Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 11

< 10 July	12 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie Dzienny[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. One significant role, minor coverage. Too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENT. - SudoGhost ™ 10:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. One recurring role in one notable series fails WP:ENT. Lack of significant coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Potter[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. One significant role, minor coverage. SummerPhD (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT. - SudoGhost ™ 10:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Sorry Supah Ninjas fans, but his one recurring role in that notable series fails WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never seen his show, nor do I ever care to do so. While I agree the subject is certainly on the margins of WP:ENT in terms of career at this point, he does certainly appear to have a "large fan base" which is a vaguely enough defined requirement to make this a viable article for now. It could certainly do with more references, but I don't see the point of deleting it when it is a reasonably encyclopedic stub that is free of overly-fawning coverage. --Esprqii (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source showing this "large fan base", nor does the article reflect this. It does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. - SudoGhost ™ 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but if User:Esprqii were (hint) able to source "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" for this actor, and not just the series, then the actor might be seen as notable per WP:ENT. However, I do agree that this appears not to be the case and the article fails to show notability for the actor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, drive-by rating. Anyway, this kind of deletion is always mystifying to me. The actor stars in a television series on a US network--there is no doubt of that. To me, that appearance alone meets the basic GNG of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If he were an extra in the series with one line, then that's different, but this is the lead role. As far as the vague "large fan base" requirement, that seems easy enough to fill; he has a significant teen following, as evidenced by various fan clubs, Facebook page, blogs, etc. any Google search can turn up. I suppose those could be listed as ELs, but my sense of the purpose of that requirement is to contrast him with the extra with one line who would not have a following at all. As long as the subject is verifiable, let's remember this is WP:NOTPAPER. BTW, actor bios are not usually my thing; he just happened to be born in an area covered by a project I'm active with. --Esprqii (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance in a show cannot reasonably be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." He is an actor in the show. From the show, we know nothing significant about him, other than his name and a vague physical description. Additionally, as the show is the reason for his purported notability, it is hardly independent. The existence of fan clubs, Facebook pages, blogs, etc. shows there is some effort to either organize or drum up a following. Reliable sources evidencing a large fan base or cult following is something else entirely, IMO. Basically, the WP:ENT guideline seems to draw a sharp line between an actor with one significant role (or any number of minor roles) and those who have had multiple significant roles in notable productions. This actor has one significant role and very little coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the second criteria of WP:ENT, Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following., needs to be covered in multiple reliable, third-party sources if it is used as the reason to keep an article. Most actors will not meet #2 without also meeting #1. - SudoGhost ™ 08:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Holt[edit]

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

Essentially an unsourced BLP (BLP prod was removed based on one role being cited to imdb). One significant role, failing WP:ENT. Too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON for this young actress. Maybe next year. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Riley Snyder[edit]

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

Essentially an unsourced BLP (BLP prod was removed with the addition of a credit attributed to imdb). One significant role. Fails WP:ENT. Too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While he has some coverage, his young career is just starting to nudge at WP:ENT and his Gotham Award nudges at WP:ANYBIO. But a nudge is not an article. Wikipedia can ask that this one come back next year. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great French War[edit]

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

There has been discussion on the talk page that this term is a neologism and only used in Wikipedia. The article was prod'ed but the template was removed by an IP address. I bring this here for discussion to resolve this issue. I am essentially neutral. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a neologism and a fork of French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars. john k (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be supported by reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsupported neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisDesaix (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Term not in common use, The Proffesor (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MacEdition[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WEB by having only one reference that does not even include the phrase MacEdition. Google turns up exactly nothing related to the subject. Was previously nominated and kept in 2006, and hasn't been touched since. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, fails WP:V. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is verifiable as it seems to be mentioned here and here, but there is a lot of unreferenced claims about how it was a "respected web resource" among other information. There are no sources supporting the online publication's notability., and is at odds with WP:WEB. Also, the first deletion discussion was laughably bad, most of the argument for a keep refer back to an argument that "it does not appear too spammy!" I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The previous AfD is downright embarrassing but then again, I have no idea what WP:N looked like at that time. As for the article, I can find no sources that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:WEB. I would usually hesitate to !vote delete for a news published of any sort given how hard it can be to find coverage of the source and not by the source but this case seems very clear. OlYeller^Talktome 19:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note For the record, WP:N looked like this on November 30th, 2006, the date the last nomination occurred. The page is less comprehensive, but it still includes statements about notability such as the following:

it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself.
With respect to notability, the inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works.

Oh well, guess these statements were largely looked over in the last nomination. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was a massive case of WP:ILIKEIT. Almost everyone seems to think that whatever geek forum is HOT NOW has some long term notability; it usually doesn't. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar C. Otálvora[edit]

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

no references —AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And is "no references" a ground for deletion? Yet again, the nominator has opened an AfD only minutes after an article was created. Yet again, WP:BEFORE. AllyD (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the 20ish AfD like this from Assassin's Creed in the past three days. I've left another message on his talk page. I've also left a message on the editor's talk page who created Otálvora's article. Message was saying sorry about this and please add some references. A quick check shows reliable references for Otálvora, but they are in Spanish. Bgwhite (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now has some references. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and now referenced. I have asked the nominator to consider withdrawing his nomination. LadyofShalott 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the references are not quite right, but google translate only goes so far. There are alot of references and news articles out in google land that make him definitely notable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now it is referenced, it should be keep.--—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 11:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, are you withdrawing the nomination? LadyofShalott 13:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I want to withdraw the nomination.--—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 13:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 addition. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Gault[edit]

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

Best charting single got to #78 on the singles charts. Granted, there won't be many online references to him, but I'm curious as to where we draw the line. WP:BAND says that an act may be notable if they've charted a single. However, the Joel Whitburn books are chock full of artists who only charted once in the lower 1/4 of the chart, never charted again and faded into the past. And about 99% of these artists who never made it past the #75 range are completely unheard of in the Googleverse. I would add in this case that he recorded for a very small indie label.

I can't find any BLP info besides a date of birth in the Whitburn country singles book, so I would think that if there's almost nothing besides Whitburn to verify that he even exists, then a #78 single over 30 years ago (on a chart that currently stops at #60, for the record) probably doesn't cut it since we know nothing else about him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 21:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charted is charted. Once notable, always notable. And it is likely that more biographical information can be found on sources dated around the time the song charted that have not been digitized. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd argue to keep an article on the band Shurfire, who despite having a #47 hit are so obscure that Joel Whitburn can't even confirm any of the band members' names?! Get real. Did you ignore the "MAY" in the sentence I highlighted? Nowhere does it say that charted single = GUARANTEED notability, it only means "may" be notable. Not "will", "May". I just love how you think that policy's ironclad and guaranteed to make an article stay even if it's someone whose only hit got to #100. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 3 charted singles and some verifiable (albeit minimal) biographical info - what exactly is the problem here? Should we purge Wikipedia of all musicians who were slightly famous for a period of time which happens to predate the age of the internet? I think not. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources. Do you have any? Because I found only ONE, and it's trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only claim to notability here it seems is that he had the 78th most-played country song in a week once. If he'd had the 78th best-selling single (all genres) in a week (i.e. bordering on a genuine hit record) then that might be enough to say that he's notable but such a low placing on a specialist chart based on airplay is not enough on its own. There is apparently no significant coverage of Lenny Gault, with the sources available giving him the briefest of mentions. So by our notability guidelines he isn't notable. I'm in two minds though - he fails established notability criteria but is deleting this necessarily going to benefit the encyclopedia?--Michig (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Waffle much? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On occasions.--Michig (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment I see no problem with a user fairly weighing the evidence in favor of and against deletion during an AfD discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added. I'm waiting for Endalecomplex to change their vote so I can withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Per nom's above comment (thanks, again, for taking a second look during an AfD at your own nonmination), and refs (that are now reflected in the article; though their existence, whether or not reflected in the article, would have been sufficient).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional references. Sorry TPH, I didn't realize you were waiting for me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt Boss[edit]

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

Minor fictional character with no third-party significant sources to justify notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP, at this point the editor Black Kite seems to be throwing a hissy fit nominating nominating article left and right that I have edited for disagreeing with him. I think he should be barred from nominating articles until he calms down. Mathewignash (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not explained how this nomination meets WP:SK. It would be better if you explained how this character meets WP:N, and demonstrated signficant third-party sources about the character themselves. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't need to as the nomination was done in bad faith and should be ended. Tried to remove several images from the page, and when I restored them you nominated the article for deletion as "payback". Your fits are embarising, and you have no place nominating articles for deletion right now until you calm down. Mathewignash (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you can show me how the character is independently notable and has multiple significant third-party sourcing I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added a review of the toy by toy expert Benson Yee, and a link to a new page froma new service talking about the episode that starred Dirt Boss. Mathewignash (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't understand why this is even being nominated. The article has been around since March 2005 with no complaints until what seems to be a WP:POINTy deletion nomination now. Five references make it clear that there's enough information to keep this page intact. Absconded Northerner (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those references are from Transformers-related sources (i.e. not independent). Therefore none of them meet WP:RS. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand this. Are you saying that Wikipedia should only accept sources when the provider doesn't care? Given my recent edits, are you going to exclude the ATP from tennis-related articles? Even if all the sources are fansites, there are still enough of them to make the article noteworthy. Absconded Northerner (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fansites are not reliable sources and it matters not if there are 5,000 of them; these fansites do not help this article pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So even if 5000 different sites have been created by fans, something isn't notable? I'm having great difficulty understanding your reasoning there. I've seen several sites that could be described as fan sites used as references on various topics, because fans are often the ones who have most knowledge on a particular topic. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:N is about if the world at large is interested in the subject matter or not, as expressed by people writing about them in reliable sources. The things which are often reliable sources write about them because there is real world interest, that in turn means the book, magazine etc. will sell which is generally the purpose of the publications. If there are 5000 fansites but no one believe there is a market interest to be exploited that doesn't really line up. A more usual situation is that the fansites are going into a level of detail which isn't of general interest, or full of fan made fiction, personal interpretations etc. The publications tend to not cover that unless that has in itself become notable. So yes, if your fictious circumstance exists then it wouldn't be suitable for an article. Generally speaking if fan sites are being used for references then there is a problem. Verifiability is non-negotiable requirement for article content, and that requires reliable sourcing which most fan sites will fail on, they won't be fact checked, the person writing won't be a recognised expert in the field etc.As to fans having the most knowledge, where did they get that knowledge from? If it appeared out of thin air, or is their interpretation of primary sources then that's going to be a problem. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wont !Vote delete, as I disagree with policy on the deletion of articles such as this. That said, the nominating statement appears to be accurate, and the character appears to not be notable, which means this nomination was not made in bad faith. Is there a factual or policy based reason that refutes the nomination and indicates why this article should not be deleted? Monty₈₄₅ 02:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for reference, I added a new page talking about Dirt Boss on the Transformers TV series, and a review from Benson Yee's web site, who is considered a notable toy expert. Mathewignash (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG and WP:V by not having sufficient out-of-universe reliable sources to establish notability. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, Redirect to Transformers(or somewhere else), to preserve the information for a future merge, or if sources are found. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I don't 100% agree with Black Kite. It seems to me that Black Kite's view is that the sources aren't independent; but some of them clearly are. The problem is not the independence of the sources, but their reliability, in that I see no evidence of editorial fact-checking to the necessary standards.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to look closely, the sources are just not reliable enough to WP:verify notability. See WP:RS for standards on what constitutes reliable (fact-checking and peer review). Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination and no one is advocating to delete the current redirect page (non-admin closure). --Lambiam 21:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uniala (constructed language)[edit]

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

I'll start off with what I wrote before: "Completely non-notable Esperantido which, if Google is any judge, doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia, its mirrors, and wherever Petro Stojan published the grammar." I thought it was an open-and-shut case, which is why I didn't bother using the AfD tag that required that I open a debate. However, User:Wiwaxia removed the tag, arguing that the article was notable because the "[l]anguage was invented in 1923 and is still known today! Also, its history was described in the 1976 ediiton of Eco-logos." This seems dubious to me for two reasons. First, there is probably a policy on Wikipedia stating that age doesn't make a subject inherently notable. Sure it's old, but so what? Second, after a fairly thorough search of the internet (including JSTOR), I had a tough time proving that Uniala exists, which makes me wonder in what circles it is known. None that use the internet, apparently. Eco-logos was apparently an Esperantist journal from the 70s whose purpose was to discuss Esperantidos, and it took a while just to figure out that much about it, since it too is rarely mentioned on the internet and does not appear in JSTOR. WP:NOTE, plain and simple. *bows* Hermione is a dude (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An update: User:AllyD has added a citation to the page, but it is only to a list of Pater Nosters which the author says was taken from a list compiled by Petro Stojan, who is the creator of Uniala. This is still insufficient to establish notability.Hermione is a dude (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was curious about this one and did turn up a couple of 3rd party mentions: the 1958 Mario Pei book and it is listed in the Appendix to Arika Okrent's "In the land of invented languages" (ISBN 0812980891). But these do fall well short of deep discussion. AllyD (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with both books is that they contain hundreds of languages. Both are excellent resources, but it would go too far to treat a bare mentioning in them as a proof of notability alone. It does of course add up to it, but for a language to have an article on its own, more sources are needed. My feeling is that Uniala should be listed in a list of esperantids, not in a separate article. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is a Merge into Esperantido the optimal solution to this and possibly other articles on such languages, whose substance hardly rises above a basic stub? AllyD (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Uniala should be included on Wikipedia just because it exists. While Esperantidos in general as well as specific examples are notable we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that they all are. Hermione is a dude (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a thing doesn't have to be particularly notable to be mentioned IN an article. I really can't see any harm in including it in a list, like the old List of Esperantidos used to be before it became a redirect. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Esperantido. Angr (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: The only information contained in the article is in fact this: "Uniala is an international auxiliary language created in 1923 by P. J. Troost and Petro Stojan. That's bit of info is worth preserving. Esperantido would be one possibility, but there is also an the article about Petro Stojan that might even be a better place. In that article, you'll find that there are no less than another four of these babies:

Ariana or Aryana was one of the international auxiliary language projects by Petro Stojan from 1912 and was an esperantido whose word stock was based on Pre-Indo-European (Aryan) radicals. It was a pre-form of Amiana. The project received Montagu C. Butler Library classification 419.31 “1912”.
Amiana is one of the constructed language projects by Petro Stojan. It is an evolved form of Ariana and is an Esperantido. The project was first presented in 1919 and its final version appeared in 1922 but was never published. It received Montagu C. Butler Library classification 419.31 “1919” with a comment: ˝An incomplete, unfinished and fuzzy sketch˝ (˝skizo nekompleta, nefinita, nebula˝).
Espo is a constructed language, a pra-form of Eo created by Petro Stojan under the pseudonym (Ribaulb) in 1926 but never published. It does not use the Esperanto correlatives but a naturalistic system of Ido. The word "Espo" is also used among Idists as an offensive word for Esperanto.
Eo is an esperantido proposed by Petro Stojan in 1926 under the pseudonym Ribauld. Its main characteristic is very short radicals.

