem tenuous. Google Books searches[4] don't turn up likely hits for this "author of several books" other than those that seem only to cite the aforementioned paper. Mental Health Coordinator of Mental Health Department of Los Angeles County doesn't meet a reasonable threshold of inherent notability and the paucity of useful sources doesn't suggest this article is salvageable. — Scientizzle 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing but a COI.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can only find one article in the Orange County Register about him, not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and WP:PROF seems even farther out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per both previous comments.--Stormbay (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I keep saying, if an someone starting an article on himself can't be bothered to add notability info, why should we bother searching around for it? EEng (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Revivo[edit]

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

Subject has only played tier 4 soccer in North America, and is apparently going to play tier 4 soccer in Sweden. Not even close to the fully professional leagues in those regions. He has also not represented his nation as a member of their senior team. Fails wp:NSOCCER. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Google returns social media sites. GNews returns old, local stories about his collegiate career. Nothing meets wp:GNG. » scoops “5x5„ 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The player has played USL in North America, as well as attended the MLS Combine, trained and played with teams in Italy and Germany, and is currently under contract for Swedish Division 2 side Enkopings SK which is a fully sanctioned professional club in Europe. He has also played many games for the U20 and U23 Canadian National Teams. In college he was a Division I All-American and was ranked as one of the top goal scorers in the nation for 4 years. He has a tremendous list of accolades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbolfanboy (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: He also has played for the Richmond Kickers where he won the USL Division 2 Championship last season. The Richmond Kickers play in a fully professional league as stated in the WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbolfanboy (talk • contribs) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't find any wp:RS confirming that Mr. Revivo actually played for the Richmond Kickers. Can you help me out? The best I can do (after scouring the Richmond Times-Dispatch site) is a passing reference that says he was added to the roster (not that he ever appeared for them). Merely being on a roster isn't good enough. Everything else you've said falls under my previous comments with regards to our notability criteria. Junior national teams do not automatically confer notability. Being an All-American does not automatically confer notability. Going to training camps does not confer notability. » scoops “5x5„ 20:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this athelete may be moving up in the soccer world, his professional accomplishments just aren't enough to warrant an article, yet. Angryapathy (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he has played in a fully-professional league, therefore faling WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he played for Toronto Lynx but only after they joined the PDL, never actually played a game for Richmond Kickers as per the USL website's stats archive, and has not yet played any games for Enkopings as the 2011 Swedish season hasn't started yet. Fails WP:GNG and the relevant soccer-related notability requirements as youth caps alone do not convey notability, but we can easily re-create it if and when he plays professionally in Sweden. I should also mention the possibility that the creator of this article (Futbolfanboy) *is* Daniel Revivo, which could constitute a WP:COI --JonBroxton (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even thought it is not up on ESK's website, Daniel Revivo signed with the club halfway through the 2010 season. The club are behind the times with updating the website, but I have found some sources where there are match reports and pictures of him playing with the club.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Flokalsport.nu%2Fcomponent%2Fsearch%2Frevivo%2F%3Fordering%3D%26searchphrase%3Dall

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22514920

http://esksupport.se/forum/gst_match.php?match=14

http://www.everysport.com/sport/fotboll/division-2-herr/norra-svealand/event/2010-07-31/enkoepings-sk-fk-stroemsbergs-if/12345441

http://www.unt.se/sport/nyforvarv-avgjorde-brderbyt-for-esk-1005671.aspx

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.unt.se/sport/nyforvarv-avgjorde-brderbyt-for-esk-1005671.aspx&ei=QjMmTbm9OcGB8gaFrOXrAQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD8Q7gEwBjgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3Denkopings%2Bsk%2Brevivo%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26prmd%3Divns

http://425740.webshop.eurovator.se/group.asp?group=2413

There are plenty more out there, they are just in swedish and scattered around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbolfanboy (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still fails WP:GNG, despite protests Spiderone 09:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't matter if he played with Enköping during the 2010 football season, since they are an amateur team, semi-professional at best. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL Tooga - BØRK! 20:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Urbano[edit]

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

No notability outside the band. Redirect undone by a user with a longterm vendetta against me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Google brings up a fair number of hits that predate Smash Mouth.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Vendettas aside, I believe Mr. Urbano has generated enough coverage as an individual, seperate from any band affiliation, from third party – verifiable – creditable and independent sources, as shown here [5] to warrant a place here at Wikipedia. A rewrite warranted yes. Delete no. I have started adding sources and citing piece. Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aside from SoV's comment the proper thing would be to discuss the redirect on the the article talk page with a pointer on the bands talk page. Deletion isn't an option here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he clearly meets musician biography criteria #6, as a member of two or more notable ensembles. Way more. Clearly notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiʻi Football League[edit]

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

Semi-professional league of questionable notability - teams all appear to be flagged for deletion as well. Google News search on the name brings back no results. Very little significant coverage found in in indepedent publications. Major contributor has an admitted conflict of interest. Contested PROD. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following reasons come to mind for deletion of this article: aforementioned WP:COI; 2) Failure to meet notability standards (WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT); 3) Contains original research (WP:OR); 4) miscellaneous violations of WP:GROUP (group is too local for coverage in Wikipedia) and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not your free web hosting server); 5) Failure to provide reliable independent sources WP:RS (semiprofootball.org hardly qualifies). Typically semi-pro teams are not considered notable and neither are the leagues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are two 3rd party sites listed on the page, it IS noteworthy, I don't understand how semi pro football is not noteworthy, and yes the information is reliable, try and prove how its not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs)
- Sources the "sources" on the page are 1) the league's website (which is not an independent third party source), 2) something called "LogoServer" which only shows the league's logo, and 3) semiprofootball.com, which appears to be nothing more than an enthusiast website primarily serving as a discussion board for people who play and enjoy the sport. These are not independent, reliable sources and discussion boards are especially not considered reliable for Wikipedia standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try and prove okay. Review WP:RS and you'll find "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight" -- the discussion boards and websites held out as sources have no editorial oversight, no way to contact the editor, do not cite sources themselves, and otherwise are extremely difficult to verify. Therefore, they don't qualify. Now if there are other sources to bolster the notability of the organization, then these might add a nice touch to the article but without independent, verifialbe, third-party relible sources the article has pretty much got to go. We're not saying the league doesn't exist, it's just that it's not noteworthy enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news comes up with nothing, no independent third party sources, fails WP:ORG. Secret ^account 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Keane Tells the Ritchie Valens Story[edit]

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

Non-notable interview disc per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The item seems to be fairly common in online discussions about the life and times of Richie Valens, but it has not received enough coverage as a stand-alone item in itself for notability. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Dargahi[edit]

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

Unclear that he satisfies WP:PROF. Google scholar has a number of articles being cited farily regularly (three in the 20-30 cite range) but nothing that impressive. The article as it currently stands does not make a good case for notability. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS gives h index of 11. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. Aside that, the article looks ridiculous. The information on his wife is not only inappropriate but also absolutely useless. Who cares about whether his wife is a PhD student or not?! DrPhosphorus (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Film With No Name[edit]

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

Deprodded. Film does indeed have a Facebook page and an IMDB hit, as well as a number of online trailers and postings. But I can find zero WP:RS indicating notability. And of course, being "influenced" by notable works confers no notability whatsoever to this film project. Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to suggest notability. IMDB has a release date of July 2011 in London. Maybe it'll do the film festival circuit and get nominated/win awards then? No problem with it being recreated if/when any sources become available. Lugnuts (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Let it get released and coverage and article might then be undeleted and expanded and sourced. But for now? Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mochikoro[edit]

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

A search for references found no independent WP:RS for this article, fails WP:N and WP:V, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kin-Kon-Kan. Prod removed with "another ridiculous prod" [6] Article is about a binary-determination logic puzzle published by Nikoli JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could quite easily be redirected to Nurikabe though. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity to Nurikabe is only in the logical process involved in solving and not something that would make a redirect to that specific puzzle make sense. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is part of a (certainly unconscious) cultural bias against significant Japanese topics. Searching for an English rendition of the word won't find any the Japanese sources. Per Wikipedia policies on cultural bias and notability we are supposed to give a global view to topics, not just what some English speaker with little familiarity with the topic can pull up with a basic Google search. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and non-notable. Re the comment above about this being a "significant Japanese topic", the fact that no Japanese Wikipedia article exists on the subject that would seem to suggest that it is not at all significant. --DAJF (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons From The Successful Investor[edit]

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

Non notable e-book by non notable author Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no library holdings, no substantial reviews. Author might possibly be notable , so there may be a merge available.

Delete. The book definitely fails WP:GNG, and I don't think the author is notable either. The sources are plentiful on the surface but not actually particularly substantial. --bonadea contributions talk 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mosodeng[edit]

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

Previous prod was for Copyvio, and declined as a mirror. A search for references found no WP:RS for the subject "Mosodeng is a very popular Tripuri food item made of chillies.", fails WP:V and WP:N JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both verifiability and notability. Only WP mirrors can be found on the web. Shovon (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Keep and rename to Mosdeng. Anneyh, all three of the references provided by you actually use the spelling *Mosdeng*. Thanks for pointing out. Shovon (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep after renaming to Mosdeng. Looks like a typo with different names here Mosdeng serma and there Mosodeng but later the recipe is Wahan Mosdeng. Both sites don't look like mirrors to me. Actually I found a third site [7] that cites whan mosedng as typical dish. --Anneyh (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looking at the sources Anneyh found, I believe it is worthy of inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Painesville, Ohio train derailment[edit]

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

In keeping with WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, this derailment was, perhaps, important enough to stay up for a few days to see if it was going to have any ongoing notability, but there's no indication that it has. No one was killed, the lawsuits were inevitable and equally inconsequential, it's not being used as a "poster child" event to illustrate the need for some kind of reform, the only things that make it different from hundreds of other derailments were the fire, risk of explosion (which didn't happen), and the evacuation, none of which seem important enough to make the article "for the ages" encyclopedic. It is, unquestionably, a well-written and well-sourced article, but it just doesn't have the importance needed to stay here. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of railway accidents in the United States would be an ideal article to which cases such as this with marginal notabilty could be merged or redirected. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. This derailment must be of some noteworthiness when considering the history of railway safety in the USA, but it doesn't warrant it's own article. Delete unless somewhere to merge to can be found. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. This freight derailment did not cause injuries or have and enduring effects. It is already included in List of rail accidents (2000–2009). Edison (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a completely NN event. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might have been newsworthy then, but no evidence of actual notability then or now. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Admrboltz (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EFFECT. This crash has had lasting effects, as can be shown by sourced information on lawsuits. Dew Kane (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like a fairly notable event. Dough 48 72 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaduvakulam Antony[edit]

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

This person does not seem to be notable at all and surely fails WP:GNG. The article is very poorly written and has no references. I cannot find any information about the subject on Google. It is suspected that this article may be an autobiography (see page history) or possibly even a hoax. AndrewvdBK (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)*[reply]
Comment. Cannot be an autobiography; Kaduvakulam Antony died about 10 years ago. Salih (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More results on google can be found using the alternate spelling "Kaduvakkulam Antony". Salih (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative KeepIf in fact he appeared in 300 professional films in his country, he is likely to have sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. An actor with a 300 film resume in the US would be unlikely to have his bio article deleted. I found 2 books (snippet view only) in which he is listed as a cast member in Indian films from the 1970's: [8] and [9]. IMDB shows him in 4 films. They are not generally considered a reliable source. I found nothing at Google News Archive, but they may not have good coverage of papers in his country. Perhaps someone can check better for non_English coverage and let us know its significance, such as [10]. Edison (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known Malayalam film actor of yester years who won an award for the best comedy actor for his very first film in 1961. An article about him in Malayalam is available here, thanks to Edison. Salih (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One need not be notable only in the West to be detemined notable per applicable criteria, as notable to India/Kerala is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. The actor's legthy career meets WP:ENT. Winning an award notable to Malayalam film (even if not to Hollywood) in 1961 meets WP:ANYBIO. That he has made it into Malayalam enduring record through books, and was considered notable enough by Malayalam press for them to write obits about him, is indicative that non-English and/or hardcopy Malayalam sources exist. A reasonable presumption toward notability has been declared and shown. All the article needs is sources added to verify its informations... which appears an addressable issue that does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the cleanups and sourcing if the article survives the AfD. Salih (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs per User:Salih.Hillcountries (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salih's reasoning--Sodabottle (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrofullerenes[edit]

