Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 10

< 9 March	11 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AONN Records[edit]

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

Written almost entirely by a single user, full of language that is excessively complimentary, almost approaching the level of advertising copy. Very large claims are made that are completely unsupported by the sources. All external links are silly, including things like a facebook group with nine members.

The only easily found article about AONN in a mainstream source that is not simply a local CD review is the linked cnet article. The cnet article specifies that AONN, at least as a defense contractor as described in part of this article currently, simply does not exist whatsoever. The cnet article describes how AONN apparently successfully registered a .gov domain without justification; this may be notable enough to warrant inclusion on the wikipage for the .gov TLD, but does not establish notability for the organization.

AONN may exist in some form; several albums listed in the discography definitely do exist and list AONN Records. However, although I'm not entirely familiar with the music notability guidelines, I'm pretty confident that none of them have achieved any degree of notability. With the exception of a very small number of reviews of their releases in area papers, as far as I can tell there is no mention of AONN in any newspaper or anything else that would be classified as a reliable source.

AONN is not a registered company in Washington or Virginia, the two states mentioned on the page. (I ran AONN along with all of its listed synonyms through the state corporation and dba databases.) I know absence of registration may not mean much, but I would expect a media conglomerate as AONN is described as to be registered as a corporation. No major reliable source that I can find mentions AONN except in the context of the .gov registration or one or two cd reviews from 2000.

If AONN is deemed notable enough as a label to remain, I'll go through and delete all the confirmed incorrect info (like the defense contractor stuff,) but I've been unable to find solid evidence of it's notability even as a label.Kgorman-ucb

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not one single piece of the AONN Records material that sounds complimentary.

Next, how do you know that their company AONN is not still conducting government contracting business to this day? If you were to gamble and wager your career, I would estimate that you would lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Did you ever think for a moment that the cnet article might in and of itself be fundamentally flawed? Perhaps your issue with the truth of the matter is that the cnet article from the start, consisted of misleading information because someone who contributed to the cnet "story" did not do his/her homework. There is nothing "silly" about the AONN Records article on Wikipedia. Your actions and your language bespeak a very sophomoric attitude. The notability of AONN Records was already established by Wikipedia in that KansasCali appeared on AONN Records November 12 Projekt track #19 titled, "I Didn't Know." The CD is available worldwide. " KansasCali who are now the Alternative Rock group called the Rocturnals." KansasCali is a Alternative rock group.

"History Both members belong to the production team Da Bookeez, in which they, along with E.Borders, have produced songs both individually and collectively. KansasCali has been featured in Billboard's 2005 Digital Entertainment & Media Awards.

Discography 2007: TV One's "I Dont Want To Be A Star" Starring George Willborn (Theme Song) Kicking It Old Skool (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) Complicated 2006: My Book Haven (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) 2005: Hello World CRASH Mr. & Mrs. Smith International Soundtrack Adults Only 2004: Food For Thought The Valet, The Bar, The Booth 2003: Appeared on 5 Compilation Records 2002: Better Dayz God's Son 2001: Appeared on AONN Records November 12 Projekt track #19 titled, "I Didn't Know" References ^ Digital Entertainment Awards"

AONN released a CD worldwide consisting of notable artists who have already been deemed notable by Wikipedia, thus making AONN Records a notable entity. Your denial of these very simple facts will simply lead to AONN Records history being further justified, reinforced and re-added to Wikipedia by multiple sources from around the world if the AONN Records article is ever deleted. Furthermore, AONN Records was and has been a legal government contracting entity despite your best efforts and attempts to suggest otherwise. Your lack of knowledge regarding the true nature of AONN Records and the company's related activities appears to be typical and characteristic of various third parties in media and other sectors who turned out to be incorrect regarding their initial assessment of AONN Records. If you do the proper research, you will find that AONN Records was never debarred from the business of government contracting and has been conducting said activities even to this day. Your college group is obviously not privy to certain information that can be easily found on the Internet. You ought to check your facts, as you have not conducted thorough research at the university and scholarly level on the subject of AONN Records.

There are far too many articles on Wikipedia that have been erroneously marked for speedy deletion and the AONN Records article is a prime example. There is absolutely nothing false about this article. All the references and sources check out. Next, the article is not in any way, shape, or form, written like an advertisement. The article is purely fact based. For user Kgorman to use the expression "bull" and even go so far as to indicate that "most of the article" is "bull" demonstrates that he is completely misinformed. Again, all the sources and references for the article check out. The following is one element of proof that the article is very encyclopedic and not false in any way: For example, if you follow the link from the AONN Records article to "KansasCali" you will see that the music group did in fact appear on a bona fide CD that is clearly being distributed worldwide and that is titled, "The November 12 Projekt," spelled with a 'k' just as I pointed out. Therefore, it is obvious to anyone at that point, that AONN Records is a real company with factual business standing and with the capability of releasing physical and digital musical material worldwide since the year 2000, as one can see from their company's multiple CD releases over the past ten years. It was already determined by Wikipedia to keep the related article on KansasCali that had been marked for deletion as far back as 2007. Thus, if the KansasCali article was deemed to have been true, then we can easily see and deduce that KansasCali truly appeared on a CD by a company called AONN Records. AONN Records material can be found in Amazon's database as well as the databases of what I have found to be hundreds, if not thousands, of music retailers form around the world. So, (A) AONN Records is obviously a real entity (B) Major artists who have had music on Hollywood Soundtracks such as KansasCali having appeared on the CRASH movie soundtrack, have also appeared on AONN Records albums (C) AONN Records has been interviewed by FOXNews, apparently CNN and other media bureaus, so again, there are clearly legitimate references to a company that appears to be exactly what the article says it is.