And that's it, this is their entire content. It is highly unlikely that any of them will ever grow into anything more than what they already are. It's quite obvious that none of these projects are even remotely close to being notable. Of course, they deserve being mentioned in the article about Stojan, so we might as well move the information there and delete the whole bunch. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) For the record, Uniala was turned into a redirect even at the Esperanto edition, where apparently the only criterion for including a constructed language is being one.[reply]

Redirecting these conlang articles to Petro Stojan wouldn't be a bad idea. Hermione is a dude (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done for all five of them. I realise this is me being perhaps a bit too bold while the AFD is not concluded yet, but it's also obvious that this is the best anyone could make of it. The redirects can stay or be removed, it doesn't really matter. These five articles were among the worst-visited of the entire WP:CL anyway (1-5 visitors a month). —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 02:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitefish Community Library[edit]

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

Article is about a library that does not appear to be notable. Library generates 10 Google News hits, but all are from local newspapers (mainly regarding a legal issue to close the library). EdwardZhao (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If system is notable, create Flathead County Library System and merge individual libraries there StarM 01:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Library in a very small town. No evidence of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whitefish is a nice little town, and there are some notable things about it, such as the Great Northern Depot, its proximity to Glacier National Park, and a few other historic buildings. The library doesn't stand out as notable, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. To paraphrase Stifle at an unrelated DRV, to the extent that the guideline WP:GNG was met, the consensus here is that applying that non-binding guideline is not appropriate in this instance. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Elephant[edit]

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

Tagged A7 and deleted. Deletion has been queried, so bringing it to AfD for consensus. Peridon (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion by Cunard on Peridon's talk page — only "coverage" found is trivial. The chain has a whopping 8 locations, which is nothing much at all. I could find no other sources beyond tangential, trivial ones. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the two articles, titled "Polished Red Elephant dishes up pizza with pizazz" and "Red Elephant an incredible restaurant", are behind paywalls is no reason to deem them trivial coverage. Cunard (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See this article (December 15, 2006) and this article (January 10, 2007) from the Tallahassee Democrat. The first article, written by Ashby Stiff, is titled "Polished Red Elephant dishes up pizza with pizazz". The second article, written by Steve Liner, is titled "Red Elephant an incredible restaurant". As evidenced by their titles, these reviews nontrivially discuss the restaurant Red Elephant.
See also this article (October 8, 2009) from The Ledger. Titled "The Red Elephant Pizza And Grill", the review provides constructive criticism about the restaurant:
A couple of things they can do to improve are:
Serve bread with salads and pasta.
Thicken the Alfredo sauce a bit.
There is sufficient coverage here for the restaurant to pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Getting reviewed in local papers does not make a small restaurant chain notable. No showing of technical, cultural, or historical significance. I doubt these guys invented pizza, or even the concept of a pizza restaurant. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the sources are reviews is no reason to discount them from establishing notability. Restaurants primarily receive coverage from reviews, not journals or other media. To require non-review sources places an unfair, unreasonable burden on restaurants. A burden that is not supported by policy.
Subject specific notability guidelines like Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) supplement the overarching notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability. Failing the former (an assertion which I contest) does not mandate deletion when a subject passes the latter. Without question, The Red Elephant passes Wikipedia:Notability. It has received coverage in the Tallahassee Democrat, The Ledger, Dothan Eagle, and Jax Air News. The coverage is from the U.S. state Florida and the U.S. state Alabama. This coverage is from 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. Coverage of this restaurant is diverse and persistent.
Though it is certain that "these guys did not invent pizza, or even the concept of a pizza restaurant" (paraphrase), notability does not require this. The significant independent coverage in reliable sources that are diverse and persistent demonstrates that this restaurant is notable and should have a Wikipedia article. Cunard (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources:
This article from Dothan Eagle, titled "Red Elephant makes good first impression", was published on February 24, 2010.

This article from Jax Air News, titled "Red Elephant Pizza: Restaurant with a winning formula", was published on April 30, 2009.
Cunard (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but they contribute nothing to notability, so far as I can see. They're local press reviews of a local restaurant - and I can't remember seeing a local press review of a local restaurant that said 'this place is crap - for God's sake don't go there, you mightn't survive'. Just like motoring correspondents never say 'the new Shiva Fosterchild has a tacky looking plastic dash, all the knobs fell off and it took half an hour to start if it was raining'. They don't say things like this because they are looking for advertising business. Those reviews indicate a place that exists, and sells pizza and beer. Nothing special about that. Peridon (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Elephant is not merely a restaurant. It is a restaurant chain.
The sources are independent, reliable, and in-depth. They fulfill the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia:Notability does not discriminate against sources for being local.
I dispute your contention that local reviews of a restaurant are mainly for "advertising business". Such reviews provide honest opinions about the reviewers' assessments of the restaurants. For example, in the Jax Air News article, the reviewer mixes praise with criticism (my bolding):
Our lunch entrees were a bit spotty, with the Margherita Chicken Pizza ($6.99, individual) ending up as a thumbs down. We liked the crispy bottom and the dense chewiness of the crust, but the tomatoes, chicken and pesto were overwhelmed by piles of basil. Another pizza, this time a plain cheese pie, went over better, with special compliments to both the quality of the cheese and the mild red sauce.

For some reason, my salad was a miss as well, despite having an abundance of everything. I ordered the Southwest Chicken Salad ($7.69) and it came with loads of grilled chicken, olives, onions, tomatoes and colorful tortillas chips on top. However, there was very little dressing and the chicken was too hot when it was placed on top of the greens. This resulted in limp, wilted lettuce.

...
The Red Elephant appears to have a winning recipe - a little something for everyone. If they could spend some time on the menu and make every item as successful as the appetizers, this could easily become a neighborhood favorite.
It is highly inaccurate to assume that this article is paid advertising. I consider this review tantamount to reviews about books. Measured criticism mixed with measured praise.
You write: "Those reviews indicate a place that exists, and sells pizza and beer. Nothing special about that." – Wikipedia:Notability does not deny inclusion of a place that merely "sells pizza and beer". It requires that a subject receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not paper.
I have provided multiple independent reliable sources. Sources spanning several years and two U.S. states. The Red Elephant meets the criteria for inclusion despite editors' invalid discounting of valid sources. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are reviews in local papers in the Florida Panhandle and adjoining areas of Alabama. They sent someone to one of this local chain's eight locations and gave an opinion. That kind of local coverage still doesn't make these pizza restaurants have achieved anything of the kind that gets memorialized in an encyclopedia; there's no long term historical notability here. Which is why the notability guideline for businesses counts "routine restaurant reviews" in its list of coverage that does not establish encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability does not require "long term historical notability"; it requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That these newspapers deemed The Red Elephant to be worthy of coverage means that it passes the bar of notability. Your personal view of notability conflicts with the Wikipedia guideline for notability. As Uncle G (talk · contribs) once wrote:
Notability is not the same as the concepts of fame or importance. A subject that is not famous or that is not important is not automatically non-notable; and conversely a subject that is notable is not automatically famous nor important. The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population — a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people.
To understand this, consider that the primary notability criterion makes no mention of readership. A subject is not notable under the primary criterion if it is widely read about. It is notable by dint of people writing about it. It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion.
Whilst someone may become famous because lots of people read an article about them in a mass-market tabloid newspaper, what makes that person notable, or rather what demonstrates that that person is notable, is the fact that the journalist, editor, and publisher at the newspaper went to the effort of researching, writing, and publishing an independently sourced non-trivial article about that person.
A "showing of technical, cultural, or historical significance" (your first post) is not necessary. I need only show that The Red Elephant has received the requisite coverage in multiple reliable newspapers.
I note that the "routine restaurant reviews" was added on June 20, 2011, by Lambiam (talk · contribs) to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies without any discussion. It cannot be considered a valid part of the guideline.
Paraphrasing from Alansohn (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9#Matt Kassel about subject-specific notability guidelines: WP:CORP is subordinate to WP:N. WP:CORP is a "great argument for retention, but an awful one for deletion, especially if the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate that it meets general notability guidelines as is the case here". Cunard (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The primary form of secondary coverage a restaurant receives is reviews. The discounting of restaurant reviews bars the inclusion of most restaurants. Wikipedia is not paper, so there is no reason not to include verifiable, notable subjects such as restaurants that pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Would the editors who support deletion explain why they believe The Red Elephant fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline despite its having received significant coverage in four reliable publications? Cunard (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it hasn't received significant coverage. Restaurant reviews in hometown newspapers aren't the sort of thing that lifts these unremarkable restaurants past the run of the mill. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided three non-review articles below. Wikipedia:Notability merely requires that a subject has received "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. It does not require a subject pass WP:MILL. Cunard (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This discussion has been had before: restaurant reviews only establish verifiability and do not confer notability. This is because every restaurant is reviewed by local newspapers at some point in its history. In the case of restaurants, significant coverage would entail objective coverage in articles about the restaurant's/chain's practices and operations. Reviews do not count because they are subjective opinions about the location and its menu. This is regardless of whether the source of the review is a known, reliable source because of said subjective nature.

You have to understand the difference between a news story about a restaurant and a review of a restaurant. An news story will have extensive fact checking and editorial oversight by the reporter and their supervisors to insure that the article is truthful and factual. A review traditionally does not receive the level of oversight because they are not news stories but opinion pieces. Now, I am not stating you cannot use a review as a source in article; they can be used to establish information about how a menu affects the operation's underlying business structure, e.g. While the Xxxxx opened to great fanfare, critic's opinions of chef Joe Blow's cuisine were rather harsh, and the public agreed... In a case such as these, this is were a review would be a valid, citable source because it verifies the negative opinion of the fare served at this restaurant I made up. But in itself, said review would not establish why Xxxxx was notable.

Finally Cunard, you have to understand that the notability guidelines have several subsections that establish exceptions to the rule. You keep looking at the main page at WP:Note while ignoring WP:Org which governs this exact situation. Please look at the links Smerdis and others have provided. They explain our positions on why this is not a notable chain. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your contention that WP:Org supersedes WP:Note. The latter which is watched by many has received more oversight than the former which is watched by few. Therefore, WP:Note is more representative of consensus. From the second paragraph of WP:Note (my bolding):
A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.
Therefore, WP:Org is, as my quote from Alansohn demonstrates, a superb argument for retention but an awful one for deletion.
Reviews establish notability because they demonstrate that a restaurant chain has been noticed and noted by newspapers' journalists and editors. This is the same as book reviews. That such articles are subjective should not detract from their ability to establish notability.

However, I accept that you do reject reviews from establishing notability. I have provided three additional non-review sources that provide objective nontrivial coverage about The Red Elephant:

Objective coverage: This article from The Florida Times-Union:
A new restaurant opened last week in Mandarin called The Red Elephant Pizza and Grill. The eatery, at 10131-12 San Jose Blvd. (near Crown Point Road), is part of a small chain based in Tallahassee that features a wide selection of salads, burgers and pizzas. Salads cost $8 or less, a large pizza (which serves three to four) is about $19 and burgers are under $8. Family friendly, the restaurant also has a game room for the kids. The Mandarin location is the fifth for Red Elephant, a restaurant concept launched by a former Outback Steakhouse proprietor.
This article from The Tampa Tribune:
The Red Elephant Pizza and Grill. Based in Tallahassee, this 2-year-old business tries to marry an upscale, sophisticated restaurant with wine, specialty pizza and ciabatta bread sandwiches in a family-friendly atmosphere. It features a kids game room, but in a back area so it doesn't dominate the restaurant, said company Vice President Carl Sahlsten, a former president of OSI Restaurant Partners' Carrabba's Italian Grill brand. Red Elephant opened a store in Tampa's Carrollwood area in October and plans to open up to four restaurants in west central Florida and north Florida this year, he said.
This article from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune:
The Red Elephant Pizza and Grill opened this week in University Park, the shopping center west of Honore Avenue and north of University Parkway. It will be open for lunch and dinner, 11 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday. It serves pizza, salads, burgers, steak, chicken, mahi mahi and salmon. It is the seventh Red Elephant location opened by partners John Schrowant, a former Outback Steakhouse franchise owner, and Carl Sahlsten, former president of Carrabba's Italian Grill Inc. 351-4646. redelephantpizza.com
While not the main subject of these articles, The Red Elephant receives the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
* "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.
Cunard (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These slight blurbs are routinely carried in local papers about local businesses. They establish that the business exists, that it serves lunch and dinner, and the sort of items it has on its menu. They aren't significant coverage either. One problem is that every local beanery gets a couple of these reviews and notices from time to time. It still doesn't make them something you'd expect to find covered in an encyclopedia. And FWIW, notability in Wikipedia has always had the "long term historical" part implied. "Historic significance" would have been clearer than "notability" IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews suffice in establishing notability. This additional objective newspaper coverage is provided for Jerem43 (talk · contribs). I again note that Wikipedia:Notability represents community consensus, while notability in Wikipedia is merely an article. Wikipedia:Notability does not require "historic significance".
If reviews and objective newspaper coverage do not establish notability for restaurants, what does? Cunard (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments you post are not establishing notability, just verifiability. Show me something about the company besides listings of its addresses and the approximate prices paid by the reviewer. To establish notability, you need something other than information that can be found in a phone book or travel guide. You need more, allot more. Look at TeaNY for an example of a article about a small restaurant that is notable. The two articles cited in that article state information about the restaurant beyond reviews. Those quotes you listed above are not ABOUT the chain in question. You need to find stuff that is not a parroting of information from the phone book (address, phone); average meal costs or type of food served (restaurant guide); its hours or who founded it (the company web site); Nothing in those tell us why the chain is notable. You have only established that the chain exists. You need to find something about its operations, its history or business practices. Find something about where it fits in its market segment in the pizza segment of the industry, how it is affecting its competitors or how it is changing the industry.