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

The single source listed for this article does not mention nitrofullerene. I believe this chemical compound does not exist and/or the content of this article is just made up, and there is no indication of where the supposed data comes from. Because the content of this article is not verifiable (WP:V), the article should be deleted. Prod was removed with the comment "hundreds of refs available", but I don't believe that there are hundreds of references to a chemical compound that consists of C60 with 60 nitro groups. "Nitrofullerene" can refer to a compound with one nitro group, but that's not what this article is about. ChemNerd (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. A thorough search of the chemical literature indicates that there is only one reference to this compound in the primary scientific literature: . doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2008.02.030. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help). It is a computational study indicating that this compound is purely hypothetical. This single mention in the literature does not confer sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, in my opinion. All other occurrences of "nitrofullerene" in the chemical literature (and in Google web searches) refer to different chemical compounds than the one described in this article. ChemNerd (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (can change a vote though) - the title is valid, the topic is valid, and I was about to rewrite the article, and I could, but I would remove nearly all current information outright as misleading (obviously 60/60 substitution is practically impossible in this case), thus delete is Ok with me. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a reaxys search - I found one paper which mentions "hexanitro[60]fullerene" - nothing with 60 nitros. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These molecules were dreamed up, which is increasingly common with computational tools. They are not notable IMHO. Obviously someone (seeking funding for designing new explosives) spent some time on these articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too speculative, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update I produced that wiki page on a theoretical molecule on which I start working. I haven’t yet produced any physically tangible material. Just after Christmas time, seeing the reaction, I decided to pay attention to the commentaries before completing the text. My opinion was that a thing exists from the moment it has been imagined and theoretically designed. According to this idea, a theoretical molecule is not less real. It has just never been bring to materialisation. There is a difference between "material" and "real". Since theoretical elements and concepts can not be part of wikipedia, I will not wait until the page get deleted. I will delete it by myself. A question of dignity. I plan to read the next commentaries, before I delete the page. Regards,Jfweemaes (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fullerene chemistry. C
₆₀(NO
₂)
_x probably exists for x very small, but I do not think it is notable enough for a separate article. I would prefer to keep a paragraph or something like that in the fullerene chemistry article. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge That is a good idea. I can describe simplier fullerenes following a progressive form up to C
₆₀(NO
₂)
₆₀ and list known on-going works. My first writing experience in Wikipedia will have nevertheless been appreciated by me. I am open to the idea of merging it to Fullerene chemistry. I appreciate your commentaries. Jfweemaes (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/10alatham nancy 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Collins (footballer)[edit]

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

Young footballer on books of Preston North End but who has never played above the 5th tier of English football, so fails WP:NSPORT#Association football; not enough media coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. Re-create as and when he actually plays full-pro League football. Struway2 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not (yet) notable enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow Close (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 the Movie: Awakening of the Trailblazer[edit]

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

Little notability, badly written article with little materials other than lengthy plot summary, little sources citing real-life impact Joppyhoppy (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , It seems there can be reception information found for it, though it currently needs work. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film was released nationwide, so it passes WP:NFILM in that respect. The article needs a lot of work, but that is not a reason to delete it. At most it could be merged into Mobile Suit Gundam 00 for which this film is a coninuation of. —Farix (t | c) 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting all necessary notability requirements. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the above users/editors. This should be retain. The source material came out before sources became established. Article should be revised and shorten meet Wikipedia guide lines. -- Colt9033 (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is notable, and although it needs some working on, that shouldn't be the reason for deletion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF. Addressable issues are not a reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is imperfect, but meets WP:NF as it was released nationwide. --Malkinann (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. CSE hits. Apparently also shown in Singapore. --Gwern (contribs) 18:00 4 January 2011 (GMT)
Snow Keep per above, an AfD is not a place to send an article that just needs work done on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Reception section does say it was shown in a lot of theaters, and made millions of dollars. Its notable. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 07:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major movie productions are notable. I'm surprised this was listed on afd. ScienceApe (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets all notability requirements, and like the TV series, will likely see a worldwide release as soon as it gets translated. Article definitely needs editing for synopsis length and the addition of other standard movie information, but not outright deletion.the_one092001 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With 12 people going for keep here and none against, does this warrent an early closure? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. By Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tunica Dartos[edit]

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

There are many things wrong with this article. It certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC and there are no references. This band is not notable and have very few links on Google. One of the main problems is that this article is entirely in German, which is not allowed. The article seems to have been written by a band member (see page history). AndrewvdBK (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Why is this article red-linked?—RJH (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Aliaga[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, and does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. TimothyRias (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC) TimothyRias (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep how can you tell whether it meets wp:prof without a search? Checking Scopus, I find 32 publications, every one of them in excellent international journals. Highest citations, 37, 17, 16, 14 all ffrom Physical Review or Physical Review Letters; h=11, meaning 11 papers with 11 or more citations. I added refs to the top 2, so it is no longer unref. Full professor & dean of his section of major international university. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PROF neither being a full professor nor being dean is enough to establish notability. His publications and citations seem typically what you would expect of a person in his position after 25 years in the field, but I don't think it is enough to establish that he has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources as is mandated by WP:PROF. (For the record I did look at his publications before starting this AfD, and found nothing to convince me that he satisfies any of the notability guidelines.)TimothyRias (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. h-index is very low for his field. Highest-cited paper is 37 after 25 years in the field? Article makes absolutely no claim of notable discoveries. WP:PROF requires that the subject is more noteworthy than the typical professor, which is clearly not the case here. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find GS cites to be 15, 14, 13 12, 11. This is low for a physicist. Scopus is probably better but still not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Week Keep: Evidence seems to indicate he is a/the leading Physicist at the leading university in Argentina. National notability (Msrasnw (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No such "national" guideline or policy exists. I have never seen such a notion put forward in an AfD on a professor before. Abductive (reasoning) 12:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Delete. Publications in "Physical Reviews", he was quoted 211 times according to ISI citation index. This seems to be enough to establish notability of a physicist. But looking more carefully at the article, I do not see any useful information about the subject. What he actually did, in terms of science? Any discoveries or theories? It tells nothing.Biophys (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is having 211 citations "enough to establish notability of a physicist"? To me it doesn't seem to be that much, are there full professors out there with less citations?TimothyRias (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dean is not a high enough level of academic administration to pass WP:PROF#C6, the citation record is not strong enough to convince me of a pass of #C1, and though there are a reasonable number of Spanish-language news stories quoting him I didn't see any that provide nontrivial coverage that is actually about him, so I'm not convinced of a pass of WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at h-index of only 11. It should be at least 50% higher to be worth considering an article. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via G5. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Webb (footballer)[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played above the 6th tier of English football, so fails WP:NSPORT#Association football; not enough media coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. Prod removed without explanation. Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete record breaking number of appearances not notable enough, (far more notable than some players in league 2 who automatically qualify thogh). content could be merged into team's article. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Osterhaus[edit]

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

Unremarkable person. The only 'references' are links to the German Wikipedia and appear to have nothing in common whatsoever with this entry. The listed combat missions bear no connection to the subject. The geneology section is superfluous and irrelevant. Possible hoax. Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unverfified and unreferenced BLP. Utterly fails WP:MILPEOPLE, and even if his ancestry could be confirmed, notability is not inherited. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to clarify, the links to the deWP are to the family name, and articles on two deceased distinguished members of the family; none of the articles mention him. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Bahamut. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bahamut. Anotherclown (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Dewritech (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N & WP:SOLDIER; furthermore, in the namesakes section there are individuals who do meet notability, however that in itself not impart notability on the subject (see WP:INHERIT), that is unless it can be verified by reference that he is a pretender to a head of state position. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the website www.osterhaus-ahnen.de. Over 10 years of hard genealogical work. All non-profit and free for anyone, respect. It is his biography a varied life as a soldier (fight against terrorism in the world)and family researchers. I think it deserves respect and recognition. The German entry in the Wikipedia is prepared and followed. Now he turns to the international family tree for every one in the world, also in the US. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checker ce2005 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adie Harris (footballer) nancy 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Mackie[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NSPORT#Association football by never having played in a fully-professional league, and without enough media coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. Prod removed without explanation. Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not (yet) notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination, he has never played at anywhere near the required level. If, by chance, he should, then an article can be created. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nemrud[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO since they have not had a charting single or album. I admit it is difficult to judge because ghits are imprecise in this case. If some one can show they pass then OK, but I could not. Triwbe (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for administrator - If this article is deleted, the article for their album Journey of The Shaman should be speedy deleted by rule. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails every criterion offered at WP:BAND. Delete this article to destroy its history, then remake it into the redirect to Nemrut that it was at first. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The band member is correct that Nemrut is not a proper redirect. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Binksternet. Fails WP:BAND. Fails WP:NOTABLE. As someone from the actual band appears to be participating in this discussion, perhaps they would like to read both WP:BAND & WP:NOTABLE and explain why this article is legitimate instead being a case of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In response to the statements from the band member ~~above~~ below, unfortunately Wikipedia is based on notability and that requires being noticed and covered by outside sources. Until that happens, you will have to promote the band elsewhere because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You may qualify for an encyclopedia article in the future, but you are not there yet. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:To Whom It May Concern;

This is Mert Gocay, the founder and the leading member of the Turkish music group Nemrud. I would like to respond to the discussion on the possible deletion of Nemrud's page (which had been prepared by a devoted fan of the Group) from Wikipedia.

Nemrud is a Turkish progressive rock band which made its first album very recently in 2010 under Lirik muzik label.Nemrud has gone beyond the Turkish standard rock or popular line-chorus structure songs and pushed the technical and composition limits of rock music. In a few weeks Journey of the shaman sold out in Turkey; following the domestic success, world wide well known progressive rock label Musea Records approached the band and released the album in December 2010.

Please kindly note that the band actually exists (contrary to the comments published on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nemrud), and the Group is currently preparing for a few concerts (as well as their second album). More info about our group can be found at the following websites:

- myspace/nemrudmusic - musea records.com - nemrudband.com

here are some evidences of album selling websites: - itunes http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/journey-of-the-shaman/id405196378 -amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Shaman-Nemrud/dp/B004GAISKO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1294324234&sr=8-2 - cduniverse http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8432230

To my understanding there has been a misunderstanding (or a false connection) between the historical/touristic region/place Nemrut in Turkey with the name of our Group. The name of our Group is inspired from Nemrut, however, there should be no direct connection between Nemrud and Nemrut in Wikipedia. I would hence like yourselves to confirm that Nemrud's page should be staying on Wikipedia on the back of the above reasons.

Thank you. Kind regards,

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nemrud" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulgen1368 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona 1–3 Real Madrid[edit]

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

A {{prod}} was removed by the original author of the page with the edit summary of "remove lazy prod" which, in my mind, didn't respond to the reasoning of the prod namely: No evidence of particular notability for this Barcelona v Real Madrid match. No more or less notable than any other Clasico or Champions League semi-final tie. So this is a procedural listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is presently a content fork from El Clasico. No records were set in the match. Nothing of particular note happened other than one player returned to his former club (Luis Figo) and got a bit of grief from the fans of that club (FC Barcelona). All that anyone would really want to know is in the existing articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All content is already at El Clásico. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's enough sources to be able to write an article - this content can easily be included in El Clasico and/or 2001–02 UEFA Champions League. Trebor (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already covered in the El Clasico article, not worthy of a seperate article. Giant Snowman 13:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - quite certain none of the above has even looked for evidence of notability in books and articles. Has 2 pages in Phil Balls book of Spanish football (18-20), several more in Burns' book on barcelona (2009 ed.) and the list goes on (not to mention the countless of Spanish books on the subject). But of course this hasn't set a record nor is it a premier league match, so ipso facto it cannot be notable. Sandman888 (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain why it has zero detail not already in El Clásico, or why it can't just be merged to that article. Lots of matches have a couple of pages in a book about them, why is this so special? Answer: it's not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a mind open to reason and proof in an Afd. And no, no other game has a couple of pages in a book that summarises the entire history of spanish football, but of course you already knew that. It has zero detail because i started it yesterday, however it took only a couple of hours for a PL-fan to slap a prod on it so have no desire to waste time on something a bunch of record-obsessed users will vote to delete. I shd of course have started the Athletic Bilbao 18-1 Ceuta article because it sat a record 60-odd years ago, tho noone has mentioned it since... Sandman888 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it did - read what I said. I said "a book". A book is a book, whether it's about the history of Spanish football, or an 1960s book about Accrington Stanley. This is the first time you imply that you're going to expand the article - if you're going to do that, let's hear about it. It has nothing to do with records - tell us why it's a notable game, rather than ranting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Ball's book, he refers to the first match Figo played in Camp Nou for Real Madrid in October 2000, then a league match in November 2002. He doesn't refer to the Champions League match at all. What is your point? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe user:Sandman888 is confusing various El Clasico matches. The major trouble involving Barcelona fans about Figo appears to have happened in a November 2002 La Liga match, rather than the Champions League tie in the previous season. (Goal.com, Daily Telegraph ESPN Soccernet) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems all the evidence here now points to an entirely un-notable match that could be covered in one sentence elsewhere, if really necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the article itself does not make an assertion of notability Spiderone 13:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of having received the enduring coverage required by WP:EVENT. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi,

If you can find some more infomation on this article it could well be notable.The fact that, if it's true, 500 million people watched it that must be notable for something. A suggestion-You could merge it to El Clásico European cup matches or 2001-02 Champions League? I do, however, see both side's of this argument.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough and not much context. Kante4 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Magri[edit]