Try the New York Times or the business section of the Miami Herald and see if they have any information about the company. You can also also try Nation's Restaurant News. If you can find something in those sources, you will be able state that it is notable. I've looked, you won't find anything, of the 960,000 Google hits, the first 2000 are information on locations, the menu or reviews. If there were a viable, citable source in there - I can't find it. Foodservice is what I do on WP, and I can tell you that this chain has zero notability. Compare this article to Bertucci's or Pizzeria Uno and see the difference in the type of sources used to establish why these chains are notable and compare them to what you are using. You will see why and the Red Elephant is not notable.

Finally, WP:Note is a multi-page document that has several sub-pages that address certain situations that may arise. Basically WP:Org is PART of the notability guidelines, not a separate policy. As such you cannot pick and choose which sections of the policy you want to apply or claim that you do not accept it because it is on a sub-page of the notability guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TeaNY has two sources: The first source, titled "It's a Teany cafe, and Moby likes it that way" and composed mainly of quotes, is primarily about its notable founder, Moby. The second source, titled "Disaster Report: Late Night Blaze at Moby's Teany", is a routine news report about a fire. The coverage in TeaNY is far inferior to the coverage in The Red Elephant. The Red Elephant reviews, coupled with the objective coverage I provided above, are sufficient to write a short article with information about its history and food.
The New York Times and the Miami Herald, if they wrote about The Red Elephant, would likely do so in reviews, which you deem insufficient in establishing notability. However, it is unlikely that The New York Times, based in New York, would write about a chain based in Florida. That The Red Elephant is not covered in the Miami Herald and National Restaurant News, a trade publication, does not indicate that it's non-notable. Coverage in seven newspapers, consisting of five reviews and three objective articles, is sufficient to establish notability.
Passing WP:Org is not necessary when WP:Note is met. From the second paragraph of WP:Note (my bolding):
A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.
However, I argue that WP:Org is also met. From WP:Org#Primary criteria:
See also ... Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline
A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.
I note again that the disqualifying of "routine restaurant reviews" section was added in without any discussion by Lambiam (talk · contribs) on June 20, 2011. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been significant coverage. You are confusing breadth of coverage with depth of coverage- there is no in-depth coverage of the company in any of the provided sources, whether here or in the article. Additionally, you are confusing the simple publication of factual information, such as address, as significant coverage. The sources you provide are not of a quality standard and article doesn't meet the established standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Redlands Palomino Company[edit]

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

Not clear how this might meet WP:BAND, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than adequate coverage to establish notability. In addition to those cited in the article there are also two articles from Maverick magazine, hidden behind a paywall at Britannica.com ([1], [2]).--Michig (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Courcelles 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Tau Omega (Philippines)[edit]

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

No significant coverage indicating notability. Same rationale for the following:

Delta Phi Omicron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gamma Phi Omicron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sandigan Phi Solid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rho Delta Rho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tau Alpha Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Upsilon Phi Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sigma Lambda Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gamma Lambda Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Moray An Par (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No automation used here but maybe even worse — a mass nomination without the slightest indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed. "Same rationale for the following..." doesn't cut it. What are you finding for each specific listing in your research? Has each creating writer been notified? Why is there not a place for the consideration and debate of each nomination, which are "similar" only in the respect that they are fraternities or sororities from the Philippines. We should not be half-assing this, in my opinion. I urge a speedy close of all nominations except for the first-named, about the merit of which I have no opinion at this time. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically finding for independent sources, which of course failed. Every major contributor has been informed. Moray An Par (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've got some Philippines-based fraternities in my watchlist. (Sigma Lambda Phi is the one where I saw this AfD notice.) In my experience with these articles, there is a tendency to mirror the fraternities' official web pages and disregard (whether innocently or flagrantly I'm not sure) Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and formatting. If the nominator has noticed that pattern in the nominated articles, searched for independent sources and found none, and notified the major contributors, then I'd say the nomination is in good faith and proper. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, but it's a weak delete for Rho Delta Rho. All the articles are lacking in independent sources. Many of them could probably be speedy deleted for copying text from their respective fraternities' websites. RDR is probably the one in the best condition, but even it has issues. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that being in good or bad condition is out of the question. RDR may be the best written among them but that doesn't mean that it's the least deleteable too. Moray An Par (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure where the bar is on "significant notability", Googling on '"Gamma Phi Omicron" site:ph' gives a couple of mentions in a newspaper and inclusion in a bio of a former member of the Philippine Congress. "Sigma Lambda Phi" also gets one reasonable mention on an edu.ph site.Naraht (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain as to how these passing mentions could be considered WP:SIGCOV. Please provide actual sources which can be used to write the articles. "'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." Moray An Par (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Second comment (but on a different enough topic to not be combined.... Google News is almost *useless* in regards to groups like this. Check out the Manila Bulletin (which I have for each of these, no real hits) and some of the other newspapers in Manila and if the group is primarily from Mindanao, the Davao city newspaper.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; Wikipedia is not a web host. I strongly suspect this information is copied over from internal files/webpages of the fraternities in question (at least, I've seen fraternities do that before). It doesn't belong here. I could support some sort of list of fraternities active in the Phillipines, although since we don't host lists of external links I'm not quite sure how it could work. -- stillnotelf is invisible 20:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Each of these fraternities / Honors Societies are not covered by the kind of sources required by organizations. I agree with the above editors' sentiments that these pages represent using Wikipedia as a webhost and are inappropriate content. The amount of work and the clarity of a page also doesn't have any bearing on its notability, as noted by Moray An Par. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. The Proffesor (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speak (band)[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable--not enough coverage —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just enough coverage in my view.--Michig (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree w/Michig. There doesn't appear to be an abundance of coverage, but enough exists such that subject satisfies criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 16:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is sufficient to pass WP:BAND (criterion #1).Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cleanup required. The only delete comment is from the nominator. While the article at present does require extra sources, sufficient sources have been presented to meet criterion 1 of WP:NBOOKS, in depth coverage by third party sources. These need to be added as soon as possible, but have been presented, so I'm closing this discussion as keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectuals and Society[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and is has serious tone issues. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve As things stand, this article is just a summary of Sowell's book. But a Google Books search shows that the book (only 2 years old) has sufficient discussion to indicate notability. For example, it is criticised in "Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk Among Us" and "Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Social and Political Theory" AllyD (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment I'm not sure if my nominations already counts as a delete vote but as a comment, the fact that two books (whose notability is also nonexistent) cite it isn't a justification for notability. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOOKS with at least 2 in depth critical reviews of the book avialble (Washington Times and National Review Online). It would be nice to have a review from the other end of the political spectrum to help ensure a nuetral article can be written however. RadioFan (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 19:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...But needs more souces Goldblooded (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Grelick[edit]

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

At least, this article needs a major cleanup to get it up to code. However, I feel the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now--she's a former town supervisor (mayor-equivalent) of a town with population 120K (it's a suburb of Buffalo, New York). Very borderline. I looked for sources, but aside from the Buffalo Business Journal article that's linked in the article [3] I came up pretty blank. She apparently ran for state legislature and lost in 2006 as well. If somebody can find good sources that meet WP:GNG I could be persuaded to change my !vote. Meelar (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do It My Way[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Unreleased debut recording by non notable artist. Fails at WP:NSONGS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any coverage for this song beyond social networking pages and the artist's official site. It does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Bhagwant Shrimad Buddhisagar Suriswarji Maharaj Saheb[edit]

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

No sources provided, looks to be original research done by someone with a COI. Cannot find sources. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 19:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no prejudice against sources not in the interwebz and/or not in English. But no sources are provided, and the writing of the article actually doesn't bode well: POV, with a distinct hagiographic tone. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, multiple POV failures (great man, great patriot, etc.), definitely hagiographic. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions. If he's so well-known, why didn't I find any evidence on Google and Yahoo, even more why weren't any books or mentions in general added to the article in the first place? SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball announcers catch phrases on homers[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, amounts to WP:FANCRUFT. Many references are to sources of questionable reliability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft that fails WP:N. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage discussing broadcasters as a whole using catch phrases. Without such sources, this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information that is WP:FANCRUFT. —Bagumba (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Fairly OddParents characters. Courcelles 00:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Turner (character)[edit]

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

This character has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 17:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge into the main fairly odd parents articleSeasider91 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of The Fairly OddParents characters - nothing here that's not found there. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there's as others have suggested. Eeekster (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems like a reasonable compromise. Article has no sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect&protect There is already Timmy Turner (a longstanding redirect to List of The Fairly OddParents characters#Timmy Turner that unfortunately gets restored to its former WP:FANCRUFT article-self semi-frequently), and it's bad enough to have edit-wars there. WP simply doesn't need another edit-war-magnet redirect to watch. Also, if it was decided to have an article for this character, the discussion needs to take place at/for Timmy Turner, not this article with the disambiguator. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. I am sure sources exist for the character, but until they are found, it does not need to be split. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect against re-creation: Per Sgeureka. The fictional character as a stand-alone subject does not meet the general notability guideline. The content is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work, so I believe that a merge is not justified. As the article title has disambiguation, it is not a plausible search term, so I believe that a redirect is not justified either, particularly not when there is already a redirect without disambiguation. Jfgslo (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 - previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran miracle JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quran numeric miracle[edit]

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

Article about an obscure bit of numerology related to the Quran. No reliable sources quoted, nor any to be found, to indicate that anyone outside of the original author (one Abdullah Jalghoum) and some zealous bloggers cares about this particular numerical coincidence. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom: non-notable numerology William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete, the article has good sources an encyclopedic source of wikiislam and the arabic book by Abdullah Jalghoom Abrahamicperson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

do not delete There are new sources that state the same information ( A book by Halis Aydemir). The link of books description in google books is given in the references section. Humtvarytv (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2011 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koron (music)[edit]

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

No references and improper editing. —AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 16:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now tidied and referenced using the wonders of a Google query. "Improper editing" can be fixed: see WP:BEFORE #10. AllyD (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I also note that this article was brought to AfD a mere 7 minutes after it was created. AllyD (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Aside from the reference I added to the article, Google Books turns up snippet views in "Encyclopædia Iranica", in an "Iran almanac and book of facts", and in "Der Islam im Spiegel zeigenössischer Literatur der islamischen Welt" and possibly the New Grove (which has no preview). So well-attested. The remaining question, though, is whether it can sustain an article in itself, or is more appropriate merged into another article on Iranian music? This is where proper time for consideration by experts in the field - the normal maturing of a new article - is worthwhile. AllyD (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the editing is not proper but the source is reliable. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Chamberlain (golfer)[edit]

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

References do not prove this person and a blog cannot be accepted [4], thanks. —AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 15:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are references out there. This is not a reason to bring a person to AfD. Nominator needs to read WP:BEFORE. That being said, he just recently turned pro on the Europro tour.[5]. Does not satisfy notability guidelines for golf. Bgwhite (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Rogan[edit]

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

This is a low quality article with one source, in state of needing terrible cleanup. It is a stub, non-notable, and a possible hoax. The encyclopedia does not need articles like this. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I did my best to figure out who this guy is. I think he played for Olympic AFC, (Wellington Olympic AFC). As the organization is semiprofessional, he clearly fails WP:Footy/Notability and there is nothing to suggest that WP:N is met. I could not verify the claim that he has played for Hamburger Sport-Verein (which if true would change the discussion). Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he clearly fails WP:GNG in the absence of significant coverage. I have been unable to verify that he has played for Hamburger SV and Hertha BSC as the article claims. As such, he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable and no credible claim of notability - apprentice claims only. Appears to be agent's advert for client; WP:NOT a CV repository.--ClubOranje^T 11:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no indication of importance or significance JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Diaz-Rosado[edit]

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

For no references and in other language. —AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (and so tagged). Translated the page to English and found a profile that would be suitable on Facebook, but not a Wikipedia article.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bajsmannen[edit]

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

Not notable, nothing to be found in reliable sources. The closest thing to a real reference I could find is this, a chatty piece of fake internet journalism from an unreliable source (see the Swedish article for Sourze, for instance). Drmies (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article fails WP:GNG as the subject hasn't received WP:SIGCOV (as far as I can tell). I turned up this article and this website mentioning the subject, but they aren't exactly stellar examples of WP:RS. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failing all notability guidelines. as of now atleast. needs sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. œ ^™ 16:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goop[edit]

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

This page provides no real information and is useless Seasider91 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Seasider91, please read WP:DISAMBIG. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do we have enough topics to justify a disambiguation page? No, only two that I can see - so surely hatnotes will suffice? Giant Snowman 14:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per WP:SK, a speedy keep is appropriate when the nominator advances no argument for deletion. I see none here. There is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, thus WP:DPAGES is appropriate. I don't think WP:HAT is the best fit here because while we could link between the two articles, the whole thing would have to be redone if a third article that needs WP:D is added. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Sailing to Byzantium, who incidentally has a great username. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo José Araújo Ferreira[edit]

article should stay. he is a member of AC Milan's first team. and a member of Portugal's youth teams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.104.170 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:Footy. A player without professional appearance. Wikipeida is not a crystal ball to predict a youth fotoballer would became famous/became professional Matthew_hk t c 14:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep he has signed professional terms and is in the senior squad of AC Milan.Seasider91 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't actually played in a fully-professional league yet, failing WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage" - there is nothing here beyond routine sports reports + transfer news, which violates WP:NTEMP. Giant Snowman 14:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article asserts its own non-notability. He has not played in a fully pro league and therefore fails WP:NSPORT. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep As someone already said, "he has signed professional terms and is in the senior squad of AC Milan."

http://www.legaseriea.it/it/serie-a-tim/calcio-mercato/squadre/-/trasferimento/1716

http://www.maisfutebol.iol.pt/fcporto/ac-milan-fc-porto-ricardo-ferreira-hugo-sousa-juniores-futebol/1265356-1304.html

--Hydao (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In WP:footy it clearly stated "professional" means a player who made his professional debut in a professional league, while WP:GNG is for the genreal news coverage, ongoning afd of Lucas Piazón discussed what is news coverage and for sure you won't saw a in-deapth article in BBC for Ricardo Ferreira had published yet. Matthew_hk t c 16:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Well, the article should be deleted then. I (or someone else) will create the page again once he debuts professionally. Meanwhile, I'm going to copy/paste the stuff.