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

Contested prod. Has not made a professional appearance as a footballer. Echetus Xe 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't get deleted. He's probably going pro soon anyway. He's played for England U16 and England U17. An admin said yesterday that if that is so, which it is, then it's fine. How many times do I have to say... Wackslas :) (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Echetus Xe 10:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He's probably going pro soon?" Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And "soon" is relative, especially since he's only sixteen. Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL (as well as WP:TOOSOON). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 11:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball and the article doesn't cite anything. What admin told you this? Peter.C • talk 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:NFOOTY. A google search only came up with one article containing "significant coverage" (added now to the article). Unless someone can find some more sources this also fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly and easily fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and [{WP:GNG]]. Giant Snowman 13:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yep, WP:NFOOTBALL says specifically youth players are not notable unless they have played at senior international level or in a fully professional league. Ka renjc 17:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a difference between speedy deletion and normal deletion. The admin who declined the speedy was correct as his appearances for England U16 / U17 are an assertion of notability. However, these are not enough to meet the relevant notability guidelines, and there don't appear to be enough quality sources to meet the general guidelines either. If he makes an appearance in a fully pro league or senior international match, the article can be recreated - until then, delete. Bettia (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs)

Gunfire[edit]

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

I expanded the article with material from other articles. Does anyone want it? This goes to prove that you can make absurd articles like car door slamming. Marcus Qwertyus 08:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gunshot. Or whatever. Pick one, but having both of these would be ridiculous. Shadowjams (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Obviously gunfire or gunshots have been studied and reported on and are important topics. Wolfview (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gunshot. Another example of the engine's poor default search perhaps? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An unassuming and helpful little disambiguation article disambiguating four things by this name (and inviting people to write some missing articles) has been blanked by Marcus Qwertyus (with the false edit summary "cleanup") merely in order to then pointfully nominate it for deletion a few minutes later. Blanking an article then pointfully nominating it for deletion is not productive nor an improvement to the encyclopaedia, nor indeed helpful to readers who want to find the disambiguated subjects (nor indeed helpful to writers who want to see where potential for further articles is). Give us the original disambiguation article back. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Realm Crafter[edit]

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

This is not a notable software product. No third-party sources. Zilkane (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources showing notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can't find anything that is reliable; I'm afraid there isn't anything for notability here. –MuZemike 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdraw as sources have been added and promotional matierial removed by Crusio. I will move the title to Respiratory Research (journal). (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respiratory research (journal)[edit]

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

Based on one reference or outer link (it's own website). Does not state how it is notable or endorsed, no links for verifibility. Mainly reads like a advertisement or "This is why you should read me" page. Dusti^*poke* 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article was created by a very inexperienced editor (total of 13 edits) and proposed for speedy deletion 1 minute after creation. I have added an infobox, removed promotional language, and added some references. Journal is indexed in major databases and has very respectable impact factor, ranking it in the top 25% of its field. The article should be moved to a title with correct capitalization, "Respiratory Research (journal)", but I guess that will have to wait until this AfD has been closed. --Crusio (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Crusio has swooped in and saved the day, this article is highly referenced and is notable. Peter.C • talk 11:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep the article in place. It will be developed to better conform to the wikipedia template for articles about scientific journals. It is NOT intended for advertisement or marketing of a company. / Kind regards / Jan Lötvall / co-Editor-in-Chief Respir Res Jan.lotvall (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Forward operating base#FOBs in Iraq. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FOB Hammer[edit]

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

Just one of many non-notable forward operating bases in Iraq. Subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails the general notability guideline in WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ redirect: utterly lacks notability and references. One of dozens (maybe hundreds?) of FOBs in Iraq, and not known independant coverage or significance. The thing is a mess of POV and OR as well (sounds like it was edited by a bitter soldier or two that were stationed there at one point). bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little coverage in reliable sources, OR as per Bahamut.Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forward Operating Base#FOBs in Iraq. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea IMO, makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I think List of United States Army installations in Iraq might make more sense, but I would be okay with either. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Rinne[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable amateur ice hockey player who does not pass the notability guidelines established in WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Prod was contested on the basis of Rinne having played in 3 SM-liiga games in 2008–09. However, he did not play in these games, only dressed in them as per this source. Further, this source and this source further identify that he has never played in an SM-liiga game, and therefore fails the criteria of having played in a fully professional game in a top league. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nurmsook. --Nlu (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, only dressed but did not play. Per past precedence for sports figures, you have to actually play to qualify. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY since he hasn't played in a professional league yet. Hey Mid (contribs) 13:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't mee WP:NHOCKEY notability requirements. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The creation of a re-direct is an editorial one, and if someone wants to do that, go ahead. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Absorber (countermeasure)[edit]

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

I don't think it's notable. Marcus Qwertyus 05:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be better to have an article on this general kind of thing, rather than a specific brand. Wolfview (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve: We have separate articles on the missiles, it would seem to me the countermeasures should get the same. Clearly notable. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of notability established by independant and reliable sources. Heck, the article barely makes a description: so it's a jammer made for missiles. Why does this specific brand need an article independant of Infrared countermeasures and Anti-tank guided missile? bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have articles on BGM-71 TOW, instead of just using Anti-tank guided missile? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because TOWs are notable.Marcus Qwertyus 02:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Infrared countermeasures. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertisement. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OffshoreSoluciones[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Pure advertisement to boot. Should have been CSD'd, but CSD (and PROD) tag removed by another editor. ttonyb (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that company meets WP:CORP, likely WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11; tagged as such. Blatant spam written in the first and second person; no reliable Ghits on the company name. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrail[edit]

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

non notable neologism WuhWuzDat 04:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many reliable sources easily found through Google News Archive that don't just use this term in passing, but discuss and define the term itself. Read the policy on neologisms to verify that the coverage of this particular topic in reliable sources meets Wikipedia standards for notability. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neogolism fail... despite what Cullen says... it's not a widespread term, and there's nothing in this "article" that isn't easily covered in the hydrogen transportation or railcar articles. Very easy redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a widespread term. There are several thousand technical articles and news items online. The United Nations hosted the Sixth International Hydrail Conference in Istanbul last year and the Government of Korea will host the 7th this summer in Seoul. If :hydrail" was a neologism when it appeared in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Hydrogen Energy in 2004, that was 7 years ago. It's now the generally accepted term of art and newly involved scientists refer to the Wiki entry for the precise definition. The Univerity of North Carolina's hydrail dot org site is visited by 600-800 unique visitors every month from an average of 45 countries. At one time Google references reached 111,000. Some 15 countries have presented at the six hydrail conferences held around the world. To say hydrail is not widespread is unsupportable. To delete it would impair development of an important new environmentally advanced transportation technology.H S Thompson (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H S Thompson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The "It is a widespread term" entry was unsigned through unintended omission. Signed: H S Thompson (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "Keep" vote struck out. WuhWuzDat 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be primarily intended to promote the hydrail conferences, which in turn seem to be promoting the newly-coined term "hydrail". --DAJF (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~--The hydrail definition has been on Wikipedia for years. The references to the conferences were only added a few days ago to counter a deletion proposal that asserted the term was little used. Content of the thousands of hydrail references on the Internet show it is serving to enable developers of this Green technology to interact. The conferences are non-commercial and almost all presentations are by scholars and government environmental and transportation agencies. This can be confirmed using the just-added references under "research."H S Thompson (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect to hydrogen transportation or railcar). Self-serving article, apparently aiming to establish a new term using wikipedia and the said conference. The text is far from encyclopedic and possible rewriting would be easier to start from scratch. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The assertion that the hydrail article is "self-serving" begs the question as to what "self" could conceivably be served and what benefits, other than the societal good cited in the article, could be "served" by it. Viewing the lists of Hydrail Conference presenters in the article's Research references refutes the "self-serving" accusation. Is the disinterestedness of the "Delete" advocates comparably annotated? H S Thompson (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I have struck out the duplicate keep !votes. ONE !vote per editor, PLEASE! WuhWuzDat 06:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are multiple references that show the notability of this term in the article itself, let alone external to it. It should not have been proposed for deletion in the first place. Please don't waste our time. Francis Bond (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references which show the term being used in IEEE Spectrum and Nature. I think you should withdraw the nomination now. Francis Bond (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has also appeared in the following:

the print edition (not online) of the American Public Transportation Association's weekly newspaper, Passenger Transport: "Streetcar Propulsion: New Technology Up Ahead?" - page 17
The Stanly News and Press (Albemarle, North Carolina): "New alchemy for Badin: Aluminum to hydrogen"
It was in the lead front page print story, with a color photo, in The Charlotte [NC] Observer, probably on July 3, 2006, now online in Fuel Cell Today.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers–Kings rivalry[edit]

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

It was nominated for deletion in January 2008; the result at that time was "Merge/Redirect", which apparently did not actually occur. Since then, this supposed rivalry has become even less and less notable. I actually see no reason why anything should be merged to either Los Angeles Lakers or Sacramento Kings. I am opining an outright delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things don't "become even less and less notable". If something was notable once, then it's notable forever. Wikipedia rightly has articles about all kinds of things of purely historical interest. But on this specific case the rough consensus at the last AfD was that it wasn't notable, which is why it was to be merged and redirected.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, what I mean is that it really wasn't notable to start with, and any rationale for notability has dispelled itself with the passage of time. (See WP:FAME.) --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, not notable then, not notable now. The Kings slowly moved westward from Rochester to Cincinnati to Kansas City to Sacramento, though they've been in California for the last 25 years. Even though they are in the same NBA division, they only meet 4 times in an 82 game season, and there's not the history of playoff encounters as with the Celtics or the Spurs. I'd sooner accept a rivalry between the Lakers and the NHL Los Angeles Kings. Mandsford 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this deserves an article, then so do 10,000 other sports rivalries which are more notable.Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a traditional NBA rivalry. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you please provide a link to the first AfD instead of looping to this one? matt91486 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The automatic linker somehow didn't link it and I can't figure out how to get it to, but here's the link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lakers-Kings_rivalry. (I linked it in my own initial nominating comments, but I admit it might not be clear enough.) --Nlu (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuki Fukumura[edit]

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

She just joined Morning Musume today. She doesn't seem very notable. JDDJS (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing here to establish notability as an individual sufficient to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even if we factor out a lot of the noise, there is still no clear consensus one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth O'Keefe[edit]

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

This article is a BLP disaster. The vast majority of the sources are utterly worthless. Often, they are O'Keefe himself. Some that look like a good source (NY Times) don't mention him at all. Or, they may have passing mention of him. Or, they're original legal documents. I don't see any reliable source providing serious biographical material. There's so many junk sources, it's possible there's a gem in the mix here. But, I haven't seen it. Being one of a bunch of protesters in a number of notable protests, doesn't make one notable, in my view. There needs to be substantial coverage on him specifically. A number of biographical claims, such as his nationality, need particularly good sourcing, but lack it. Interviews of a person, even when done by major media, where he states facts about himself, serve as proof he said something, but don't proof the truth of what he says. I didn't read fully all 59 junk sources, and I don't think I should have to. If somebody wishes to keep it, they need to fix it. I considered stubifying to the basics, but I couldn't get a decent source to say one thing that makes this person notable. While this was previously nominated, I think Wikipedia has significantly raised the requirements for a biography of a living person, particularly in terms of requiring reliable sources, which are still lacking several years later. --Rob (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your argument is apparently based on V, and there is ample, painfully obvious V. NTW, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC. A BLP doesn't have to be comprehensive, that's just a good idea. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Neutral:see below for change in !vote. I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape source-wise and somewhat peacocky, but the guy has received coverage from several serious media outlets over several years, so it seems to me he passes the WP:N test. If I have a few moments I'll try to pear down the obvious non-RS stuff like his sites and youtube. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which serious media outlet has provided serious coverage of O'Keefe, giving substantial biographical material? Please give me one example, that's not a single sentence, or his own words in an interview, or a story that doesn't even mention him, or a legal document that's a primary source, or a YouTube video of himself. I think people are being blinded by the mass of citations which give an extremely false impression. Nobody is going to actually review all 50 or so sources closely, so people just assume that there must be something in there somewhere. If somebody can find a kernel of good in the article, maybe restarting with a stub, then sure, let's keep it. I tried and failed at that. But, please, let's not repeat the same mistake done last time, where people said it was fixable, and years later, it's still total garbage. --Rob (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I have done just a little work on the article so far, but his involvement in the Mavi Marmari and human shields in Iraq has been noted here among other places, he has been on BBC's HardTalk and al-Jazeera, CNN and the Guardian covered his recent troubles with a convoy to Gaza, etc. I'm by no means a fan of the guy, but notable is notable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notbility has been set by the media. Using autobiographical material for verification of biographical information is not discouraged. Primary sources are also welcome for verifiability. The nominator is confusing notability with verifiability, a common mistake. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When did primary and autobiographical sources become acceptable as the sole source of contentious significant claims? As an example of the harm of relying on non-independent sources, notice where it says "In 2006 he returned to Hawaii and was elected as a representative of District 6 in Oahu, serving one year in the Hawaiian Legislature. " In fact, that is completely false. The only source is a web site of a group that self-proclaimed themselves to be the "resinstated Hawaii Government". This is a hugely important point in the article. Now, I would love to clarify the article to say what the facts are. However, I'm aware of no reliable source that explicitly covers what if any public office's this man has ever held. Or any sources saying how exactly he was chosen to this "office". There is grave danger in allowing the subject of an article to be the primary source of information. --Rob (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  You're right about the Hawaii stuff. Almost none of it is sourced (after I removed the non-RS refs) and might have to go. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a forum to determine notability for inclusion, you are still arguing about verifiability of biographical details. People come to Wikipedia to find out which details are accurate and which are puffery. I just realized that Maury Markowitz is arguing the same thing, I thought "V" was the movie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two (notability and verifiability) are inseparable. Something is notable only if the claims of notability are verifiable. You need to separate out the verifiable from the unverifiable first, and then you can discuss if what's left verifiable, is in fact notable. Being a member of a the legislative assembly would certainly be a legitimate claim of notability if it was actually verifiable. Of course, it's not verifiable, since it's an entirely made up lie, that somebody invented, and Wikipedia published for several years, with no factual basis whatsoever. Apparently, anybody wishing a bio on Wikipedia, can make a web site, claim to be the holder of a public office, and then write about themselves on Wikipedia. --Rob (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. No brainer. Christiaan (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Ok it's pretty obvious how this is going, so feel free to close up now. I'm not sure the current procedure for doing so. As discussed on the talk page, I'm hoping there'll soon be a reboot of this article. Hopefully, this won't be a pile trash in another five years. --Rob (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the consideration process, I would recommend the reading of the following investigative journalism piece on Mr. O'Keefe's recent convoy trip: http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/12/06/truth-justice-and-peace-nearly-sunk-as-rth-convoy-facts-emerge-and-as-usual-gazans-get-the-worst-part-of-the-deal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhaedrusM (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — PhaedrusM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not a WP:RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy[reply]