--Hydao (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mashed Potatoes (bootleg)[edit]

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

Contested (or rather removed without comment) PROD. Non-notable home-made compilation of Smashing Pumpkins tracks. We already have Mashed Potatoes (album) which redirects to the band's article. Michig (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the albums page as a subsection.Seasider91 (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. Cannot find any reliable source that mentions this private compilation album.--Michaela den (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:MUSIC, bootlegs are generally not notable. No coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Technologies[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Virtually the only fact covered by cited independent sources is that a firewall they used to produce was discontinued. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PROD was contested with no reason given. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Another software company ... that offers security, messaging, voice and collaboration products for small and medium businesses advertising on Wikipedia. Most of the coverage seems to focus on the fact that they discontinued several products, which would suggest that none of them have had significant effects on technology, history, or culture.

NOTE: I am concurrently nominating Kerio Control and Kerio Connect for deletion. Those pages areabout products of this business. They probably should share the same fate for aye or nay. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge A (historically important) software company, made famous for their Personal Firewall and WinRoute (Think ICS before ICS) products which have since merged into their Connect product. There is plenty of independent sources as evidence of notability. This took me about 5 minutes to gather just a handful of news sources so you can't have tried very hard to check its notability. There is plenty of evidence in the two supporting articles Kerio Connect and Kerio Control which would rectify the lack of references if they were merged into the main article. --Hm2k (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I saw that kind of coverage myself. Press releases, announcements of minor trade awards (Named To CRN's 2011 5-Star Partner Programs Guide) no one outside the industry will have heard of, and routine reviews of new releases do not in m opinion establish long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What matters here is that the links I have provided are reliable sources and satisfy the notability guidelines. In addition to these, there are hundreds more reliable sources that focus on Kerio software. These can be added to the article once the software articles have been merged. --Hm2k (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it mildly patronising to be told that I "can't have tried very hard to check its notability". I spent a considerable amount of time checking. And yes, I did find sources such as the ones that Hm2k has linked to, such as the one which tells us that Kerio has announced that it will "showcase" one of its products at some seminars, the one that announces that another company has signed a contract with another business to work together on some software, the one that tells us that a number of companies will be announcing new products at a Computer Security Institute show, and includes a brief mention that Kerio is one of those that will do so, and the other similar sources. However, unlike Hm2k, I don't think such write-ups of press releases about product announcements and suchlike constitutes substantial independent coverage. Any company which is good at sending out well-crafted press releases and does so prolifically every time it does anything slightly new will get many such write-ups, because journalists writing for trade papers and the like love those press releases: all they have to do is rewrite one of them in their own words and they have a whole article, without having to put work into going and finding information. This is largely how trade-journal journalism works, and for many of these trade web sites it is 100% how they work: that, together with paid advertisements, is all that they publish. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also evidence of notability found in an array of popular print (books and magazines):

InfoWorld Magazine. USA: InfoWorld Media Group, Inc. 2005. p. 10.
PC world, Volume 21. Information Access Company. 2003.
Ed Bott, Carl Siechert (2006). Microsoft Windows XP networking and security inside out. Microsoft Press.
Gookin, Dan (2006). Pcs for Dummies. Thorndike Press.

--Hm2k (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all of those, and as far as I can see none of them gives more than the briefest of mentions of Kerio. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than a mention when the entire section is about Kerio, sure some are brief, not entire pages, but it is clearly more than just a "mention". --Hm2k (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for Kerio Connect. It is one of the more notable products in the turnkey email server market. It is well covered in reliable sources. It has survived AfD before under its old name of Kerio Mailserver. This really is a no-brainer. The other two are not great articles and more borderline. It is hard to say whether they could be OK if they were cleaned up and improved. Rather than !vote on those I will tag for rescue. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat misleading to say "It has survived AfD before". It is more accurate to say that it was nominated for AfD, but the nominator changed his mind and withdrew his nomination shortly after making it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that misleading? There was an AfD; The fact that the product is more notable than he had realised was pointed out to the nominator who, realising that he had made a mistake, withdrew the nomination. There was an AfD and the article survived it. The fact that the nominator withdrew did not affect the outcome. It just saved time. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, it is misleading because anyone who has not checked the history will be likely to imagine that the issue was discussed for a week and consensus was to keep. In fact, the discussion was open for a matter of hours, and we have no way of knowing what consensus might have been if there had been a proper chance for discussion to take place. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Additional findsources links are now included at the top of the page to help check out the notability of the products.--DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to meet the general notability guideline, specifically the "significant and independent" parts. I'm feeling some sense of deja vu betwixt this and the Gargoyle afd, where a similar regurgitation of regurgitated press releases are being put forward as arguments for "keep." As JamesBWatson states above, there is no independent editorial oversight in the sources provided. Rather than rely upon local consensus, I'd highly recommend that Hm2k take these to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I picked one of the sources provided, put it in the search box, and lo... it's already had some bad press here regarding it's reliability. That's just the example I picked, the others I looked at were all the same. I admit I did not look through every single one, as I quickly tired of seeing the same sentences in different orders. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know a web site that looks unreliable when I see one, but I can rarely produce evidence to support that impression. Having followed your wikilink to the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard archive, and then an external link from there, I now know that at least one of the sources is more than just unreliable: it is downright dishonest through and through. I wonder, what does it tell us about a business that it makes use of such scam websites to get coverage for itself? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to take in to account any of the books or reliable sources such as this. --Hm2k (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - my comments below include the books, and extend to the coverage linked above. I looked them, they aren't up to the guideline. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: little indication of significant, genuinely independent, coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the old product names? They have fairly recently renamed all their products so the current names may not be the best ones to search on. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: Evers, Joris (October 19, 2005). "Kerio to scrap desktop firewall". CNET news. Retrieved 13 July 2011. --Hm2k (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hm2k has found plenty of reliable sources mentioning what this company has done. A company that keeps getting mentioned along with its products, is notable. Dream Focus 23:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that at least one of those sources has been shown not to be a reliable source, and that at least two editors say that none of them are reliable sources, can you please identify two source in particular from the above that you think meet the guidelines so that we may discuss them? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recognize CNET, which is obviously a reliable source. Click on it. This company gets news coverage. The article is written by one of the CNET staff writers. And The Register is a reliable source, obviously. Read through the article there. [6] Did you honestly only search for one of the sources, and find only that one unreliable, or did you just go through all of them until you found one that wasn't reliable? Dream Focus 10:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do try a bit harder to be nice. The reason I asked is that sweeping generalisations like "plenty of reliable sources" do not in any way lend themselves to debate or discussion, and that's what this is meant to be. Instead there is mostly people talking past each other. I'd like to find something that we agree on and build from there. Can we start with "<insert name here> is a reliable source" ? Yes, CNET and The register are well known and widely read. Yes, items that appear in them are more likely to be correct than in smaller less trafficked websites. But that does not automatically mean that everything that comes out of them carries the full imprimatur of a "Reliable source"^TM. The New York Times would not be a very good source on "Corruption at the New York Times," can we at least agree on that before we go much further?
      Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Obviously a reliable source can not always be trusted if it has a vested interest in things. Neither of those sources do however. So there is point in discussing it here. Dream Focus 13:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        At least we agree on something. The vested interest here is that the business model is largely built upon new content, more content, faster content, all the time. The RSS feed never sleeps. This kind of high volume/low effort article is what a major component of any online magazine depends on to draw additional eyeballs. And see below for why neither one nor the other of those articles is evenly remotely independent. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        They don't cover every single new product or activity of a company there is. They only cover notable things. It counts as a reliable source, and it covers it. Dream Focus 14:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources[edit]

A listing of sources whose Reliability is being discussed:

Here's a few reliable sources that do meet the guidelines to show that Kerio Technologies is notable:

Evers, Joris (October 19, 2005). "Kerio to scrap desktop firewall". CNET news. Retrieved 13 July 2011.
Leyden, John (2 December 2005). "Sunbelt rescues Kerio Firewall from oblivion". The Register. Retrieved 15 July 2011.
Ed Bott, Carl Siechert (2006). Microsoft Windows XP networking and security inside out. Microsoft Press.

In addition to this, each of their products shows notability:

Mitchell, Dave (23 Nov 2004). "Kerio MailServer 6 review". PC Pro. Retrieved 15 July 2011.
Clyman, John (September 17, 2004). "Kerio MailServer 6". PC Magazine. Retrieved 15 July 2011.
Stevens, Alan (23 Mar 2010). "Review: Kerio Connect 7 email server". Incisive Media. Retrieved 15 July 2011.
Stevens, Alan (22 Jul 2010). "Kerio Control 7 firewall review". V3.co.uk. Retrieved 15 July 2011.
Morejon, Mario (October 6, 2008). "Kerio WinRoute Firewall 6.5". PC Magazine. Retrieved 15 July 2011.
Rubenking, Neil (September 28, 2005). "Kerio Personal Firewall 4". PC Magazine. Retrieved 15 July 2011.

That's just a few for now, I could continue... --Hm2k (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you don't believe these are reliable sources please explain why below. --Hm2k (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier if you don't put the bulleted list inside your comments if you're going to do a whole swag, as people can then edit under each item, just saying. For example, if you want to respond to each of my points below, it'll quickly turn the page into a mess. Just saying. But on to the analysis of the sources:

CNET/The Register articles: First of all, they are in the "news" section. This should already have the reliable sources danger sense tingling, because the vast majority of any online magazine's news section are repackaged press releases. Sometimes it's more obvious than others, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware for some really obvious examples.
- Starting with the Register article: Grab a chunk of text, say "Kerio Personal Firewall will be re-branded on an interim basis as the Sunbelt Kerio Personal Firewall." Google it. Marvel at the number of times it appears, then notice that the very first post is explicitly a press release from the vendor. Compare texts. Make critical decision: Is this article truly independent?
- The CNET article: First, note how many times "he said" or "they said" appear in the article... It's every single paragraph that is about this product. There is literally nothing in this article that is not a verbatim parroting of the company line. Do we even need to google to see that this is not independent coverage?
The Microsoft press item: Even from the partial page that we can see, it's an item in a list, not significant coverage.

Seriously, this is a total drag for me. It takes waaaay longer to examine a source, make a critical decision about it, and then commit that decision to text than it does to go "Google->Books->Kerio" and paste formatted results here. As editors, we're expected to make this kind of critical decisions ourselves whenever we edit an article. Please don't view this as some kind of contest, where if the article get deleted someone "wins." Actually try and read what the other people are saying. These aren't actual articles written by actual journalists with actual independence. It's guys whose job it is to pay their dues by (mostly) repackage pre-cooked text and hoping to get a better gig later. It's a hard job, with massive pressure to produce, and one that I wouldn't wish on my third-worst enemy. But it's not anything like what is intended by "WP:RS."
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Assume good faith. Why would you assume someone saw this as a contest of some sort? Is someone going around stalking an editor or group of editors and arguing with them everywhere while not participating in any AFDs other than those they are involved in? And do you have any proof of your slanderous accusation that any of these people are trying to "repackage pre-cooked text and hoping to get a better gig later"? CNET is a very well establish site, having been around a long time, formerly having their own televisions how even. They wouldn't review anything they didn't feel was notable. Dream Focus 14:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be libel not slander, unless you think I'm reading my comments into a dictaphone or something. And assuming good faith isn't a suicide pact... look at your user page, "Snotty Elitist Deletionist" and all. I'm realsing (slowly) that you're not even mildly interested in actual discussion, so I'm going to back away slowly.
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not the only one disagreeing with your interpretation of guidelines in multiple AFDs and elsewhere. Don't assume others aren't "Actually try and read what the other people are saying." if they disagree with you. Dream Focus 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm drawing the line here. I'm satisfied that notability has been established through the reliable sources provided. If you want to discuss the case for each source you can do so at your own leisure, but until a decision is made for each of these sources, there is absolutely no way a deletion can be justified. --Hm2k (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After examining the sources provided by Hm2k I'm fairly convinced that they are both reliable and contain non-trivial coverage of the subject. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note My !vote was only concerning Kerio Technologies, I haven't examined the other articles and their sourcing. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already !voted strong keep on Kerio Connect. I don't think the other two are as strong but I am now happy to come off the fence and call them both keeps. This does not meant that they are good articles, they are anything but, but they could become so. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Keep all three nominated articles. Sources are there. Dream Focus 21:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slide to Play[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability. Of the thirty references, 26 are to Slide to Play's own web site; two are to the web site of gotoats, which is jointly set up by the publishers of Slide to Play and another business; the other two are pages at uk.gamespot.com, where Slide to Play is mentioned only in the "comments" section, which is effectively an open forum. (In addition, in one of those two pages, the mention of Slide to Play is introduced by the sentences "Hey everyone. My name's Steve Palley, and I'm the founder of Slide To Play.") That leaves no independent reliable sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been proposed for deletion and deleted in the past. The author of the article requested undeletion, saying (amongst other things) "It was an expired PROD, for having failed WP:WEB and WP:RS. I'd like to address both." However, they have made no attempt at all to address either. Their only edits in the 14 months since undeletion have been removing an external link to Slide to play's web site, and twice removing a {{Cleanup-spam}} tag. By no stretch of the imagination was that an attempt to address the reasons for deletion. More recently the article has been PRODDED again, but I declined the PROD because of the previous one. The reason given for the first PROD was "Fails WP:WEB Fails WP:RS", and for the second one "Not notable, every "source" links to the site being advertised here, and it's maintained by one of the site's editors." JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to keep promotional articles on Apple fanboy cruft. TUAW can go too. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let's clean out Category:Macintosh websites while we're at it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Category:Macintosh magazines too. Thanks for the hour-long PRODing binge! HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a well written article, it only references itself and its affiliates. Sources don't seem to exist covering it. Although N4G reposts its articles, and Metacritic uses its reviews. Not sure if that is enough. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think notable sites covering Apple products should be considered, but citing only your own pages and making them look like different sources is clearly not showing notability. W Nowicki (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Adam[edit]

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

Player as not played a professional match yet Adam4267 (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no significant coverage, meaning he fails WP:GNG, and he has played in a fully pro league, therefore failing WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no professional appearances, does not yet meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Deserter1 12:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in Transformers comics#B. T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G. B. Blackrock[edit]

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

Disputed prod, though no reason was given for the dispute. Originally prod'ed as "No evidence of real world notability, no reliable sources cited. Has been tagged as of questionable notability for two years." Delete. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor character without good sources to support notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Add more sources and cleanup and before long it will be a decent article. or you could redirect it (if there is one) to a list of minor marvel characters. Goldblooded (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources or any evidence that this character is notable? If so, your first suggestion would be reasonable. Do you know of an appropriate list to redirect this article to? If so, your second suggestion would be. As it is, your suggestions aren't particularly useful- the point is that there are no sources, and there is nowhere that this information belongs. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well i dont sit around watching transformers so i wouldnt know but what i DO know is that in many TV shows such as doctor who or simpsons they usually have an article named List of minor characters in _______ if they is one for transformers or mavel universe or whatever its called they i recommend you redirect this article to there. Goldblooded (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find an appropriate one, so be it. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There would seem to be that list here: List_of_characters_in_Transformers_comics#B. Mathewignash (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, see above to see where. Mathewignash (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline and the content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work without reception, significance or real-world context for the character. A search engine test does not show reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to presume that this minor character deserves a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it makes no sense to delete this article if one takes WP:BEFORE #5 into account. You should always see if a non-notable article can be merged or redirected before it's deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Lee[edit]

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

Lack of notability The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is detailed in the Talk Page.-The Gnome (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HOTTIE. If that isn't a strong enough argument, then delete as she has no named movie roles which fails WP:ENT, she appeared on the cover of FHM Indonesia but that doesn't meet any notability guidelines. May have a large fan base in Asia, but I can't find any sources to support that. Almost all sources on the article are primary or blogs, so she fails WP:GNG as well. The only two sources I could find are here that I feel is the strongest and here; minor mention here is not significant. That said, my WP:CRYSTALBALL says she isn't going away so it might be worth it to userfy this article for use later. I dont mind it going under my account with a no-index template.--v/r - T P 14:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I like hotties, Delete as not yet meeting WP:BIO. OK with me to userfy per TParis's suggestion. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and failure of WP:ENT.[7] A long list of small roles in music videos or acting as model at notable events does not itself translate into notability. For THAT, we need specific coverage that deals with those appearances. As an aside, I am also in the 3Oh!3 music video Touchin on my. It was a fun shoot, but none of us actors were singled out for coverage... only the singers themselves. Per WP:HOTTIE I am okay with userfication. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of bit parts - nothing notable yet and no proper coverage in reliable sources. Also no objection to userfying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - reads like an advertisement or a centerfold profile. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:ENT. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Let It Go to Your Head (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page is very useless and there is only few links and features on it so I replace this disambiguation page to the distinguish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3oWh pF0wHz (talk • contribs) 10:01, 11 July 2011

Delete It is a song title and only one version is notable, that is has an article here. Covers can be mentioned in that article, the other song can be also or else ignored. Wolfview (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- speedyable as orphan dab whose navigational function is served by hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a hatnote is even needed. Just add a sentence saying: "The song was also covered by..." Wolfview (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Miko Ramelow[edit]

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

Delete per WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Final Fight Stars War in Zagreb[edit]

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

another non notable kickboxing event and merely a results listing. nothing in gnews and all google reveals is primary sources and event listings. no reliable third party coverage, not even passing mention in mainstream press. also nominating for same reasons:

Those wanting to keep must show evidence of third party indepth coverage as per WP:RS, something more than sherdog.com LibStar (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm certainly not an expert on kickboxing but almost no coverage in local media proves that the Zagreb event fails WP:GNG. Timbouctou (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, no coverage in Croatian online sources, a strong indicator that WP:GNG is not met. GregorB (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Though could someone please add some sources the ensure we don't do this a fourth time? Courcelles 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landover Baptist Church[edit]

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

No proof of notability; only source is primary. Difluoroethene (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Landover Baptist Church is not a church, it is a website that parodies fundamentalist Christianity. The Google Books tool above provides ample proof that the website is notable, as it has received significant coverage in several books. It is not necessary that an article in its current state provide "proof" of notability. The article should be improved through normal editing rather than being deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - well-known website, however obnoxious some folks find it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable satirical website. Additional sources exist and should be added to the page to support notability. (I may do that myself unless other people do that first.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can this discussion be closed now? It seems, like the first AfD 6 years ago, a done deal. Besides the nominator even announces on their user page they have one foot out the door on Wikipedia. It all seems like a moot point and a touch too much of WP:IDL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.32.215 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "one foot out the door", I'm just too busy (at this point) to contribute as often as I used to. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not meet WP:N. The article is not referenced and the content of the article is unverifiable. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books sources attest notability; sourcing problems with article can be corrected through normal editing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDW Wrestling[edit]

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

Previously speedy deleted. The new article, which is virtually identical to the old one, is unreferenced and makes no assertion of notability - all I can see from this article is a minor organisation that arranges wrestling matches in a small UK town, but nowhere else. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 06:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete doesn't seem notable in any way, only a local promoter.Seasider91 (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability.--Charles (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small Uk town get a grip man, there are 100,000 people live within shrewsbury and atcham alone, along with another 150,000 odd in Telford 11 miles down the road, shropshire and mid wales they have done tours around. notable my ass its not local its regional! They have even had people coming over from Ireland just to watch and wrestle and from all over the UK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dand1977 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G3 and G4. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayrold Castro[edit]

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

Article already deleted and created for his own name by article creating user.. —AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 06:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per G3 - hoaxalicious - see Mixed_martial_arts_weight_classes & the use of names was a subtle clue. Skier Dude (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lightwelterweight (MMA)[edit]

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

This article's title should be separately as "Light weight" and "Welter weight" because these should be two separately articles. And have meaningless content. —AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 06:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is not a real weight class in MMA competition (AFAIK). --TreyGeek (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced one line article that says this division can refer to multiple weight classes. Talk about uninformative! Astudent0 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Johns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A record producer. References either don't mention him at all or are related to a SCMC music conference. Article states he "took over" the conference. However, references state he was only a panelist. Says he is a "Vice President of Marketing at Major Music News". However, the website hasn't launched yet. Unable to find reliable sources. Article was previously deleted in January. Bgwhite (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a recreation. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Ninja (Flash Game)[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Unremarkable Computer Game fails WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hard to find sources for. I could only find two sources, only for the sequel.JayisGames, 1UP. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If Final Ninja Zero has coverage, but Final Ninja doesn't, the solution would to be to create Final Ninja Zero and redirect Final Ninja there. I don't see any reason to keep this article since the material is unverified and the parentheses are unnecessary. Marasmusine (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although this will probably require some explanation. For the benefit of anyone wandering to this AfD after the fact, Ellen Kennedy is a Canadian actress who primarily works as a voice actor, providing voices and dubbing for foreign-language works and the like. The question is over whether or not she passes WP:NACTOR, specifically criteria 1, which states that a person is notable if they "[have] had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Those editors arguing for the article to be kept point to Kennedy's long string of voice acting roles, and the fact that she won a Jessie Richardson Theatre Award. Those arguing in favour of deletion state that voice acting does not on its own confer notability without reliable sources, and that there is no evidence that the Jessie Awards are notable, the sole citation coming from the Award's website.

The answer is to be found in the intention behind secondary notability guidelines such as WP:NACTOR. Wikipedia is built on the principle of verifiability, which is precisely why the general notability guideline and its subsidiaries mandate multiple, reliable third-party sources - the intention is to avoid having material that is not verifiable to such a source. If an article's subject is covered by third-party sources, chances are we can write an article in which every potentially controversial statement is verifiable. As well as these guidelines, there are also the secondary notability guidelines, such as WP:NACTOR. These operate on the principle that if someone is "important" enough, they will most likely be covered by reliable sources, and as such we should have an article on them and wait for additional sourcing to turn up. The question thus becomes whether or not voice acting is "important" enough that it will have coverage.

Keep commentators state that voice actors are not given the media coverage that they are due. This is fair enough. It also means that an article can't be justified under WP:NACTOR; secondary guidelines exist on the proviso that the person's role means they will, somewhere, be covered by the media or other sourcing. In the absence of such sourcing, and in a situation where even those in favour of keeping the article agree that sourcing is unlikely to turn up, such an article does not fall within the spirit of either the primary or secondary notability guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Kennedy[edit]

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

Disputed prod of obscure voice-actress. Her career to date seems to have involved mainly roles dubbing Japanese anime into English, and direct-to-video productions. Therefore no indication that she meets WP:NACTOR. No sources for live performance claims [stated in the article's lead], or any evidence (from Google News or Books) of any substantive coverage whatsoever. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject had a lead role in Maison Ikkoku, a major series. Edward321 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the (voice) role of Kyōko Otonashi in Maison Ikkoku was originally performed by Mariko Ishihara (herself not warranting an article). Kennedy only took the role in the English dub of the series -- and it is not clear that this derivative work is a "major series" in its own right. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", and her roles in English dubs of anime definitely qualify. English dubs of Dragon Ball Z, Hamtaro, and Escaflowne have all seen wide release on broadcast or cable TV in the US and Canada (not merely direct-to-video release). WP:NACTOR specifically mentions voice acting, so I'm not sure why a lack of live performances would be relevant. Meelar (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd then that none of the articles on those series actually mentions her. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was considered a reliable source ;) Seriously, though, are you disputing the fact that she filled the roles in question? Because if not, I don't see that her presence in other articles is relevant. She clearly has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows, and is therefore notable. What part of that do you disagree with? Meelar (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. If you think it would be best, we could put in cast lists on each show's page, but it seems a bit excessive.[reply]