Delete - it looks like the consensus here is clear, but personally I'm not convinced Mr. O'Keefe passes our notability guidelines. The human shield action to Iraq is notable, as is the MV Mavi Marmara; but I don't think Kenneth O'Keefe is. Most of the sources aren't really about him, they're about those events; there are very few reliable sources focusing on him as a person. It's a shame we don't have a policy WP:BLP2E ('person notable only for two events'), as that's basically the case here. Robofish (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading WP:Notability (people), you may have a point. There are interviews with him in a few reliable sources, but most of the stuff mentions him but isn't about him. I'll change my !vote to neutral pending more opinions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly within the spirit of WP:BLP1E, though got his 15 minutes of fame twice.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is apparent that this article contains more than enough PSTS all of which evidently contain RS, thus, this article does meet the requirements stated in the WPGNG. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this article falls into the category of a SELFPUB as some who oppose it have stated. As a reader, reading both the article and the arguing comments against it, I must assume that those who oppose it, either, genuinely lack the ability to IRS or are intentionally making it a subject of WPVAND. 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true'. As a reader I have checked the materials appertaining to this article and found that they have been published by reliable sources. --Adam Kallender (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2010— Adam Kallender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - Most of the references are not reliable, one is a self written opinion piece, and the others simply put him in with the larger events. He may cross the threshold of notability in the future, but for now I would merge a line or two into the relevant articles on human shields in Iraq and the MV Mavi Marmara. Seaphoto^Talk 08:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy

Page with links to media coverage of Kenneth O'Keefe ---Curtainraiser (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This man has renounced lawfully N V http://www.worldcitizen.uk.net/renounce_document_2.jpg on more than one occasion and leaving behind a prestigious life style and family V. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGODNIJaQg. U.S. has refused to recognize and the states do not own the people as the people own the States. In all due respect to our U.S. Declaration of Independence that coincides with our U.S. Constitution N RS. A man in the U.S. is free to choose what makes him happy and not what makes government happy N V http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html. This man has acquired resources of which must not be unrecognized nor denied V N RS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZIOo-P1b4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGODNIJaQg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLz9VzS1V-Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmjSVrjJa5U Representative of District 6 in Oahu, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbRXF64YotE. Individuals refusing to recognize these resources and various others are expressing the actions of vandalism RS. Of which must not carry any credibility in denying this mans credentials V. This article has been debated by me who resides in Texas USA and any other participants to this debate for this man have their own independent responses V. All those who accuse others of additional accounts may be doing this action themselves and therefore should be investigated. People who are willing to vandalize a viable account must not be recognized as credible N. A prestigious and honorable site must not be seen as one who will take the word of vandals N as those in this process of vandalism against this account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairlegality (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC) — Fairlegality (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Disruptive theatrics, personal attacks made on other AfD participants. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

'Comment' This posting is based on FACTS and CS. After looking at Kenneth O'Keefe's Article Revision Statistics, a sub-folder created by WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, PR, RS, it is obvious that USER: NO MORE MR NICE GUY and 3 other WP USERS ( all friends), intentionally IAR, and collaborate with each another to commit VAND towards ARTICLES, their sinister motives derive from and are driven by discrimination and racism. NO MORE MR NICE GUY has been planning and sabotaging Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE for the past 5 MONTHS. What I am now stating is not my personal opinion. This statement contains: FACTS, TIMES, DATES, INFORMATIONS, USER ACTIVITIES, ETC., all of which are recorded on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE. Firstly, I intend to explain why NO MORE MR NICE GUY and his friends are posting unfounded comments on this: NOMINATION OF DELETION PAGE, comments that do not contain any evidence or valid reasons as to why Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE should be deleted from WIKIPEDIA'S SITE. Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE was created in 2003. The INFORMATION, LOGS and RECORDS stored on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, [RS, PS], show that during the course of approximately 7 years Ken O'Keefe's ARTICLE has been revised, in total, 310 times, the average total of ANNUAL EDITS for each year from 2003 – 2009, is recorded as 10 ANNUAL EDITS; [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE RS, PS]. The recorded overall total of EDITS recorded on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, Article Revision statistics, under the heading, 'by the top 10% of active users' is: 179. This total includes: 49 MINOR EDITS and 53 IP EDITS. (NB. NO MORE MR NICE GUY'S EDITS TOTAL 52 – ALL ARE NONE MINOR EDITS, WIKIPEDIA have recorded NO MORE MR NICE GUY as THE TOP EDITOR 2010 of Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE. For periods January 2010 - 4th July 2010, Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE remained UNEDITED, [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE, Month Count]. On 4th July 2010, (5 months ago), NO MORE MR NICE GUY'S first NONE MINOR EDITS were recorded, this is when NO MORE MR NICE GUY began to actively destroy Kenneth O'Keefes ARTICLE. Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE now has accrued a staggering total of 250 EDITS in a 5 MONTH PERIOD, 4th July 2010 - December 2010. From the 4th July 2010 NO MORE MR NICE GUY and his friends have EDITED Kenneth O'Keethe's Article, removing over 70% of its contents and links. [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE PR, RS]. The first comments NO MORE MR NICE GUY has left on this page, suggests to a neutral reader that he actually favours Kenneth O'Keethe's ARTICLE, (a ploy to give the impression he too is a neutral participant in this denominational process and debate). Keep: I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape source-wise and somewhat peacocky, but the guy has received coverage from several serious media outlets over several years, so it seems to me he passes the WP:N test. If I have a few moments I'll try to pear down the obvious non-RS stuff like his sites and youtube. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC). The total EDITS from the 4th of July 2010 until the end of July 2010 are recorded as 92, [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE]. 92 EDITS in a 4 WEEK PERION in comparison to the average ANNUAL EDITS of 10 from 2003 - 4th July 2010, the date NO MORE MR NICE GUY began EDITING Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE is a staggering amount to say the least. Clearly it is not only evident, it is also very disturbing to realise that NO MORE MR NICE GUY has EDITED Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE with obsessive and malicious intent to have it removed from THE WIKIPEDIA SITE. I suggest his comments be removed from this debate, along with the users who have collaborated with him. (These USERS are associated in the same activities of VAND and can be identified in the WIKIPEDIA DATABASE). 18:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC) NB I am adding my signature as it has been deleted. --Adam Kallender (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish to submit the following evidence to support my previous comment, 'that NO MORE MR NICE GUY and friends are guilty of VAND against Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE and of IAR'. RE: Kenneth O'Keefe's EDIT COUNTS. 2003 - 14 EDITS, 2004 - 14 EDITS, 2005 - 7 EDITS, 2006 - 12 EDITS, 2007 - 0 EDITS, 2008 - 0 EDITS, 2009 - 0 EDITS, 2010 - 250 EDITS. THESE STATISTICS ARE FROM WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE RECORDS, PR, RS. 18:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC) NB I am adding my signature as it has been deleted. --Adam Kallender (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Rob (Thivierr), how is anyone to deal with this matter when you are now blatantly commiting acts of VAND on this nominations page? I am making you aware that your actions are considered as VAND and that you cannot continue to IAR. See attached link that doesn't support your last EDIT. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_O%27Keefe_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=405504726 --Adam Kallender (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Take it easy. Here is what happened: When you added your comments, you overwrote the special characters which end a comment. This meant that none of your post was visible, because it was turned into an invisible "comment". I "uncommented" your text, so it could be seen. However, when I did this, the signature tildes that you used previously where expanded, and showed my signature, instead of yours. So, we're both wrong. No you didn't sign my comments. And, no I didn't vandalize. Please, let's not make this personal. --Rob (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My comment WAS visible and I made a copy of it. I think it is clear to all which users are being personal and who are IAR. --Adam Kallender (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Just a note: Normally you should say "keep" or "delete" in bold only once. Saying "keep" in bold four times, gives a misleading impression. Saying "keep" repeatedly won't actually help keep the article. It just annoys people. --Rob (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After looking further into Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE, I have found other RS. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10981.shtml

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11003.shtml http://ramallahonline.com/2010/09/veto-power-is-an-insult-to-the-international-community-kenneth-okeefe/ http://www.counterpunch.org/okeefe06072010.html --Adam Kallender (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth O'Keefe is a warmharted human being who choose the side of the downtrodden and helpless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_hVtUO2Lpk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0m4z1h4LlQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWiCBw4Rnbc V N It's who he is. To see the slander and attacks on him and his person is just sadening. Understanding why and what is behind these attacks, makes it infuriating.

Starting with the removal of parts of the article; At the same time all verifying links were removed and then claims were made those parts are unverified. Of course they are since they've been removed with the parts. They were verified while still there though and that's the important thing.

There are claims that Ken couldn't have sought and gotten Hawaiian citizenship. It's because aome choose not to understand international law. N. USA is an occupying illegal force on Hawaii. It is the De Facto, but illegal, government of Hawaii. Hawaii also has a legal, De Juris government and it is this LEGAL government that granted Ken citizenship. Of course those claiming lack of proof already knew and understood this but it suits the agenda not to understand.

Regarding his many attemps to get rid of his American citizenship; It is all well documented, http://www.worldcitizen.uk.net/renounce_document_2.jpg http://hawaii-gov.net/citizenship/citizenship-in-law/ N V but then it is claimed he has no real desire to lose his citizenship. Hmm... Funny, that what the US officials claimed too. The claimants must know him much better than he knows himself. This is just another of the pathetic attemps to slander him. He has the right to denounce his American citizenship if he wants to. If the claimants are the least knowledgeable in the laws regulating this they would know it. In violation of American law Ken has been refused to denounce his US citizenship on many occasions and it is well documented, see above. Of course you chose not to regard any of this.

It is so blatantly obvious that "No More Mr Nice Guy" and a few others work together to slander Ken and destroy his article for reasons well known and understood. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEGX7qEyHmc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcVTI09T5D4 They should be banned, not Ken's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterStorm1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

— PeterStorm1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources presented in the article and in the conversation above appear, to me at least, to fail one or both of two criteria: reliability, or demonstrative of non-trivial coverage of the topic at hand. This is a significant distinction. Coverage of actions which Mr. O'Keefe may have been involved with does not necessarily equate to coverage of Mr. O'Keefe himself and, as such, doesn't necessarily confer notability. That said, this is a bit of a close call for me. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because I'm seeing so many SPAs dripping from this thing that something else is afoot.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You admit you didn't read all 59 junk sources, and then question the notability of Kenneth O'Keefe, while in an act of V. you remove many sources. 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — Anna O'Leary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Please would users refrain from editing or deleting my posts or pretending to be me. This will not support your argument to delete this article. Please see attached link on VAND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleaning_up_vandalism--Adam Kallender (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you've unhitched your caps lock and toned down your rhetoric now that your IP sock got blocked.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you add multiple "Keep" !votes, it is entirely proper for someone else to edit them and remove the "Keep". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for the advice Boing. Kintetssubuffalo, that is not my IP and as well you know it, it is just another ploy of those who are committing VAN against Kenneth O'Keefe's Article and the comments posted on this debate page. Any knowledgable user knows that if it were my IP then it would be blocked and I would not be able to continue in this debate. Therefore, please do not try to dicredit me. This should be a fair debate that is accessible to all users. --Adam Kallender (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you from Adam, but if it walks like a WP:DUCK...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should report these guys at SPI and see what happens. I'd be very surprised if they're not related. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You're correct Kintetsubuffalo you do not know me, therefore it is unfair to make assumptions or to judge me, I aswell as everyone else have a right to be a part of this debate. No More Mr Nice Guy, I agree with you for the first time, this debate does require the intervention of WIKIPEDIA Officials. Lets try to stick to the matter in hand, constantly IAR is not going to support your arguments. --Adam Kallender (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're barking up the wrong tree. First of all I didn't !vote to delete this article. Second, the changes I made to the article to bring it up to wikipedia standards make it more likely the article will be kept. None of what I did falls under IAR, quite the opposite. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Scrapes by BLP1E by being noted for Iraq shield involvement as well as the flotilla raid. The margin is pretty thin, though. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on other editors - nothing to do with article content whatsoever -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

~~Keep~~ If this is to be an unbiased debate, then any user who keeps VAND my comments are IAR. This post contains FACTS all of which are recorded on WIKIPIDEA'S DATABASE. RS, V, N, PS. This posting is based on FACTS and CS. After looking at Kenneth O'Keefe's Article Revision Statistics, a sub-folder created by WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, PR, RS, it is obvious that USER: NO MORE MR NICE GUY and 3 other WP USERS ( all friends), intentionally IAR, and collaborate with each another to commit VAND towards ARTICLES, their sinister motives derive from and are driven by discrimination and racism. NO MORE MR NICE GUY has been planning and sabotaging Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE for the past 5 MONTHS. What I am now stating is not my personal opinion. This statement contains: FACTS, TIMES, DATES, INFORMATIONS, USER ACTIVITIES, ETC., all of which are recorded on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE. Firstly, I intend to explain why NO MORE MR NICE GUY and his friends are posting unfounded comments on this: NOMINATION OF DELETION PAGE, comments that do not contain any evidence or valid reasons as to why Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE should be deleted from WIKIPEDIA'S SITE. Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE was created in 2003. The INFORMATION, LOGS and RECORDS stored on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, [RS, PS], show that during the course of approximately 7 years Ken O'Keefe's ARTICLE has been revised, in total, 310 times, the average total of ANNUAL EDITS for each year from 2003 – 2009, is recorded as 10 ANNUAL EDITS; [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE RS, PS]. The recorded overall total of EDITS recorded on WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE, Article Revision statistics, under the heading, 'by the top 10% of active users' is: 179. This total includes: 49 MINOR EDITS and 53 IP EDITS. (NB. NO MORE MR NICE GUY'S EDITS TOTAL 52 – ALL ARE NONE MINOR EDITS, WIKIPEDIA have recorded NO MORE MR NICE GUY as THE TOP EDITOR 2010 of Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE. For periods January 2010 - 4th July 2010, Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE remained UNEDITED, [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE, Month Count]. On 4th July 2010, (5 months ago), NO MORE MR NICE GUY'S first NONE MINOR EDITS were recorded, this is when NO MORE MR NICE GUY began to actively destroy Kenneth O'Keefes ARTICLE. Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE now has accrued a staggering total of 250 EDITS in a 5 MONTH PERIOD, 4th July 2010 - December 2010. From the 4th July 2010 NO MORE MR NICE GUY and his friends have EDITED Kenneth O'Keethe's Article, removing over 70% of its contents and links. [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE PR, RS]. The first comments NO MORE MR NICE GUY has left on this page, suggests to a neutral reader that he actually favours Kenneth O'Keethe's ARTICLE, (a ploy to give the impression he too is a neutral participant in this denominational process and debate). Keep: I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape source-wise and somewhat peacocky, but the guy has received coverage from several serious media outlets over several years, so it seems to me he passes the WP:N test. If I have a few moments I'll try to pear down the obvious non-RS stuff like his sites and youtube. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC). The total EDITS from the 4th of July 2010 until the end of July 2010 are recorded as 92, [WIKIPEDIA DATABASE]. 92 EDITS in a 4 WEEK PERION in comparison to the average ANNUAL EDITS of 10 from 2003 - 4th July 2010, the date NO MORE MR NICE GUY began EDITING Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE is a staggering amount to say the least. Clearly it is not only evident, it is also very disturbing to realise that NO MORE MR NICE GUY has EDITED Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE with obsessive and malicious intent to have it removed from THE WIKIPEDIA SITE. I suggest his comments be removed from this debate, along with the users who have collaborated with him. (These USERS are associated in the same activities of VAND and can be identified in the WIKIPEDIA DATABASE). I wish to submit the following evidence to support my previous comment, 'that NO MORE MR NICE GUY and friends are guilty of VAND against Kenneth O'Keefe's ARTICLE and of IAR'. RE: Kenneth O'Keefe's EDIT COUNTS. 2003 - 14 EDITS, 2004 - 14 EDITS, 2005 - 7 EDITS, 2006 - 12 EDITS, 2007 - 0 EDITS, 2008 - 0 EDITS, 2009 - 0 EDITS, 2010 - 250 EDITS. THESE STATISTICS ARE FROM WIKIPEDIA'S DATABASE RECORDS. --Adam Kallender (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't keep voting Keep, so please stop. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop attacking other editors - this page is for discussing the article ONLY. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Other users are removing or EDITING my comments, this is why I have to re-add them. I fully appreciate what you have stated, however, if you look through the thread you will gain an understanding of my point. --Adam Kallender (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere were people have been removing or editing your comments - other than striking your repeated "Keep" !votes, which you must not do. I have been following this, and the thing that mostly strikes me is your attacks on other editors - please take heed of the warning I have left at your Talk page and stop these attacks, or you are likely to end up being blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (Actually, I see some of the earlier shouting isn't there any more, so maybe someone has removed some of your comments - but the prohibition on attacking others still stands)[reply]
Ah, no, I just see a lot has been collapsed because it contained attacks on other editors - it hasn't been deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have started a sock investigation related to this page here, please feel free to add to it. Hairhorn (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D[edit]

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

non notable audio redub of a film, which has a ridiculously long title as its only claim to notability WuhWuzDat 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has survived AfD before on grounds of notability (several independent sources). Further, we are not in a position to say something is not notable because it is "just" a redub of something. Most parody relies on this sort of thing. It's sourced, what more do you need? Further, this DR has a truly awesome title - does anyone know if this is the longest on wikipedia? -mattbuck (Talk) 02:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A one-trick-pony that gets some brief name drops because of the ever-so-witty title. 4 sources; 2 dead links, 1 to a generic, imdb-ish movie directory (allmovie), and 1 to a tvguide.com Q&A entry. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed the dead links. A number of books, magazines, and newspapers which could be added do report it as the longest film title, although that's about all they say about it. "The Zombie" by June Pulliam in Icons of horror and the supernatural edited by S.T. Joshi lists it as an "Important Zombie Film" (!). There's a review in the Zombie Movie Encyclopedia by Peter Dendle, and it looks like there might be reviews in Jamie Russell's Book of the Dead and Michael Weldon's Psychotronic Video Guide. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per respecting previous consensus that at least THIS ONE meets WP:NF through coverage and critical commentary in reliable sources,[11][12] though with his subsequent films with equally silly and overlong titles it seems Riffle is bent on flogging more than just his horse. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - enough already. --Trippz 10:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn - Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik passport[edit]

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

This information ought to be included as a single sentence in the article Republic of Tajikistan. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-less than week old stub-most countries now have articles on their passports, and most start out stubby.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kintetsubuffalo. I've added cats, stub tag, and relevant info and cite from Biometric passport. Ka renjc 18:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I didn't realize that passports typically had their own articles. I will close this AFD. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for Arborophilia and no consensus for the rest as there was zero discussion about them. (they were never tagged anyway) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arborophilia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arborophilia, was dominated 100% by socks of User:TRATTOOO. Article was created as promo spam. Only mentions in local press, no significant secondary source commentary from any other sources. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding these other self promo spam pages edited primarily only by socks of User:TRATTOOO. -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2010 (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, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - this play did receive some coverage from independent reliable sources: [13],[14],[15]. I'm not sure if that's enough for notability, but it's not completely unheard of. Robofish (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of philias, rather than delete, surely.—S Marshall T/C 02:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not very important but still covered in reliable sources. Wolfview (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't have to be important, only covered in reliable sources. If it's notable in Ohio and Michigan, it's notable 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Confirming[edit]

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

No indication of importance, appears to be here to gain a following but isn't blatant enough to be G11. No third-party coverage, and links are all to FB/TW accounts (more promotion). — Timneu22 · talk 13:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a tool developed by the Government of Andalusia, and the launch was an International Official Conference with international personalities of the Corporative Social Responsibility and green jobs (as Van Jones), holding and supporting it. Please visit Junta de Andalucia, AIR2010, Social Confirming, or these URLS':

http://www.abc.es/20101220/medios-redes/social-confirming-ciberactivismo-201012201022.html http://www.europapress.es/andalucia/sevilla-00357/noticia-encuentro-ciudadania-sociedad-empresas-responsables-air-2010-comienza-jueves-1000-inscritos-20101215183217.html http://www.teleprensa.es/andalucia-noticia-263489-Una-herramienta-permitir26aacute3B-al-ciudadano-valorar-la-responsabilidad-social-de-las-empresas.html http://www.europapress.es/andalucia/sevilla-00357/noticia-organizacion-iberoamericana-juventud-defiende-social-confirming-herramienta-activismo-ciudadano-20101217161604.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcojaviermz (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reading over the materials, this appears to be little more than a buzzword/neologism developed by the local government. I can't find any real substance to this "tool". Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment:" The Government of Andalussia is the equivalent to a State Government in The United States; in the second most populated Autonomic Comunity in the Kingdom of Spain and it governs to 8 million people. This initiative is designed in Andalussia but it's launched for any social/local government in anywhere. The tool is being Launched in Beta version. -Maybe I misunderstood the rules of Wikipedia in English, but I don't know exactly which are the reasons why this initiative from a government should not be in the Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcojaviermz (talk • contribs) 09:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants to create a redirect then they can do so. Davewild (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for a Dream (album)[edit]

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

No non-trivial sources. Unreleased album, fails WP:NALBUMS. Another editor tried to AFD this but only put a broken AFD link on the log. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The unreleased albums policy does not apply, though, as can be seen with basic investigation. Some amateur recently mashed up the two albums and the junk can be downloaded from a few shifty websites. The text of this article is a completely invented history. Take a look at the one source given in the article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not terribly likely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this ridiculous hoax of an article, and grab your sweaters, while you're at it. BTW, someone apparently has been using the article page as a talk page, so I cleaned it up a bit. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a search term to Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack). -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This last vote is a pretty good idea, but such an action should be completed after the hoax-y content of this article is eliminated. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no sources, appears to be hoax. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HDR PhotoStudio[edit]

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

Notability, looks like spam Darxus (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove spam. Review in PC World satisfies WP:N. --Pnm (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Connecticut Huskies football. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guideline for an article but a redirect is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kozlowski Award[edit]

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

This is only an award given annually within the Connecticut Huskies football program to one of its own former players. Most NCAA athletics programs, for all men's and women's programs of all sports, have some sort of "team award." It doesn't make them notable enough for an encyclopedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable award. tedder (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I'm sure that every recipient of this award is bigger than me, I will still be WP:BOLD and stand for deletion of this team-level award. Wanna incorporate the information into the team article? Okay by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connecticut Huskies football. I've already BOLDly merged the list of winners into the parent article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- agree redirect is fine by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exscientologykids.com[edit]

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

Non-notable website with no claims of notability. Just because there are sources that say the place exists does not make it notable. My db tag was removed. Corvus cornix_talk 02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CSD is not about notability but about significance. Coverage in several reliable sources meets that criteria. Here, we will discuss whether it meets the notability criteria. I will comment here when I've had a chance to look into it a bit more -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 02:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kendra Wiseman, and perhaps to a lesser extent Jenna Miscavige Hill (currently on AFD here, seem to largely be notable (if they are) for their involvement in this website. I'd suggested that Hill and certainly Wiseman should not exist as individual BLPs but, if at all, be merged with this website. Another editor then created the article on the website.--Scott Mac 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability, I stopped counting after 10 Google pages of hits. On the first page is a link to ABC News Nightline.^[1]. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply counting Google hits is virtually meaningless in terms of our notability guidelines. Please familiarize yourself with WP:N. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DizFreak and User:Phantomsteve.alt above. He iro
Keep as a parent article of several marginally notable BLPs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that applies more stringently for daughter articles rather than parent articles. But that aside, the people in question acheived their notability by leaving the COS and being members of the website/group, which is the common tie, and framing the topic around the website and phenomenon, rather than the individuals, renders it more encyclopedic. Anyway, that is my opinion, you have yours and the closing admin will no doubt adjudicate on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per WP:N coverage has to be significant. Here is the policy language: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Is the sourcing mentioned above more than "trivial"? I'm not convinced that it is and am leaning towards delete, but I'd be glad to change my mind should someone prove otherwise.Griswaldo (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply May I suggest you read http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4702271&page=1 or watch the interview on ABC. It's on Utube in several places. Keith Henson (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one source. "Significant coverage means sources [plural] address the subject directly in detail ..." Are there multiple sources with significant coverage? I still fail to see how this meets the policy even with that one example - note that the article is a writeup of the show.Griswaldo (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I could go Meta on this business, but will stick to the obvious. If you just want to delete stuff, why not go after some of the thousands of really minor sports figures? Keith Henson (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICK and WP:AGF, ok? Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add a distorted version of WP:OTHERSTUFF to that as well. Can you please provide a policy based keep rationale. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is significant coverage by multiple RS, therefore meets WP:GNG. Examples: [16] , [17]. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Casliber. --JN 466 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources appear to be there, so I think that we can safely say that this article won't be deleted. There was discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Miscavige Hill about merging Jenna Miscavige Hill into this article, and considering that the notability of one is closely intertwined with the other, we should discuss whether the two should be merged after this AFD is completed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the cites present in the article satisfying WP:N...and Jenna Miscavige Hill should be merged & redirected to this article. — Scientizzle 20:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:NOTE has multiple WP:RS from sources that span a 2 year timespan which demonstrates sustainability of the topic.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in Greater Manchester. feel free to merge anything sourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester/Derbyshire Bus Route 358[edit]