No. As you can see from my above 'correction', I am disputing whether a role only in the dubbing of the original series into one non-original language (how many languages have they been dubbed into?) is a "significant role", particularly when that role appears to have garnered little in the way of notice on Wikipedia, or anywhere else. Given that selection for such dubbing roles generally appears to neither indicate that an actor was previously notable, nor confer as a consequence much in the way of notice, and thus notability, it is reasonable to question (or "dispute") whether they are "significant roles". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a notable actress. She won a notable award. And she hasn't just done dubbing, but original films also. You don't have to get to a movie theater to be a notable film. Even dubbing is notable, since it doesn't matter if some other voice actor did the lines before you in a different language. Dream Focus 11:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously" Dream Focus is making it up as he goes along, as obviously there is nothing to indicate that the Jessie Award (whose article's sole citation is to its own website) has any particular notablity (even if it wasn't obvious that the claim that Kennedy had won it is unsourced). Obviously direct to video productions are rarely of any particular significance, and equally obviously, Dream Focus has presented no evidence that any of Kennedy's videos have been an exception. Dubbing roles are generally obscure -- as third party sources very rarely even mention them. Shorter Dream Focus: "Everything Is notable, in its own way." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith and stop it with the personal attacks. If you bothered checking Google news archive search you will find that reliable sources do mention people being nominated or having won this award. They'd not mention it if it wasn't notable. [8] And you don't need others to tell you someone's performance was notable. They played a significant role in a notable production, then they pass the requirement for being a notable entertainer. Queen Genevieve in Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper for instance. Dream Focus 17:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Dream Focus, mere passing mention in a relatively small number of publications does not make an award notable. Nor does your mere WP:ITSNOTABLE assertion make a direct-to-video production notable. And yes, Wikipedia requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- something that both Kennedy herself, and Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper, both lack, "to tell you someone's performance was notable." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You regularly appear in AFDs like this where you argue with everyone else about what WP:ENTERTAINER and other guidelines mean, and yet everyone else still says Keep, and the article is kept. You do not need someone telling you someone's role was notable in a production. If the work is notable, then anyone who made a significant[9] contribution to it is notable. And if you doubt the award is notable, take it to the reliable sources page. Dream Focus 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually look at the sources, rather than simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE (with or without an "obviously" tacked onto this assertion), as all-too-many-'keep'-!voters do -- yourself included. "You do not need someone telling you someone's role was notable in a production." So if we don't base our evaluations on reliable third party sources -- as policy tells us to, then what do we base it on? Divine revelation? Dream Focus's say so? And there is nothing to take to WP:RSN, as there is no source stating that "the award is notable". To paraphrase an old legal saying: 'if the policy is on your side, pound the policy, if the sources are on your side pound the sources, if neither are on your side then pound the table and state "obviously notable"'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if a work is significant, and the person played the lead role in a widely-seen official version of it, then they've played a significant role in it by definition. Many of the works cited here are significant; there are sources cited telling us that she did in fact appear in key roles in those works, which you aren't disputing; therefore, she's played a significant role in a notable work, and should be kept. Meelar (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there appears to be little indication that voice-only roles, either in animation, dubbing into a foreign language (or both) are accorded any particular 'significance' or recognition by the video/television/movie industries. This is perhaps due to the lack of any strong recognisability accruing to the roles. Regardless, it is the animator (or original visual actor) that is perceived as the 'star', not the voice-actors. Wikipedia would appear to have two choices in such circumstances -- it can either allow WP:GNG to guide its interpretation of WP:NACTOR and consider that significant roles are those that generally garner significant coverage -- which has the advantage of generally resulting in articles on purportedly-biographical topics that have a reasonable level of biographical coverage. Alternately, it can impose its own subjective, expansive and independent interpretation of significant role -- resulting in a large number of articles that are little more than lists of roles cobbled together from WP:PRIMARY sources. Given that the latter would appear to be an invitation do violate WP:NOR, I believe it is WP:COMMONSENSE to go with the former. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google news archive search for "voice actor" reveals 5,420 results. [10] Voice actors are covered for a number of things.

One news article is titled Piglet cartoon voice actor dies‎.
Another says Veteran Cartoon Voice Actor Dies The Robesonian - Dec 2, 1985 LOS ANGELES "Bill Scott, the voice of Bull winkle the moose, George of the Jungle and Dudley do-right of the Mounties..."
And I see one titled Walter Edmiston, Keebler elf voice actor, dies in Los Angeles.

There are some people notable only because of their work doing voice acting for cartoons. It is a notable profession. The voices define the characters as much as the appearance. That's why some prefer buying certain series in their original languages and reading subtitles, because the voice actors are better. You can easily find reviews for a recent movie from Japan called Gantz which critics criticized the voice actors for doing a horrible job on the dub. Point is, voice acting is of course taken seriously by the industry and the news media. Dream Focus 05:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see, we have WP:GOOGLEHITS, an actor who had a considerable live-role resume (Pooh's Heffalump Movie was simply his "last outing") -- so is hardly indicative, an obituary in The Robesonian (hardly a prominent publication) and yet another obituary. In fact all the cited examples are obituaries. Would it therefore be cynical to suggest that the most prominent thing voice actors do is to die? An accomplishment that Kennedy has yet to add to her resume (and a reminder of a one of Martial's epigrams that I studied in highschool Latin -- You puff the poets of other days, The living you deplore. Spare me the accolade: your praise Is not worth dying for.). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the general notability guideline that requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." While I find Dream and Hrafn's Lemmon/Matthau dialog droll, the point raised (in so many venues, and in so many ways) is that if no one else can be bothered to write significant coverage on the person we should not do so. I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources being provided here. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to meet the GNG if it meets the other guidelines, thus the reason for their existence. Did you read WP:ENTERTAINER? Dream Focus 22:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, did you? While I can admire your passion, I'd highly suggest that you familiarise yourself with the guidelines and policies before referencing them, as you're totally shooting yourself in the foot here. The shortcut "WP:ENTERTAINER" points to a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people). If we start at the top of that guideline and work our way down:

At the top there is a big box, "This page in a nutshell." The first line of that box says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
The first section after the lede is "Basic criteria." That again states "A person is presumed 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."
The second section after the lede, "Additional criteria," says clearly that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

It does not require a close reading of the text to see that the primacy of the basic criteria casts its shadow over all the later, subordinate sections. The additional criteria are not intended and have never been accepted as overriding the general notability requirements. This is because the core content policies of Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view all require solid sourcing. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and as such if there aren't sources we don't write an article.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's never been how things have been done. I see you tried to remove a long established part of that. [11] I have reverted it of course. You are suppose to think for yourselves in these debates, and not just mindlessly follow the ever changing guidelines. A "satisfying explanation" is fine. And the core policies are obviously met. All information is verifiable, there is no original research here, and it is a neutral point of view. Can you find one example in the article that you believe violates any of these policies? Dream Focus 00:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask me something hard next time.

Wikipedia:Verifiability - ...material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source...
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - ... all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
Wikipedia:No original research - ...must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Please provide significant coverage in reliable sources. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already added references yesterday.[12] Do you sincerely doubt anything else left? Everything else can be sourced to primary sources, which aren't in doubt, just by looking at the credits showing who was in the film. Dream Focus 02:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those. I know, me = broken record, but that doesn't meet the general notability guide that requires significant coverage in reliable sources. If you want to overturn that guideline (and the supporting policies) go and make the arguments on those pages. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it isn't overwhelming, her work as a whole is sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR #1. If these translations were fan-made then maybe it would be reasonable to expect more coverage as an indication of notability, but here the voice actors are hired by the distribution companies in order to deliver their product to the concerned region, in the same manner that the original actors were hired (and for the same reason). Also, in the case of cartoons, while it is true that most of the "performance" is due to the work of the animators, the voices cannot be simply taken as separate from the character, nor can the cultural effect of those voices on the audience (for better or worse) be ignored. It is true that third party coverage is deficient, but I don't expect any less from the mainstream media. That is not to say that voice acting doesn't get any coverage at all, because it is certainly a notable profession, nor that mainstream media is entirely whimsical, but only to say that the media does tend to focus on subjects that satisfy their (and their readers') immediate needs, so coverage cannot be the one and only measure for inclusion - frankie (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V is non-negotiable policy. And at the end of the day, the coverage to write a biography on this woman simply does not exist, therefore, it has to be deleted. Courcelles 02:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural speedy keep. No reason was given for deletion. If there is a reason that this article should be deleted, it can be renominated with a reason given. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nichols algebra[edit]

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

—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 04:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No deletion rationale provided. Carrite (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I started yesterday night to export the Nichols algebra from Bradied Hopf Algebra into an own article to give more references, examples etc.

Can you tell me what's wrong with it ? (as you can see, I've not been long on Wikipedia ;-) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacman 2.0 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. I just found out how to re-cite a source a second time, gonna apply that right now....

Can you tell me, how I cite, if I plugged in the easiest example for a general result? Just cite the general result? Pacman 2.0 (talk)

Well, now I've finished the complete article including 11 sources from several authors. One place with citation still needed, and several places where more information is wished for have been apropriately marked. In the talk page I have opened several threads asking for certain further improvement....

I really would appreachiate, if you could now terminate the pending deletion as I can't really see a reason. As far as I understood Wiki-Policy, it's not so polite, to discourage a newbie doing it's first page by immediately threating with deletion (it's been ca. 10h), while some sections were marked "while-writing" ;-) Pacman 2.0 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural, as no reasons for deletion have been provided. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Laine[edit]

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

—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 04:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep No reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No reason given for deletion. He plays for the top Finnish ice hockey league. See nothing wrong here. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK 1. No deletion rationale. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lilianne Ploumen[edit]

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

—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 04:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are given. Wikix (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep No reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No deletion rationale provided. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – no rationale, and, being chairwoman of the Dutch Labour Party, the subject is obviously notable. --Lambiam 20:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower (Kean University)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, Non-Notable Student newspaper. Fails WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are basically original research. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This piece about a Kean University student newspaper has nothing to do with "original research," although it is currently self-sourced. Content is useful and verifiable and I hope that independent sourcing will be forthcoming. I will tag for rescue. Carrite (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no third party sourcing in article, and no indication via Google News/Books that such will be forthcoming. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what sources can be given for a student newspaper. Obviously the university's own website (rather than the paper's website) can confirm its existence. Does three second place awards from the New Jersey Collegiate Press Association count as notable? Also, I know that "other stuff exists" isn't a great argument, but there are many many worse examples at Category:Student newspapers published in the United States. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS also "isn't a great argument". And that no reliable third-party sources "can be given for a student newspaper" probably simply indicates that student newspapers typically aren't notable. And I wouldn't consider being second-placed among student newspapers in the state of New Jersey adds much to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as per WP:GNG) a student paper is no different to any other publication in that respect, without it it has no place here. Mtking (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the article about the university (catting the redirect so it appears in the student newspapers cat). The information is verifiable, and a proper description of a university will include some information about student publications. The sources don't indicate notability, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't find room for a paragraph or two in another article about this publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It started with just six staff writers. The Tower's staff are journalism majors who get course credit required for the major by working on the paper, and also staff writers from other majors who write for the paper as an extracurricular activity. So is it a real newspaper, or just something given limited publication as a class project? What is their current circulation? Dream Focus 11:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand and am sympathetic to WhatamIdoing's suggestion, was there even a single source for this that I didn't see? Otherwise I don't think there is anything verifiable in this article to merge. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ÆON Tebrau City Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. not all shopping centres are notable. this one gets passing mentions in gnews [13]. gnews includes major Malaysian newspapers. The Malay WP article only has the centre's website as a source. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not seeing significant coverage either. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Following some brief research, I see virtually no secondary sources discussing this shopping center. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thirty-Three (song). T. Canens (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Song (The Smashing Pumpkins song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable song. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thirty-Three (song) - some of this article could be merged there. 62.49.114.121 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thirty-Three (song) and merge into that article. --Noleander (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse M. Hendley[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. Prod removed (in 2007, anyway). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find any coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK 1. No deletion rationale. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pierpoint Landing[edit]

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

—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 02:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate why you think this article should be deleted? --Oakshade (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a small but well-known amusement area until the early 1970s. If you google it you will find references to both the historic (pre-1972) Landing and to the modern establishment bearing its name, 41,200 results in total. Article is currently short (but supported with references), so let's make it better, not just robo-delete things. Gaohoyt (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep due to lack of a deletion rationale provided by nominator. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has verifiable references, and there appears to be notability. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep No rationale for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of St. La Salle. causa sui (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead Magazine[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect both to University of St. La Salle. The Spectrum looks as though it may have some notability but finding sources on the Internet, as with most Filipino educational subjects, is problematic. TerriersFan (talk) 15:05, 26 June 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) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK 1. No deletion rationale. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Koistinen[edit]

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

—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 02:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does the nominator have grounds for requesting deletion of this biography of a professional hockey player? Carrite (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep No reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as professional athlete. Carrite (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Jenks24 (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No reason for deletion has been given.--Rockfang (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even with the fact no reason for deletion was given, he easily meets WP:NHOCKEY by playing in Finland's top professional league. Patken4 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in the SM-liiga per reliable sources, so easily meets WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SemWare Editor[edit]

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

No reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Only one of the sources actually comments on the product and it's on a wiki site, edm2.com, where even the byline of the "review" changes from one revision to the next, rendering it useless for establishing notability. So far as I can tell from Googling, there are no other suitable sources available. Msnicki (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- added a couple of reviews in independent sources and removed the feature list, as much of it was generic text editor functionality. When I searched for SemWare, I actually got two hits in Journal of Clinical Microbiology for TSE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've added citations, I presume you have access to the articles? Is it possible you could scan them and post them, e.g., to a site like scribd.com so others can read them? Msnicki (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a copyright violation. I'd suggest checking http://www.kcls.org/databases/subject_categories.cfm#15 -- ProQuest might have them, or maybe General OneFile.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you could email them to me, please? Msnicki (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not allowedAlthough wikipedia can't give legal advice, I'd like to clarify that him showing you the document without you paying would be a violation of civil or criminal law(or both) depending on jurisdiction. i kan reed (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The amplification of SarekOfVulcan's comment is misleading (the situation applies only to a case where someone would "manufacture" a copy). The owner of a copy is free to quote from it, for purposes such as this TEDickey (talk) 20:33, 30 June 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) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this has been relisted, because SarekOfVulcan's words seem irrefutable. If there's some reason why additional supportive !votes are required, then mine is strong keep per SarekOfVulcan.—S Marshall T/C 17:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources appear to have in-depth coverage, but a paragraphs at most. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some DOS era books with in-depth coverage of this (as QEDIT), e.g. [14]. The overall number of shorter praises/mentions on top of that sway me to think is passes WP:GNG. The article needs some preening of the blatant advertisement and peacock terms though. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources all talk about it as QEDIT in the DOS era, then maybe we should have that article, not this one. The article says the product was not only renamed, it was rewritten. This sounds like George Washington's original hatchet, the handle replaced three times and the head only once. Msnicki (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SarekOfVulcan. A rewrite doesn't mean it became a different entity, it only means it got optimized. Many new versions of a program are rewritten for that reason and/or renamed for many different reasons. --DeVerm (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ballroom dancing. T. Canens (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about ballroom dancing[edit]

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

The way I read WP:LIST, a list should contain items with wikilinks--in the case of a list of books, those items should be notable books. That some of the books in this example are written by notable authors is not enough.

All other lists that I'm aware of, inside articles and as independent articles, work that way--think of lists of buildings, alumni, etc. I am interested to see if the community reads common practice and the guideline in WP:LIST the way I do. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Drmies that, as a general proposition, the entries in a list should be wikilinks to articles about notable topics. List of vegetable oils is the example cited in the guideline, and a large majority of the entries are blue links to articles about the various oils. There are a small minority of red links where articles have not yet been created, and these red links are a useful hint to interested editors that the encyclopedia is not finished and articles on these oils are needed. However, we now have no articles on notable books on ballroom dancing. This list should be deleted and userfied for the original author, to serve as a guide for writing some of those articles. Once we have a few, this list can be recreated. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I went to Matt Barber to see if any of his books were notable and could be added to the list (in which case my beautiful AfD would be quashed immediately), and ended up nominating it for deletion. Certainly there is no prejudice against recreation and, Cullen, a little birdy told me at a party that you were quite the dancer in your day. Perhaps you can write this book for us?
  BTW, one of the functions I have in mind for this (or another) AfD is as jurisprudence for future AfDs and for the editing of such articles. Your point on a decent article with a majority of blue links, and a minority serving as an invitation, is well taken. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWP does not follow strict precedent, which is a good thing considering that the results of AfD are sometimes very close to random. A considerable number of very similar decisions here does show general consensus, (cf. WP:COMMON) but not an individual AfD. The jurisprudence approach requires judges with authority , and no decision about wp content can have that sort of authority. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per nom. As of now none of the listed books have articles. If some of these article are created (and successfully maintained), then this article could be recreated as a valid list. ... discospinster _talk 02:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no requirement that such list entries be themselves notable. While it's an often-invoked option for some list articles that tend to acquire non-notable fan entries (e.g., List of MMORPGs), there is no blanket requirement that any or all list entries be themselves notable. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what should be our rationale for inclusion? Mere existence? A cite from WP:LIST: "The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items." The first "include" here can obviously be read in a non-exclusive way, and that's the way you would read it, I imagine, but it does follow that there is a minimum of at least one notable entry (and that should be the book, not the author). Is one enough? Drmies (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the criterion for inclusion should be either a notable book, or a major book by a notable author. It will be rather easy to show notability for many of the books listed here and probably many others on the subject also, for the criteria in WP:BOOK merely requires substantial coverage from third party reliable sources--and book reviews are an example of such sources. If it is really desired to have articles for every book having two or more independent reviews, it is a remarkably formulaic thing to write them, but because of the breath of the criteria it is normally preferable to write the article about the author & merge the books into it, as there will generally be potential for expansion. But I am not that much of a splitter--or that much of an inclusionist, if inclusionist means making as many articles as possible. (Incidentally, if it were possible to find a bibliography of books about ballroom dancing, that would show the notability of the topic itself, not just the list & in fact there is at least one separately published one, [15]. besides what may be in journals and doctoral theses.) Obviously work should be done on this to include the reviews as references both here or in the articles about the authors, BTW, the normal criterion for lists of notable things is not having a wp article, but having an article or being qualified to have one if it has not yet been written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Keep There are substantial bibliographies such as Bibliography of Dancing and Bibliographic Guide to Dance. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge WP:Not a directory. While useful to someone wanting to read a book on ballroom dancing, this just doesn't seem like something that ~~belongs~~ should stand alone in an encyclopedia. Possible to add it to the bottom of Ballroom dancing itself? Wolfview (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTDIR, lists of books are unnecessary unless the books themselves are notable. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sources on lidos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books on bullying, etc. There is also the option of finding the appropriate WikiProject (WikiProject Dance?) and putting it over there, ie. in project space rather than article space, as a resource list, as in this AfD. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Ballroom dancing. This material may not be appropriate as its own article, but it could be used to reference the Ballroom dancing article. Perhaps this could be a "Further reading" section in the main article. Them From Space 09:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Barber[edit]

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

After trimming fluff for a half an hour or more, it became clear to me that this person is not notable (see also this). Look at the references (and feel free to look at the 'references' from past versions of the article)--they are basically spam links, leading to the subject's self-published books. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An author of an Xlibris self-published book about ballroom dancing. I could find no significant coverage of either the author or his book in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:11, 11 July no2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I normally hate giving !votes without adding additional reasoning to the discussion, but, well, y'all pretty much covered it. No significant third party coverage, no real claim to notability. Kevin (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice Southernism, KG. We sure appreciate it! Drmies (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a plurality of my life south of the mason-dixon line. Y'all is just too damn useful a word to stop using. Kevin (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a born and bred northerner, never spent more than a week at a time south of the M-D and much of that was in South Florida, which is really the North - but I use it a lot, because English doesn't have a non-colloquial, non-antiquated second person plural pronoun. ;D Delete, by the way, non-notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete The argument as to whether or not to delete this article seems to stem from whether or not Matt Barber is notable... Unless You know the ballroom world, this is hard to prove. However, by way of comparison to other ballroom notables, the "Matt Barber" article has been viewed close to 1600 times in less than a week, and if Wikipedia is going to allow any ballroom writers or dancers it needs to seriously consider that fact. Juliet McMains, another ballroom writer, in the same time period has only been viewed 30 times. Victor Silvester, arguably one of the most popular ballroom writers of all time, has only been viewed 210 times in the same time period and his article - just so You know - only has one reference: his own autobiography. Even Fabian Sanchez has been viewed less than 50 times in the same time period! Alex Moore, who wrote more books on ballroom than anyone else ever, is nowhere close to the number of views Matt Barber has received! The only ballroom personality that is even close is Tony Dovolani of Dancing with the Stars fame and even he has less views in the amount of time the "Matt Barber" article has been up. Again, I mention all this only to show how huge Matt Barber is in the ballroom dance world, so again, I say Do NOT Delete. If Wikipedia hopes to be the source of all relevant information, it needs to include Matt Barber. Give the internet time, the article will get improved by better writers and sourcers than me. Do NOT Delete ShirleyKeith (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK 1. No deletion rationale. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Colbatch (apothecary)[edit]

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

—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those searches are for "John Colbatch (apothecary)" (with quotes), so they only find those three words in that order, and not "Colbatch, John", "Colbatch, J.", "John Colbatch, physician" etc. Other than the Munk's roll and Dispensary reference given in the article, Colbatch appears in many sources. For example:

Mentioned in http://herbalsimples.com/mistletoe.htm
Listed in Strype's Survey: http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/strype/TransformServlet?page=book1_131
Mentioned contemporaneously in s:en:Of the Gout by William Stukeley
Subject of a 1990 paper in Annals of Science http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2213/1/2213.pdf
Mentioned (as "famous") in http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557718
Mentioned (as "well-known") in a history of Westminster Hospital http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1843324/pdf/brmedj02533-0060.pdf
Entry in Oxford DNB http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/5/101005833/
2003 Royal Society paper mentions him http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/57/3/273.full.pdf
One of his books is available for sale here, 300 years later http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9781170616079
Subject of this examination of his work: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3488125
17 works at Open Library http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL4770999A/Colbatch_John_Sir

Colbatch is clearly a well-know physician of the 18th century, a evidenced by a large corpus of works, listed in multiple biographical lists or works, many contemporaneous, extemporaneous and current references, books still for sale, and academic papers written on him even in the last decade.

Perhaps people suggesting article deletion could do a proper search and check the templates they are using for justification yield sane results, and at least try to find related material before filing an AfD? Inductiveload (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep No reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No deletion rationale specified by nominator. Seriously, if one is going to wield the deletion axe, one should do it properly. Throwing stuff at the wall without comment to see what sticks is not the way to go about it. Carrite (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - no rationale for deletion is provided. The subject seems to be notable enough and the article is referenced, based on public domain text. We should not make wild guesses on the rationales for deletion - it is the nominator's job Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If there were copyvio issues, which I'm not seeing, I'd close differently. Writing what a source says, using quote marks and a source at the end of the quote, which I'm seeing in the article, is not a copyvio. Sections of the article which presently do not do this needs to be corrected, but for the main part it looks fine to me. Meets criterion one of WP:ANYBIO, with them receiving a significant honour (being knighted). This person is not one of such minor notability that publishing their date of birth is a privacy concern, and as it is public information presented in a reliable source is something I also took into account. All the concerns raised by the nominator have been addressed and refuted, so I'm closing this as keep with cleanup required. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Singer (judge)[edit]

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

I think WP:COPYVIO from Who's Who, which is listed as a reference but not inline refs. This is certainly in the style of Who's Who and certainly not in the style of Wikipedia, which prefers full sentences rather than bullet points. So calling out possibly COPYVIO, though I will do more fixup for WP:MOS etc if I am wrong. (Though if I am wrong, the original author should not have been so damned lazy .)

It also fails WP:BLP and by naming other living persons with personal information (i.e. their birthdates) also under UK law contravenes the UK Data Protection Act 1984, as amended, although of course Wikipedia is governed by California law, for the fact this man is of very little interest in the wider world I think this article better be deleted. I read the Law Reports in the Times every day, but I also read the weather forecast and do the crossword. That does not count as WP:N.

Delete with prejudice.

S. Si Trew (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judges are usually notable. Knights are usually notable. This is a UPI story which establishes notability for the incident. And his work as an editor may qualify him as an author or academic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or, at the worst, delete and recreate without the copyvios and personal information). Lack of coverage in third-party sources is an argument for deletion, but opinions that an individual isn't of interest to other people isn't. Who's who is just about the most definitive certificate of notability you can get. Whilst there may be issues with copyvios and personal information, neither of those issues are reasons to delete the entire article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High Court judge and knight. Clearly notable. Just receiving a knighthood meets the criteria of WP:PEOPLE ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). The allegation that it breaches the DPA by providing birth dates is, frankly, laughable. No, it does not. Someone's date of birth is not sensitive personal information. Neither is it in any way a copyvio of Who's Who, which provides information in abbreviated list form, which this is not. To be honest, the nominator's manner ("Delete with prejudice") and incorrect allegations are making it difficult for me to assume good faith here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maifeld derby[edit]

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

Not notable. Internet shows no significant coverage Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A music festival that drew 3000 people, and is said to be an annual event though it has only been held once. References provided are blogs. Thanks, nominator, for checking online. Not yet notable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant third party coverage so fails WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant 3rd party coverage. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bmin[edit]

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

Not notable at all. Just 2 sentences. No context. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence or claim of notability. Edison (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Jasper Deng and Edison. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable hunk of computer code described briefly on Google Code, but no independent coverage that I could find. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a possible WP:COPYVIO. Though the software is described as open source, I am not sure that the text, substantially lifted from Google, is free of copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Domain dialing[edit]

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

Promotional material thinly disguised as an encyclopedia article. "Domain dialling" seems to be offered by only one company which is the ultimate source of all the references in the article and most of the hits on Google. Fails WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:N andy (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've written in the page discussion, the article has many references from different sources, according to Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Then it's not a spam, because has several different and reliable sites as sources. Domain dialling was also a relevant subject on the ICANN 41 as the article shows. Andyjsmith (talk · contribs)'s argument is that the article refers to the company Siter.com, but the article is wider and chooses to talk about the technology domain dialing, not only on a company's service. This Wikipedia has many useless pages about biography of people who has a blog but with no encyclopedic relevance and now they want to delete a matter about technological advances on calling process and URLs. Very strange. NandO ^{ta_lk^!} 22:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean about sources. The ICANN reference is based on a press release by Siter, from which it is clear that domain dialling was not on the agenda but simply that Siter hawked the idea around. In fact every reference that is currently cited in the article is taken directly from Siter press releases. No other companies are mentioned and no independent sources are provided. The article is blatantly spam. andy (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're very wrong. You're saying that Portal Terra Tecnologia is not a independent site apart from Siter... Poor boy. NandO ^{ta_lk^!} 09:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "domain dialing" is even at Merriam-Webster Online dictionary. NandO ^{ta_lk^!} 03:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per andy's comment above. Not enough reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. (And no, Merriam-Webster's "new words and slang" section is not a reliable source, it falls under WP:SPS) - SudoGhost ™ 04:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an emerging technology. Emergeing technoloigie typicaly don't have a lot of "referances" on the internet other than the opines that are working to devlop them. I think this just needs more information and sources on how the process actually retrieves a phone number from a FQDN. Is it a special DNS record, a special meta tag on the website, or a special webpage in the domain? Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 16:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issues: WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:N. In particular, where are the reliable sources and why is this notable under wikipedia guidelines? andy (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of all things. If emerging technologies don't have references showing the notability of the subject, they aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. That's not to say that this will not be an article at a later point, but for the moment, it should not be. - SudoGhost ™ 22:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can not have a notable reference in English but as I've cited, it has in Portuguese: 1. And this kind of technology is also disponible in English so it's relevant in this Wikipedia. The three principles cited by andy (WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:N) are not enough to judge this case because it's a reliable reference. NandO ^{ta_lk^!} 06:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep emerging technology, so thats the reason for little references. I say Keep. for future evaluation.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Emerging technologies" have no place on Wikipedia if notability cannot be established. Articles deleted can be recreated, so there's no need to keep "for future evaluation". - SudoGhost ™ 19:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it's probable that the author of the article ... has a massive and undisclosed COI. ... andy (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above comment has had content redacted, replaced with ellipsis (...), per WP:OUTING. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete because it seems interesting, useful, and likely that it will very rapidly become notable, but sadly does not seem to be at the moment. I've looked and failed to find any coverage of the subject which would make it meet the GNG. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I was about to punch this "delete" because at this point the arguments for deletion are slightly stronger but before it's closed it would be helpful if someone who reads Portuguese could do a quick google news search. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read the english sources, and it appears that "domain dialing" is not a technology, but rather a product. If it were an emerging technology that several firms were implementing, I'd go for Keep. But it looks like only a single company siter.com produces such product, which utilizes a large database that maps URLs (and location) to a phone number (possibly localized). --Noleander (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL] doesn't allow us to keep articles that "will be notable". Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Janes[edit]