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

Unremarkable bus route. AD 19:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Searching gave me one half-decent source which could be used to build up the article, but it needs another one to establish notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts entirely. This is a good source, but it tells us nothing substantial about the route, and we have to consider it's a local newspaper, intended for local people. I could find nothing else substantial. AD 19:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of bus routes in Greater Manchester (as it's contracted to a Manchester-based operator and appears to spend most of the route in Greater Manchester this seems like a better target than the equivalent list of routes for Derbyshire). Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a merge is preferred, a better target would probably be the more specific List of Stagecoach Manchester bus routes rather than already long area article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that would probably be a better target. I hadn't spotted it's existence. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 7 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All the information found in this short article can be easily placed in List of bus routes in Greater Manchester. The purpose of a bus route article is not to give a detailed route description. Dew Kane (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a suitable target article. Fails WP:N and WP:NOTDIR. --MegaSloth (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Hellbound, Flesh-Eating Subhumanoid Zombified Living Dead, Part 3[edit]

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

non notable audio redub of a film, only reference is IMDB WuhWuzDat 01:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Day of the Dawn...of the Delete, Part 3 No sources found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this is really quite an interesting title, there's no real evidence of notability and I can't find any reliable sources. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 03:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage or critical commentary makes this one dead as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(MR3) The Melrose Red Raider Report[edit]

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

non notable local access cable tv show WuhWuzDat 01:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Screw you, ever seen an episode? Mind your own business its really important to a lot of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetully22 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)~~ *Striking out defamatory comment (btw, I'm neutral here). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to establish encyclopedic notability. tedder (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Škorka[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Two modified Google searches ([18] [19]) mainly bring up either passing mentions or Wikipedia mirrors, and the ones that don't actually don't mention this person's name after all. In addition, the article was created by an IP in September 2005 who hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having originally tagged it as possible hoax (see my comments on article talk page) I've done some further research and can find nothing of any notable substance at all Sitush (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from this it seems that he does exist, and you can even buy his works; but in the absence of any better information he does not seem to be notable to the standard of WP:CREATIVE. In particular, I can't find anything substantial about the "School of Skorkism", and as he is its only member it does not seem to have been "significant", which might have satisfied #2 of WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That you can apparently buy a small oil painting of his for 56 euros does not suggest he meets the notability criteria, nor does anything else in the article. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is definitely not a hoax:[20], [21]. Naïve painting is a popular art genre in the Czech Republic nowadays. There are several notable artists working in this style and many good craftspeople who utilize the current wave of popularity of the genre. I can't find any reliable sources (Czech or English) indicating that Jan Škorka is a notable artist for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Substantial work was done on this by User:Bilby following the last delete comment, essentially doubling the article size. Consensus is that the subject is notable, and that POV problems are not beyond fixing. Suggestions for a change of title should definitely be considered, and future work should attempt to perfect and maintain a neutral tone. Mandsford 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia and the slippery slope[edit]

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

POV essay, even the title is POV Corvus cornix_talk 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom, POV essay, although referenced, not encyclopaedic. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge any valid info in to the Euthanasia article.--Dmol (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This is not a POV essay by any means. Critics of euthanasia, of which I am not one, use the slippery slope argument on every occasion possible. Do a search on Medline for "euthanasia and slippery slope" — you'll find many hits, so this is a subject and topic of serious study. The article was hived off from a euthanasia article (non-voluntary euthanasia), where it was starting to dominate the actual topic. TickleMeister (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really try to claim that the last two sentences are not POV? Corvus cornix_talk 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is going to undergo extensive editing if you give the various editors some time. Does it need to be in final format before creation? TickleMeister (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly have helped if you'd finished it in your User space before presenting it in article space as a completed article. This discussion runs 7 days. If you can de-POV it by then, it might be kept. Corvus cornix_talk 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try. Not sure it is POV at the moment, actually, because it carries an almost equal number of opposing arguments. TickleMeister (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Before anyone decides to delete this article prematurely, they should make sure they have assessed the heavy weight the topic is given in the world of medical research by accessing Medine with this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=euthanasia+slippery TickleMeister (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This topic tends to expand over time, as it is an evolving field of law, ethics, medicine and philospiphy, and so trying to merge it with other euthanasia articles is not possible (we've tried). TickleMeister (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I am also concerned with paragraphs and sentences added by TickleMesiter, for example that last paragraph mentioned by CorvusCornix, which made it unbalanced and POV. But that is corrigible. But for sure, TickleMesiter should really try to help to correct it, instead to force an article pro-euthanasia as he seems to do in non-voluntary euthanasia -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, the title of this article is itself WP:OR, as if most of the article. I agree that some of this info may be able to be merged into appropriate sections of other euthanasia-related articles, but as this stands, I don't see how this article says anything different than an anti-euthanasia pamphlet. Angryapathy (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The article has a pro-euthanasia conclusion, so you clearly have not even bothered to read it. In addition, the "slippery slope" concept even has its own page in wikipedia, namely slippery slope, and is a well known concept in medicine and ethics. It is thus hardly a POV term. TickleMeister (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This specific subject is not an essay. It was clogging up Non-voluntary euthanasia but is in fact also related to other typisch of euthanasia and the Groningen Protocol. Better put this battlefield in a seperate article then having the editwars in every related article. Eddylandzaat (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant debate in the field, and is complex enough that keeping the various issues in one article will work, I think, better than spreading them across multiple ones. It might be possible to keep it in Euthanasia, but at some point I believe that it would need to be split off, due to the amount of material which needs to be covered. (The current Slippery slope article is not viable, as it is not focused on the form of the argument used in ethics, and would not be a suitable target for specific applications of the argument). The POV problem is a bit of an issue, but isn't so much determined by how it is written but by the basic problem caused by having an anti (or, indeed, a pro) euthanasia argument presented on its own - I don't see that as an issue with this article specifically, though, but one that is inherent in spinning off particular aspects of any debate, highlighted in this case by the nature of the empirical form of the argument. Hopefully this can be addressed as the article develops. - Bilby (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was created in order to prevent repetition of identical pro/con material in every article touching on euthanasia. It could be folded into the main article, but in the long term it would have to be split off anyway. Xanthoxyl ^< 22:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Sounds like a legitimate entry on a often used argument (although content seems a bit POV at times, but that's not the question at hand). I don't like the title much however: it suggests a slippery slope is always present. I propose to rename to Slippery slope argument in the Euthanasia debate or Slippery slope argument in Euthanasia. L.tak (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Brown (journalist)[edit]

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

she had an interesting career, nothing points to why she is notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are lots of full-career local broadcasters who we run across at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. For whatever reason, this one seems to have less coverage than most.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find no RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [WP:RELIST] --Adam Kallender (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Afd has already been relisted twice! Do you have any pertinent comments? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above user is apparently following people who have !voted against him in another AfD, this time it is Kintetsubuffalo. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources outside a few name drops in regards to hirings and the media coverage in general of 9/11. Does not meet any of the criteria of the fallback, WP:CREATIVE. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alloy Software[edit]

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

Company does not appear to be notable. Yes, there a couple of good references, but $2.4 million in revenues is about what a good fast-food franchise location should do. This doesn't seem to be much more than a garden-variety small business. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2010 (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, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable company, fails WP:ORG. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemala–Belize Language Exchange Project[edit]

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

Advertising. Any article on this topic would have to be rewritten anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Advertising can be fixed by editing—I've made a start by removing contact details and irrelevant information about where contents of the subject's web site have been moved—and the article wouldn't need complete rewriting if kept, as some of the content is perfectly acceptable, so the nominator's concerns are not valid reasons for deletion. The problems not identified by the nominator are that the article doesn't give a clear explanation of what this project actually was, but just leaps straight into describing who ran it and funded it, and that there are no independent sources. A few such sources can be found here: I'll leave it to others to decide whether there are enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2010 (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) 23:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable organization. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, interesting and useful organization, but no hint of notability for wikipedia L.tak (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Gilmore[edit]

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

No significant coverage found. All sources found are passing mentions; no devoted coverage to the subject. Danger (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Danger (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The one sourced bit in the article about Gilmore himself has been repeatedly removed and that was itself a passing mention in an interview with a band he worked with. The article came to my attention when a person who identified themselves as a representative of Gilmore who wished to control the content of the article, so concerns about neutrality and conflict of interest are here along with notability --Danger (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could see this going either way. On one hand, it is a nice way to find all the albums Don Gilmore put a hand in...on the other hand, and probably the more significant hand, that's all it's good for. It doesn't talk about Don Gilmore nearly enough.--Raktoner (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2010 (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) 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Raktoner is correct that there is very little on Gilmore himself, and a brief web search did not find anything that would substantially improve the article, so I lean toward deletion. Kansan (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobu Tanaka[edit]

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Only one single independent source on the subject. No way to expand the article beyond a simple credits list (current biography section is just a verbose version of the discography table). Prime Blue (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (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) 00:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nakon 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nano the Cange[edit]

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

Possible fictional character listing - unremarkable. PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me 00:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not evidence of notability (or even context) Google turns up nothing. Seaphoto^Talk 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fictional character. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. Sounds like a World of Warcraft-like alias of a real teenager. Nothing remarkable. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, not a World of Warcraft alias - it's the art of a 14-year-old American girl based on something to do with Sonic the Hedgehog and interbreeding video game characters... :-/ - ManicSpider (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Nagata[edit]

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Only one single source, but not concerned with the subject itself. Article unsourced. No way to expand the article beyond a simple credits list. Prime Blue (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2010 (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) 00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSIC. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Could not find any reliable sources or any otherwise significant coverage. –MuZemike 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable coverage to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Forrestier[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this bio. she has worked with a non notable person (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alverez (2nd nomination)), and notability is not inherited. largely written to connect her with him. auditioning for parts falls well short of what is needed for acting. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. there is a lot of references provided but there is a lack of good ones. a mix of youtube, PR, talking about herself, blog. the Sister 2 Sister magazine may be reliable but that does not extend to all sections of their website and the post is rather trivial/promotional. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DAE ONE[edit]

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

no real notability shown for this bio. he has worked with notable artists but his production work is just a few songs, none notable. his band No One (hip hop) was recently deleted so no notability from there. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. of the references none are significant coverage in independent reliable sources (the closest is two interviews where he talks about himself so don't count even if they are reliable sources). nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2010 (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) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:NN with lack of sources that meet WP:RS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

(talk) - u clearly just want to take the black music down. So one can work with notable artist and because you don't know the music its a problem. NO. The page had proper citations from multiple verifiable sources from varying mediums. So what his group page was deleted what does that have to do with his production page? Which had over 25+ citations. And yes I used a page where he quoted himself....last I checked thats why there is a section that says QUOTES. And I have seen quotes on PLENTY of rock and roll pages. So whats the problem an urban producer doing the same?????? Please refer to pages like TIMBALAND which this page was based on. I am highly disappointed that you take a page down because you don't understand black music. Miss Professor KG (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Miss Professor KG[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek DiFazio[edit]

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

fails WP notability criteria for a tennis player Mayumashu (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2010 (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) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (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) 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete The subject does not qualify under WP:ATHLETE, and the only other argument, made as a "weak keep", is a suggestion that her results (she was the winner of three $10,000 ITF tournaments) might make her notable without a subject specific guideline. WP:NTENNIS does presume notability for women who have won an ITF circuit tournament of 25, 50, 75 and 100 thousand dollars, but not to those at the minimum ($10,000) level. Mandsford 20:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Bergot[edit]