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

I find no reason to believe the subject's notability; see this. Note: there are some things in the history that seem more reliable than the current set of 'references' (none of which are reliable sources by our standards), but still not enough, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left the sources that were already on the article and simply added additional information as the article asked for. Everything is backed up by reliable sources. What references are not "reliable sources" by wikipedia's standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaitlynM87 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the link you provided saying there is no reason that he is notable, he appears in the 7th and 8th search results on that page, amongst others farther down. [16] KaitlynM87 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:ARTIST. None of the sources establish notability and most are user-generated, reading very much like press releases--prweb.com doesn't look like a reliable source; opednews.com is not either. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 00:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rice A/S[edit]

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

Not seeing anything encyclopedic about this 35 employee company. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 June 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) 00:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell all sources are primary. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources that actually mention Rice A/S are all primary: they're all just this company writing about itself. None of the secondary sources (yes, I looked at all of them) appear to mention this company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 00:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live Intrusion[edit]

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

The article subject doesn't have sufficient notability to meet the criteria of WP:MOVIE. The actual content is stubby: one paragraph of technical data on recording and release and the other is a paraphrasing of the two available reviews, neither of which are from nationally know critics, and one of which suggests the home video is "marginal". The rest is transcribed lists. Note that the article was given a GA assessment by an eager-to-please reviewer and a subsequent GAR was closed due to low activity. Hekerui (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Hekerui (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Excuse me, but don't put my name in your mouth sweetie. I never meet the editor who nominated the article nor are we, or had, even talked anywhere. I was only reviewing the article when I was asked to on the talk page of WP:GA. Please keep your comments to yourself, thank you. I am not going to vote weather or not the article should stay since I am involved in with the article. AJona1992 (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NF through commentary and discussion in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. A film does not always have to be reviewed by a "nationally known" reviewer in order to meet inclusion guidelines. A notable "stub article" is just fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per fucking duh and per WP:NALBUMS (specifically the part where the official releases of a notable band inherit the band's notability). I am utterly appalled that someone would try to delete a good article, especially when the reason seems to be that they disagreed with the GA-promotion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an album. And watch your language. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is. And I'll speak how I damn well feel like. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Headbomb. I think its childish to put an article up for deletion after the result from a GAR was less than expected, which is what I believe is the case for this AfD. GamerPro64 18:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I read the GAR as it was progressing, it wasn't closed due to low activity - it was rightly closed as Keep with proper procedure. Szzuk (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Heart[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. I'm unable to find any reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject of this article. Mesoderm (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any sources other than Facebook, which we all know is unacceptable. Also, the actor does not seem to be as well know in their work. Tootalldk (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2011

Point Of Information: About a month ago I added this page to several Australian TV lists, to get more people familiar with Australian TV working on it (I'm Canadian). At the time I checked the list of work that they had in hand, and it did not appear that they would get around to looking at the page before the end of the year. Like everyone else, they are suffering from a lack of volunteers. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point Of Information: Krystic1 who is responsible for most of the work on the Zack Heart page has posted a couple of confused comments here and here indicating that he couldn't find the Articles for Deletion page. I've left links for him to follow, which hopefully will allow him to make his way to this page. Note that he's still having some difficulties with Wikimarkup like we all did when new to Wikipedia. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point Of Information: I've just noticed that Krystic1 has a talk page, but no 'about' page. That's why his name shows up in red. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first 130 search pages give the IMDB entry or clones, this link which says he made the bush fire wildlife TV special, and this link where Wildlife Victoria thanks him for it. I could find nothing else of any substance, nothing in News, Books or Scholar. Not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks any reliable independent sources that confirm notability. WWGB (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions, both a Google and Yahoo search don't have any standing out that is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, I am new to wikipedia and am the person that created Mr Heart's page. I am a fan and intern and have been helped along with the page by editor Bgwhite. I have been away only to return and find this page up for deletion. Before I went away I was advised by Bgwhite that the page had enough references with imdb providing more than two, and now other editors have said imdb's not a valid information source. If actors haven't worked on tv or film productions they cannot get credited on imdb so i dont understand why other editors say its no good. My intention was to do get the page up to a stage where it looked fine and I would continue working on it when I returned. Urbanterrorist went to Mr Hearts page and created all the citations and things the page didn't have to satisfy his own personal issues with Mr Heart who he doesn't even know and in a matter which has nothing to do with him. He has pushed this page as far as he could and now its here. This isn't fair. There are so many wikipedia pages on living people that have no references what so ever and very little information and they've been left alone for years. I am about to add more information, references of articles, tv news, celebrity sites etc on Mr Heart so could you please give me the chance to do this? I don't understand the correct way to format references but I will do my best. Thank you (Krystic1 (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Point Of Information The entry above this line is a "RETAIN", the person who wrote is does not understand how an AfD works and therefore didn't tag it as such. I also wanted to bring to your attention that the References section on the page has been heavily expanded in the last few days. If you look at this comparison you will see what I mean. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fagge[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. as he lived over 70 years ago, gbooks is a more appropriate search engine. [17]. most results simply are in the list of several doctors. he was a president of a few surgical societies, but don't see how this makes you notable. the best coverage is an obituary in a journal [18], but besides that I don't see any coverage in the broader media and press nor is there anything really notable about his career above the many many good surgeons out there. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actual notability not established. However much I admire a well-written historical article, it is difficult to see why he might be notable. PubMed[19] has a fair number of papers written by him. Perhaps the creator/main editor could clarify. JFW | T@lk 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think his Presidency of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (1933) and the delivery of the 1928 Bradshaw Lecture and then 1936 Hunterian oration might be sufficient to help pass WP:Prof ie partially satisfying Criterion 1 invited lectures at meetings of national .. scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep from passing WP:Prof#C6 as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club Managers' Association Australia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Noting that no attempt has been made to improve the article or add reliable sources since the last AfD. Lacks indepth coverage. a mere 3 gnews hits [20]. and limited results in Australian search engine trove [21], some small mentions but nothing indepth. yes they made a submission to the Productivity Commission but that does not count as third party coverage. Fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per reasons listed by Orderinchaos in previous AfD. No new cogent reasons offered for deletion. Whiteguru (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes lack of sources to meet WP:ORG. Trove search also includes book publications that pre date internet. Unless you can provide evidence of sources I fail to see how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National peak body. The organisation is not the sort where either Google or Trove (which is more useful for pre-1954 Australian stuff) would be a helpful search base - most of the sources on it would be in industry publications and local music press. Bduke, in the last debate, found an article from 1997 but didn't have access to retrieve it himself (I've looked and I've hit the same problem - needs someone with either physical access to the journal catalogue - which some unis would have on shelf - or a paid account.) Deletion is for cases where notability is in question - "did not improve in self-specified period" is not by itself a reason for deletion. It's one of those times one is reminded that even in 2011, not everything is actually online. Orderinchaos 15:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pekka Kana 2[edit]

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

I have not been able to verify this information through reliable secondary sources. Article does not explain how this game is notable enough for inclusion. (WP:V, WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I just add some sources and even new information? Stupid Hedgehog (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did indeed, but pistegamez.net is a super source. As an encylopedia, our articles must be based on secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable web sources in either English or Finnish. --Mika1h (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content guru[edit]

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

The article isn't backed up by independent sources, and upon a quick Google, I could not find much third-party coverage for this company. Furthermore, it appears that the author is a marketing consultant for the company. wctaiwan (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another one. Content Guru specialises in the field of Communications Integration which involves connecting different information and communications systems together so that they can interwork. Content Guru provides its solutions using cloud-based technology and uses a SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) delivery model. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I work for Cable and Wireless Worldwide and can reference to working collaboratibely on solutions with Content Guru in this field for over four years. They are a technology company who have been at the vanguard of "cloud" based technology and software as a service provision and deployment models. As a key intellectual property engine for our company they provide hosted multi media gateway engines that can do a variety of exciting propositions in the contact centre and mobility spaces. They are both innovative and collaborative and I can certainly verify the content and integrity of their entry.S100BEY (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources appear to be marketing material, press releases and the like: nothing truly independent as is required by the WP:Notability policy. --Noleander (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Jain[edit]

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

WP:Vanispamcruftisement, no indication of notability per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed with Gurt Posh above, this is WP:Vanispamcruftisement and lacks notability per WP:BIO Whiteguru (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 00:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Bengtsson (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Subject of article has not attained level of notability specified in WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to the article and a reliable source, Bengstsson was named to the 2008-09 Rikspucken All-Star Team. I am not sure if this meets criterion 4 of WP:NHOCKEY. He would have been 15 or 16 years old at the time, so this may not qualify as a "major junior league". Rlendog (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Rikspucken" translates from Swedish as “National puck”, and to be named to the Rikspucken All-Star Team means he was the best junior hockey player in Sweden at his position. This meets WP:NHOCKEY criteria #4 as a preeminent honour in a major junior league. Dolovis (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Rikspucken was a one time tournament which occurred in 2009 for junior players who were too old for TV-pucken. Therefore, I do not agree it is a major junior league, and also means that he fails WP:NHOCKEY criteria #4. I did, however, find a source for when he signed for Rögle at hd.se, a regional newspaper, but I'm wondering if it will suffice to meet WP:GNG. Tooga - BØRK! 20:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a borderline case: although his career to this point barely, if at all, meets the WP:NHOCKEY criteria, he was, in fact, drafted by the NHL last month (June 2011) so there is a strong likelihood he'll meet the requirements in a few months. For that reason, I'm tilting towards Keep. --Noleander (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being drafted by an NHL team should imply notability. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ice hockey Ordoinc (talk) Ordoinc (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are hundreds of draftees who don't have any news mention beyond that they were drafted, so the policy is to limit this to first-rounders, but Bengtsson is a second-rounder. Lots of players have one training camp, go down to minors and play a year or two before they get out of hockey. Bengtsson is iffy, but there is not enough based on what is in the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 00:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Irwin[edit]

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

Player has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This player meets the WP:NHOCKEY requirements. Matt Irwin Stats --Nmiddlebrooks (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was twice named BCHL Best Defenceman (2006-07 and 2007-08); he is entering his third professional season in the AHL (where he has already played 76 games), and he has received significant and reliable coverage [22] [23][24] [25] to support that this players passes GNG. Dolovis (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those sources are purely routine mentions, none are about the person in question, therefore do not count to GNG. BCHL is not a major junior league, either, so that does not cover NHOCKEY. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will reach 100 game threshold in the first 14 games of 2011-12 season. Ordoinc (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cam MacIntyre[edit]

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

Player has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. He has not won any major awards, and has played only 42 games as a professional. Did not play for NHL Sharks. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Named to the NCAA (ECAC) All-Academic Team in three consecutive years (2007, 2008, and 2009); he is entering his second professional season in the AHL; and he has received significant and reliable coverage including CBS Sports and USA Today to support that this players passes GNG. Dolovis (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - All academic team is not a major award, as specified in NHOCKEY. These articles cited by Dolovis are not about MacIntyre. The first is a note that he was signed by the Sharks. The second is a discussion of several players on his team, including MacIntyre. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All academic team is not a major award as mentioned by Alaney2k. And the articles linked to by Dolovis are not significantly about the subject as is required by GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think any of the sources provide significant coverage of the individual. Possibly userfy so the article can be recreated if and when the individual attains notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Player is on pace to reach the 100 game threshold this coming season. Ordoinc (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe you could move it your user space? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:CRYSTAL. We don't give pages to people who are "about" to do something. They have to already be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Église du Nazaréen Ouest de l'Île[edit]

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

Is this church notable enough for this stub to be included? Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability. -- 202.124.74.60 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as above, there is no indication of notability Whiteguru (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Blade: Missing Ace[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous AfD for this article closed in September of last year without consensus. The closing administrator wished to provide editors with the opportunity to find Japanese or hardcopy sources and recommended that the article be revisited "in a month or two." It has been ten months since the AfD closed and no new sources have been added to the article. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. Neelix (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched high and wide on imdb.com for this movie: but it is not documented there. If it aint in IMDB, it shouldnt have its own WP article. IMDB does show the underlying Kamen Rider Blade TV show, but not a "feature length movie" as this article claims. If such a movie exists (and there is a chance it does exist, based on some google hits) it can be described in the main Kamen Rider Blade article, but it does not merit its own article. --Noleander (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it's a theatrical movie, it is surely notable. It's just that it's 7 years old, so any news about its release are hard to find. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a professional review: [26] Moscowconnection (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - The statement that this film was theatrically released is not sourced. Furthermore, a film's notability is not demonstrated by whether or not it was released in theatres; its notability is demonstrated by reliable sources. Ten months after an AfD should be quite a sufficient amount of time to find significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources if such coverage does in fact exist. That the film is seven years old should make sources easier to find, not harder; the more time has passed, the more sources are likelier to have been written and the likelier it is that those sources will be inserted into journal article databases and the like. Neelix (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it's a movie for elementary school kids. The movie was in the news back then, it's obvious. Moscowconnection (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is, the Director's Cut was 13th on Oricon: MISSING ACE Director's Cut Moscowconnection (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An entry on a single list does not constitute significant coverage. Neelix (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please treat as a contested PROD if challeneged in future. Courcelles 00:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Light into Dark[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please treat as a contested PROD if challeneged in future. Courcelles 00:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still Becoming Apart[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please treat as a contested PROD if challeneged in future. Courcelles 00:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starla[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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