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

fails WP:Notability (sports) for tennis players - no $25000 tourney or better titles, no WTA Tour main draw matches played, not a top three junior Mayumashu (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2010 (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) 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, appears to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Seems to have done results in events, sourcing is OK.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did you even read the article? There are no sources just external links. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete the keep voters do not understand WP:ATHLETE. She has not played tennis at the highest professional level WTA Tour, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" in this case are the external links also the results for the players. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if this is some reaction to the Post-Joanna Yeates Afd but im not interested in any Meta-debate war with you. So if that is your intentions with this im not falling for it. You cant win every Afd. And definitly not a clear Keep article like Joannas. Cheers my friend,.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you cannot vote blindly at most AfDs. You do not WP:OWN the Joanna Yeates article so please don't go around making it a trophy of yours. Could you please tell me how this person meets WP:ATHLETE? Playing lower level tournaments is not sufficient. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Anastasopoulos[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced BLP. The subject appears to be a book binder, which isn't particularly notable. The notability claims come from winning an award from the Union of Greek Writers, which only gets slightly more google hits than the subject. The other award is second place in an unnamed contest based in Johannesburg. While this name does generate some google hits, several of those are for different people with the same name. AniMate 02:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's not just a book binder. He's an author and a poet who has written a number of books. Don't know how significant his achievements are but certainly more notable than "book binder". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Nothing here shows that this qualifies per WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, assertions of notability but insufficient sourcing available, just wiki mirrors, perhaps the WP:WikiProject Greece can help. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have added a source reference which appears to be verbatim to the wikipedia article but in the Greek language. Not sure if it is the original source or if the content has been taken from Wikipedia. One thing that the reference does have going for it is a photograph of the author which Wikipedia does not have. Also there is a note at the bottom of the article that indicates that whoever created the page made an effort to do research to put the article together. As I said before I have no idea if they were the original researcher or if they have used the content available on Wikipedia. I also note that three of the books that he has authored are about ancient history including the "Ancient Inhabitants of Halkida", "Founders of the Ancient Settlements of the Evoians" and "History of the Evoian Byzantine Monks". That kind of makes him a historian too. Maybe an amateur historian but he has written three books that can only be classified as history books. He has also written a tourist guide about history. He seems to be an expert on the history of that region. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete: he does not appear to meet notability guidelines, even in Greek Google results, most hits on his name refer to unrelated people. As an amateur historian he is of some local importance, but IMO not enough for the English WP at least. Constantine ✍ 10:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Scheer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject of in-depth profile in The Daily Telegraph in the UK on December 21, 2009, and significant other media coverage as well. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also CNET August 21, 2006. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2010 (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) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been interviewed quite a bit in the field of biodegradable plastics [22], the potential for future improvement to the article is there. Seaphoto^Talk 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, apppears to satisfy WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Despite the length of the discussion, there have been only four named participants (Bleakcomb, Anoldtreeok, Ret.Prof and Jenks24), and a few comments and keep comments from IPs (one !voted twice). After improvements were made to address some of the objections, and the article was relisted, the opinion from the registered users was that the additional sources made the article worthy of keeping. Mandsford 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Potaski[edit]

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

Clear claim of notability remains unclear. Claims are not all supported by sources. Query reliablity of Cahill sources. Tipping and Paszkowski may support notability, but I don't have access to them. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as Cahill states in [23]

He had floated like flotsam on the waves of an unkind history. Whilst there is nothing great about his life, his progeny have become honourable and contributing citizens of the Australian Commonwealth.

So, he was not particularly notable but his descendants may have been. Cahill also says

and there is disagreement about his birth details

Nothing is cited that firmly indicates he is Polish. John Fawkner as an eleven year old witness reports that Potaski claimed he was Polish. Nothing at all indicates he is Jewish. The Calcutta sailed to Port Philip, but not to van Dieman's Land. The Ocean made two journeys from Port Philip to Hobart. On which trip did Potaski and his family travel? You would want to be on the first ferry journey to among the first convicts to land in Hobart. Even earlier, Bowen took 21 convicts to Risdon Cove in September 1803. The Cahill papers appear to be published only as paper to a Polish diaspora conference in 2003, where it appears unedited,

Earlier on, John Fawkner, the co-founder with John Batman of Melbourne much later, had travelled with him in 1804 as the eleven-year son of a convict on the boat to Tasmania as an eleven year-old and clearly knew him, as we shall see, quite well as a fellow member of the small colony of Van Dieman’s Land.

I would question the amount of verification and peer review that this information has had prior to its publication in conference papers and hence its reliability. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also doubt the subject's notability. An editor continues to remove the notable tag from the multiple issues template, but I have yet to see any evidence that he is really all that notable. I originally marked it for deletion when the article was first created, but let it stay a bit longer as it looked like it was going to be improved, but really outside of fixing up the copyright problem, notability hasn't been established in my opinion. Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed the same editor has removed the deletion notice. I'll take it to his talk page and ask for his reasons before jumping to conclusions though. Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I must apologise for i was the one removing the deletion, I am new to wiki, and am fairly advanced in age, so this is all new for me! Anoldtreeok i believe the notability has already been stated fairly clearly by the creator, if you are unable to understand this information then i will gladly repeat it for you. I would also appreciate your help rather than your constant critism on the subject. I am unsure of where to start editing, and where i could get in contact with the creator of the page? Phrehaps i could send a further, easier to understand email to Anoldtreeok, to help him understand the notability easier? I also have the Potaski reunion books that mention Yumi Stynes and Denis Napthine amoungst his decendants, Would anyone know how to add this to the references? I am also some what confused with the citation process? I must also thank Jenks24 for being the only fellow editor to help me and explain the deletion process to me, i really appreciate it, for it was much different then the crude comments the other two kept giving me! I believe this is a historically important page. If notablility needs to be further discussed you can contact me, i will do my best to answer your queries, i would also appreciate your assistance rather then critisim. Thanks. (143.238.0.177 (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comments. First off, I think that the IP removing the AfD notice is definitely doing it in good faith and was simply trying to say "I don't think it should be deleted". Secondly, I'm not an expert in this area, but just because it (apparently) wasn't peer reviewed, does that make the source unreliable, even though the author is a professor at a University? Also, just because Cahill states "Whilst there is nothing great about his life", he still felt the need to write five pages on him, which I would see as significant coverage. Lastly, I think the key here is not the Cahill ref, but the books by Tipping, Paszkowski, Cotter, Mullan etc. It would be they, if anything, that proves he has significant coverage in reliable sources. We may have to assume good faith if either User:Ian3280 or User:143.238.0.177 (I'm assuming at least one of them has access to the books) asserts that he has significant coverage in any of these works. Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This also asserts that he was the first Polish person to come to Australia. Also found this (Cahill is one of the authors) which states he was the first permanent Polish resident in Australia. Found this Encyclopedia of Melbourne Online article which also claims he was the first Polish immigrant. Just in the first two pages of my Google search there are about five websites also claiming this, so I think we can safely agree that he was Polish and was the first immigrant. Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Marie Purcell's books to the references. I have both of Marie's book's in my possession, they can also be read at: http://dunlops.onthe.net.au/familytree/mcdonald/default.htm Marie published her first book in 1987, the family reunion was also held in 1987, during which over 200 people attended. Marie then felt it was necessary to publish a second follow up book in 1991, The National Library of Australia has a copy of both of these books. 143.238.0.177 (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Potaski has an overwelming amount of references, yet his notability is still questioned? The infomation on Joseph Potaski seems to be way more extravagant, compared to that of other convicts, such as Billy Blue, Daniel Connor, Mary Bryant, William Hutchinson, James Ruse and Isaac Nichols, to name a few. Pherhaps the notability of these convicts should also be questioned? If Joseph Potaski doesn't measure up to the standard. 143.238.0.177 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I queried the removal of the articles for deletion template, and yes, it was a simple misunderstanding done in good faith. I never doubted it was anything but, sorry if I came across as if I did though.

I'll explain what I've been trying to say in a bit more detail. The article has been improved quite a bit since this discussion was started, and especially from when it was first created. It still requires a fair amount of clean up, because right now, the article itself doesn't establish his notability. The basis of his notability, based on the article, seems to be that he was the first polish convict. Well, why exactly is that notable? Very little information is given as to what he actually did with his life. The article basically says he was transported to Australia, then released, then died. I found this article here that states he was executed. Why is that not in this article? It seems a pretty important event. Right now, the article just says he died.

You've probably guessed by now that this article is my first exposure to Joseph Potaski, which is why I haven't really been contributing to the article, because I am not knowledgeable on the subject, and don't want to misinterpret information and have the article be inaccurate. Some of the information I have found should be added into the article if it stays (and it probably will, it's improving pretty fast), but I am not the one to do it.

I'll give some suggestions that I think will improve the article, and should help it not be deleted:

1. Establish what exactly it is that makes him notable, and why it makes him notable. The article itself has to establish the subject's notability. Currently, the article relies on him being the first jewish/polish person to arrive in Australia. OK, what else? Is this solely what makes him notable, or did he do something which adds to his notability? Even if he is very notable, if the article itself does not establish notability, it's not going to be of much use. For example, if Ned Kelly's page simply read "Ned Kelly was a Bushranger", no notability would be established. Obviously, Ned Kelly is a highly notable person deserving a wikipedia article. But if that is all the information given, if I read an article like that having never heard of Ned Kelly, I would ask myself "OK, why is he notable? There were a lot of bushrangers". And that's what this article is to me. It states what he is, but doesn't explain why that makes him notable. Obviously, there is more information, but by the end of reading, I can't help but wonder what was especially notable about Joseph Potaski. So far, it reads like the kind of story someone in my family would tell me, which wouldn't be of much interest beyond that small group.

2. Be a bit more succinct. The article, especially the Potaski's transportation section brings up a bit too much information about the people he is with, which is unnecessary and innapropriate for an article about Potaski. For example, here is a sample of text from this section: Under the command of Lieutenant Colonel David Collins, the "Calcutta" left Portsmouth, and arrived at Port Phillip Bay on the 9 October 1803.[1] Collins was charged with establishing a new settlement, at present day Sorrento. However, Collins found the area to be unsuitable for settlement, and departed on 20 January 1804, for Hobart. It was at this time that renowned convict, William Buckley escaped the party, and lived amongst the aboriginals of the Port Phillip District. This text isn't relevant to Potaski outside of establishing who the people he is with are. If the article was larger, it would be easier to get away with, but because of the small size, these bits of text take up a fair amount of space. It also makes it appear as if he may be famous by association, as if somehow knowing/being in some way related to these other people makes him notable.

In short, focus on Potaski, and not too much on the people around him, outside of his family of course (such as in the legacy section.

3. Just a quick thought, you reference a plaque commemorating him in Hobart's Pioneer Park. Perhaps you could get an image of that to liven up the article? I just think it would show that it exists.

4. Lastly, even though it's not relevant to this discussion, I'll briefly explain citing references inline in its simplest form. At the end of anything you would like to source, put <ref> </ref> tags. Between these tags, enter the source. Under a references heading, add the code, {{Reflist}}, which is already there in the article, and you will have inline citations.

I think the article needs to address the first two points to avoid being again listed for deletion. The third point is just a general suggestion I think may give thee article a bit more weight, and point 4 is a brief tip on citing. Anyway, hope that helps, and hope that I didn't get off topic with the deletion discussion. I essentially reworded my problems with the article into suggestions, but I think they're relevant here. If you didn't understand anything I said, just ask me to try and explain it better. Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, Anoldtreeok, i will try to address the issues in the coming days. I have a photo Joseph Potaski's plaugue in Hobart, I also believe there is one in Marie Purecell's book. I will try to find one on the net, otherwise i will try to scan my copy. I also am unsure of how to upload a photo would anyone know of how to do this? The tasmanian state library also has a photo of Joseph Potaski's daughter, Catherine. Would this be considered appropiate. It also says that the photo can be used for private use, but you would need permission from the Tasmanian Archieve and heritage office. Would this cover the copyright laws? 143.238.0.177 (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A person is considered to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Joseph Potaski has an overwelming amount of secondary sources. 143.238.0.177 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article clearly states it notability and it has multiple sources to back it up. 121.214.29.224 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This article seems to relate to both Tasmania's and Australia's early colonial history. I am no expert, but i believe it seems to give a good insight into the family of ex convicts. The source are also very relaiable, and seem to be accurate. 121.214.29.224 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have got permisson from the Tasmanian Archive and heritage Office to publicly display the photograph of Joseph daughter, Catherine. I believe this should help liven up the article. 121.214.29.224 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability with multiple sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has improved dramatically since it was first started. I believe it now meets all of the wiki requirements. And its notability is clearly stated, and it has many accurate sources to refer to. 124.176.212.171 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

""Keep"" I agree this article has improved greatly, it also clearly states the notability, and it has numerous sources. 124.180.32.18 (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Still don't think it's the most noteworthy subject, but has been backed up with a fair degree of sources and has improved considerably. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharakka Naik[edit]

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

The subject may be notable, but miserably fails WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Salih (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The article is 4 days old, written by someone who seems brand new to wikipedia. I'm not convinced that there is no hope that an improved article might not be verifiable. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Google search turned up nothing, even the inline reference for the spiritual leader did not mention subject of article. Seaphoto^Talk 00:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with a Barnstar for Sitush on a fine effort at salvaging this article. Non-admin closure RoninBK _{T C} 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Machine Tool Company[edit]

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

The article on Churchill Machine Tools has no substance and it is very unlikely that it will attract sufficient interest from historians capable of expanding it in any meaningful way. This is especially true now that the article’s solitary graphic has been removed by the Wikipedia deletion squad. Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - might never progress beyond stub or start status but is still worthwhile having. NtheP (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until somebody is willing to do the research to demonstrate its notability. Current references simply establish that it existed. Incidentally, the article seems to have been copied verbatim from reference #1; is that a copyvio? --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right about the copyright violation, but no great research is needed to demonstrate notability - a click on the word "books" in the nomination statement is all that is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that demonstrates "significant coverage"? --Pontificalibus (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just clicking on the first of those results finds coverage on seven pages, let alone the other 100. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company has a long history, and since it appears to be still in operation after a century [24], there is potential for further expansion to the article. A quick search of Google books shows it was an important company in pre-war England [25] Seaphoto^Talk 00:48, 3 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) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with User:Seaphoto and would add that the company was taken over by the indubitably well-known BSA business at the height of that business's pomp before then being merged with the Herbert business referred to in the entry - [[26]]. Entirely POV but my own experience in engineering is that many machines manufactured by the company even pre-WW2 are still in use and as such the entry has the potential to be topical and historical. There was a book published called The Story of the Churchill Machine Tool Co 1906-56 and copies are available for research purposes if you have the money or are in the right place, so the article can probably be enhanced. Sitush (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: Uggg, we need to waste time on an AfD on this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons User:Seaphoto and User:Sitush gave. Just because editors might not choose to expand an article is a very weak reason for deletion. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Churchill Machine Tool Company has an important place in the history of the British machine tool industry. (A. Carty (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Snow/Keep The article has been expanded since the nomination which in any case does not express a valid rationale. The recently added references clearly establish notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having now come to comprehend the cultural naiveté of the typical Wikipedian, I except that this farrago of anecdote, allegory and trivia constitutes your version of ‘substance’ in the context of what passes for history on Wikipedia; not, however, mine.Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who has done most of the recent edits. I have MA & BA (1) in history, from University of Cambridge. I think generally the standard of verifiability expected at WP cf academia is akin to the different burdens of proof which exist at various levels of the UK court system. However, I do resent your tone. You appear to be good with flowery language and there is no doubt that you have a lot of knowledge of your subject: why not put it to good use instead of attacking people? I'm getting frustrated, sorry, Sitush (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep The subject is clearly notable and the article has been expanded enormously by Sitush (good job!) over the course of this AfD. There is practically no denying at this point that the subject is a very well-defined and notable British company. Silver seren^C 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Time to close this discussion. Our colleague has succeeded in bringing to our attention the destructive effect of the 'Wikipedia deletion squad, and Sitush has continued Weiterbewegung original fine efforts to create a fine article. There really is a need for experienced editors to spend more time creating material, and assisting in improving the quality instead of inhabiting talk pages and engaging in the WP equivalent of suicide bombing. A happy New Year to all.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only concur. Sitush has certainly - and amazingly quickly - uncovered a huge quantity and range of sources and added greatly to historical knowledge. I must admit, I would not have thought it possible.Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Godfather. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mosca (The Godfather)[edit]

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

A not of note rememborable character in the series, un sourced and unreferenced. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:42 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep and expand and reference better Important in the book and in the movie series. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The whole article is in-universe plot. I can find no reliable sources discussing the character (even when using his full name). Everything I get from Google is user-generated content of some form or another (often WP mirrors). Doesn't show up in GBooks or GNews. If he truly is important in the book and movie series then there should be something somewhere, and I can't find anything anywhere. » scoops “5x5„ 16:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Sad. I just happened to stumble on this article because the Godfather films were on UK TV over Christmas. Seeing that this article needs to deleted only helps reinforce my belief that this Wikipedia is run/managed/manipulated by people who are more concerned about rules than actually providing a useful legacy for future generations. This article is all about a fictional character in a fictional film all it does is flesh out their role. Why does it need to be deleted? What bad is it doing? It's reference is the plot of the film. Or should all plots be referenced (i.e. running time, when something important happens)? The person above who wants this deleted is not interested in giving people like me something interesting to read, they are only interested in acquiring a sense of self importance from throwing around their weight and using the rules to gain victories on this site. Therefore why not just delete everything and be done with it? Everything on this Wikipedia comes down to the crux of WP:IDL (a rule I found out when another know-it-all user objected to a point I made but then contradicted themselves by doing what they liked!) I have no idea what harm this article does, it's factually correct, it's not libellous or contentious? It's just collated everything that is known about a fictional character who appears in the Godfather universe. You know, the way that Wikipedia has developed and has become such a place of self serving vitriol only makes me think of its similarity to religion. They all promise love, hope and happiness yet they all end up being taken over by bad-minded people who use the systems to feed their own narcissistic personalities. Too many editors on this site are more interested in using rules to win than making contributions to the greater good. Thus a nondescript page on a minor fictional character has to be deleted? Why? Because it's an easy victory for those who want to acquire kudos for themselves not provide free information to the masses. Using the logic here, salt needs a reference to be "salty" and water needs a reference because sometimes it's "wet"! A fictional killer in a fictional film does not exist until a source somewhere says that? I don't think that the was the idea of these rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.107.138 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to The Godfather. As a unique search term, and even though the character does not seem to merit an individual article, we might at least send readers to the place where the character has sourcable context.[27][28][29] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:32 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, at its new location, Kitchen utensil, now a well-sourced article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen utensil (née Kitchen gadget)[edit]

Listcruft, dictionary definition. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possibly Delete~~ Merge, probably to kitchen utensil: Defining which items in a kitchen are "gadgets" seems like OR. Is a fork a "gadget"? Is a container a gadget? The definition seems to be pretty much made-up, and I see no objective way to categorize things thus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It also says "tool or utensil". So: Is a fork a utensil? ☺
  And if you don't think that kitchen utensils cannot be categorized because no-one outside of Wikipedia has done so, then you haven't put "kitchen utensil" into a search engine. Have a book that categorizes kitchen utensils:
  - Brooks, Phillips V. (2004). Kitchen utensils: names, origins, and definitions through the ages. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9781403966193.
- Have an encyclopaedia with an entry for kitchen utensils, too:
  - Schuler, Stanley; Schuler, Elizabeth Meriwether (1975). "kitchen utensils". The householders' encyclopedia. Galahad Books. ISBN 9780883653012.
- And some other things:
  - Byrne, David; Wheeler, Mike (1995). Kitchen utensils. Science in the kitchen. Longman. ISBN 9780582124578.
  - Studley, Vance (1981). The woodworker's book of wooden kitchen utensils. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. ISBN 9780442247263.
  - Shrock, Joel (2004). The Gilded Age. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313322044.
- Don't you think that it would be good if Wikipedia were an encyclopaedia, with an article on kitchen utensils telling readers such interesting facts about kitchen utensils as that in 1881 the number of kitchen utensils considered adequate for a well-stocked kitchen by Maria Parloa was 139 (Shrock 2004, pp. 115) harv error: no target: CITEREFShrock2004 (help)? Parloa's 1908 book has a fair amount itself to say on the subject of cooking utensils, and kitchen utensils in general, too. There are other contemporary sources that even touch upon the materials science of kitchen utensils. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying that "Kitchen utensils" aren't already out there in references, but we have two separate articles here, this list of "gadgets" and List of food preparation utensils (linked in the See also section). I think the distinction between "gadgets" and "utensils" is too weak to have both, with the literature largely using the latter. It's also saying that if something is electric it's an "appliance" but if it's hand-powered it's a "gadget", and I don't really see any support for those definitions. Maybe it would be better to merge the two lists and just have one of kitchen utensils? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You make the same merger suggestion as was made on the article's talk page in 2009. I'd prefer this, refactored somewhat, at kitchen utensil, too, not least because that's the name that turned up when I went looking in cookery books, household encyclopaedias, and the like. The article's creator wasn't really intending to make a distinction between gadgets and utensils, it appears. Apparently, this article, originally at Kitchen Gadget, was created because List of food preparation utensils is sorted into alphabetical order, just like ~~Category:Food preparation utensils~~ ~~Category:Food utensils~~ Category:Cooking utensils is. I think that the name was ill-chosen, and not the primary focus in writing (It wasn't even capitalized correctly, after all.), but just a name that seemed "good enough" at the time. There's no really useful edit history at kitchen utensil, and keeping the "list of" out of the title will discourage writing a list that just duplicates the category. Out of the twain, I think that list of food preparation utensils is the truly problematic article, here, because it has the wrong scope, and merely duplicates the category. Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, I agree, and I think you're right about list of food preparation utensils. I'm changing my !vote to Merge. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 3 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) 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to kitchen utensil, since that is a more serious word. There is nothing much else to do besides list them. Facts such as 139 being the right number to have in your kitchen in 1908 are really just opinions. An overall history of kitchen utensils seems a bit problematic since I wouldn't expect much to have been written on the topic, rather than the history of individual utensils. Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I point to another encyclopaedia's article on kitchen utensils, amongst other things, and you say "I wouldn't expect much to have been written on the topic"! You didn't really read the prior discussion here on this very page, let alone look for yourself to see what sources are available discussing the subject, before giving this opinion, did you? And what Shrock writes about Parloa is a verifiable fact about Parloa's book, not an opinion. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/disambig: Items on this list should be on either Home appliance or kitchen utensil]. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale doesn't make sense, now, for two different reasons. The second is that "this list" doesn't have a referent. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Kitchen utensil. nothing there to actually merge. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That has now been done by DGG. This is the first reason that Maury Markowitz's rationale doesn't make sense. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voletta Wallace[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage about the subject. Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Karppinen (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Notorious B.I.G. per WP:NOTINHERITED. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kosh Agarwal[edit]

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

British liver specialist with no specific notability. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per no suitable notability found! BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He may have sufficient citations at Google Scholar to meet WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be an idea that having papers listed in G Scholar means something. It doesn't. It just means your paper was published in any one of zillions of journals. WP:ACADEMIC requires that your papers be highly cited. EEng (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie's statement was precisely about the number of citations, not the number of papers listed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Phil, that's exactly right. Several of his papers were cited more than 100 times, which is impressive for a medical article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was imprecisely about the number of citations. Instead of saying "may have sufficient" -- why not acutally look? The citations counts go 133, 122, 25, 23, um... 15, 11, 8, 4, uh... 3... Most of these papers have 5-7 coauthors. Many graduate students have citation histories like this. EEng (talk) 21:52, 4 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) 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I count 2 articles with more than 100 cites. Not bad, but if that was sufficient to pass WP:ACADEMIC almost all my profs in grad school would deserve their Wiki article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per User:MelanieN.Hillcountries (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he were last author on the heavily cited papers, I would have said keep, unambiguously. He was first author, so this is not a case of his name being tacked on, but in the same vein, he was not the principal investigator. He produced two heavily cited articles during his training, but I don't see that that clearly hits the criterion of "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications". There is no bright line, but I think it falls a little short. I think the phrase "one of four" best sums up the basis for my recommendation to delete. I see signs that he is likely to hit notable, but crystal balls count for nothing. I am more than willing to revisit the issue if new material becomes available.Novangelis (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Evangelos Christou[edit]

The result was Delete. Those proponents of keeping the article have been unable to demonstrate that he passes WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable professor. Sources which satisfy WP:GNG are not forthcoming, and may be difficult to find as there is another Evangelos Christou out there who appears to have written a number of books on philosophy. There are some relevant Google Scholar hits for the various papers that this individual has written, ~~but these are all primary and don't establish his notability~~ but it's unclear whether the quantity and/or quality of the papers is adequate. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^yak 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to be on track to a productive academic career, but as happens too often this article was created too early: he has not yet had time to accumulate the impact needed to pass WP:PROF. I disagree with the nominator about the value of Google scholar in establishing notability — academics are notable for their works rather than for their personal lives, and their notability can be shown by high numbers of other papers (secondary sources) that cite their own — but in this case the number of highly cited papers is insufficient to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. GS cites 132, 76, 68, 47, 44... h index = 14. Eppstein's interpretation of WP:Prof#C1 is correct. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Eppstein voted to delete because the number of highly cited papers was inadequate. Is there a threshold of citations or h-number above which someone is automatically notable? SnottyWong ^comment 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The numbers can be quite different depending on the specific research area of the subject, as some areas tend to have much higher citation counts than others. And even within a specific area, it comes down to a judgement call. I don't see a big contradiction between my and Xxanthippe's !votes, as they are based on the same general principle with different thresholds. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Struck the irrelevant part of my nomination rationale. SnottyWong ^confess 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I pretty much agree with David Eppstein, not a bad career so far but not that impressive, especially if the person himself wrote the Wiki article. Notability is established by others.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable professor, and worth keeping in my opinion. Jccort (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:ITSNOTABLE SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think it is reasonable for someone to say that a subject is or is not notable, without going into details. AGF, it represents a summary judgement on the basis of what has been said , and what is in the article. It's the equivalent of saying , per the other people who expressed the same opinion.Obviously is more helpful at least say what particular part of the prior arguments is particularly convincing, and yet more helpful to add some new argument —or even better, some new evidence. What is the opposite of helpful is to badger other contributors to the discussion. One should close based both on the arguments and the degree of support for them. Perhaps one should not take into account the behavior of those supporting a particular position, but people in all contexts tend to discount the views of those who interfere with the proceedings. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you're probably right. Stricken. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 06:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. When judging based on a borderline publication record, I look not just at the count of publications and of citations, but the journals in which they were published. Judging by the CV, in this case they are basically very good specialized journals, the leading ones but only in narrow fields. There are known in the most widely read and most rigorously refereed biology or science journals: even one of the papers being in Nature or PNAS would have made this a weak keep. If I had to give evidence for that being a good criterion, I learned this from the provost at Princeton, in a talk explaining the criteria he uses. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Borys[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources to demonstrate that the basic requirements for inclusion for biographies can be met. I can only find trivial mentions related to his position at 42 Entertainment but nothing actually about him. Unless sources can be found to show the general notability guideline can be met, this article should be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I could not find anything after doing a quick search. The article says he's won some awards, but all the references that would have verified that are redlinks, so there is no way of telling whether or not the awards are notable enough or to even do a basic verification. –MuZemike 22:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4702271&page=1

[1] ttp://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4702271&page=1

[1]