For Kgorman to claim that "most of the AONN Records" article is "bull" is irresponsible on his part and illustrates the fact that he has not done his homework. AONN Records is clearly a real entity dating back at least 11 years regardless of Kgorman's lack of knowledge about the entity. Looking at Kgorman's profile, one can see that he is a member of a UC Berkeley group that purports to deal with issues of piracy. Despite Kgorman's group's stated intent to instill good in the world, he has apparently jumped the gun on this one, with regard to the AONN Records article that is clearly, factually, referenced and supported by crystal clear evidence of truth. In fact, not one iota of the AONN Records article is untrue. It is one hundred percent true. Kgorman is completely, entirely, one hundred percent incorrect and his initial thoughts on the matter are purely subjective, opinionated, baseless, without substantiation and entirely of his own mind. The bottom line is that he is wrong and the AONN Records article is absolutely scholarly, based on true facts, referenced, supported by real world empirical evidence and has even been mentioned on CNN and FOXNews, not to mention that we can all see that AONN company's products being available worldwide for over an entire decade, at least by checking the copyright information dating back to at least the year 2000--over ten years. Wikipedia is supposed to be about truth, not about the personal opinions of contributors who do not properly source their information and then make such statements that are highly opinionated such as the absurd statement made by Kgorman in which he wrote "the AONN article is mostly bull."

Conversely, the AONN Records article is not only completely, one hundred percent backed up by solid facts, but it is also very well written, not in any way written like an advertisement, and it gives only the facts. The article is unbiased, without conflict of interest, and the article does not embellish the AONN company. The article merely points out the AONN media groups obvious history. Again, it cannot be disputed that the AONN company and conglomerate have been mentioned by major media sources and major news networks. AONN Records is verified, evidently legitimate and has an ostensible history that makes sense to those of us who have conducted proper research on the topic. In conclusion, KansasCali's article was deemed true by Wiki after a similar dispute, it is very clear and quite obvious from Amazon and thousands of other Web sites that KansasCali does in fact appear on AONN records material, so not only is Kgorman's analysis wrong, but his analysis is completely wrong and not well researched at all. AONN Records appears to be a very real entity with a very complex history that turns out to be one hundred percent verifiable and apparently legitimate. The media company's somewhat controversial nature so many years ago in the minds of some reporters as can be seen from some of the articles in the search engines has no bearing on whether AONN Records and the media group are real entities. They are clearly real entities. If Wikipedia is about truth, then Kgorman's initial assessment was hasty, was/is very wrong and nowhere near the real truth. AONN Records clearly deserves a place in Wikipedia given the absolute fact that it is absolutely a real entity with over one hundred artists signed to the company, which is exactly what the packaging data indicates when one does his/her proper research at Amazon dot com and thousands of other legitimate retailers carrying legitimate product for over a decade from a legitimate company that has been in existence for at least a decade from what the real world evidence proves.

There is zero conflict of interest. Kgorman's analysis is meta-faulty. Bromanski has not addressed Kgorman's so-called "in-depth" analysis of AONN Records despite Bromanski's list of word frequency. I gave a proper rebuttal which annihilates Kgorman's ridiculous claim that the AONN Records article is mostly "bull." Bromanski simply sidestepped the larger issue of whether AONN is actual and deferred to a pointless word counter of which the latter has nothing in the universe of space-time to do with the reality that AONN is a genuine entity. There appears to be some collusion here in regard to Bromanski going out of his way in a bizarre attempt to lead one to believe that AONN is not an authentic company with a more than ten year history.

2625 COLBY AVENUE, SUITE 3-158 EVERETT, WA 98201

Services Offered

AdvancedAnnualAssessmentBudgetClassifiedConsultingCounterterrorismDefenseDevelopmentInformationsecurity IntelligenceNationalsecurityResearchRevenueRiskScienceStudiesTechnologyThreat Business Information

In Business Since: 1995 Ownership: Minority Owned Business Sector: Government Contract, Commercial

In terms of your class discussion about the topic of AONN the company's related defense contracting activities, AONN Records seems to be and seems to have been conducting certain legitimate government contract related activities of which you and your classmates are unaware. Again, the notability of AONN was long ago established quite simply by the artists who appear on AONN Records materials as illustrated above. On the other hand, the pretentious attitudes of your peers and highly misinformed colleagues, demonstrates your lack of true knowledge of this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can not find any third party sources that cover this in detail. Skin deep is a trivial mention and can't work to N. vI can't find any g-news hits and all of the google hits are not RSes. The cited cnet article claim the company does not exist.

For the remainder of this discussion can we please all be civil and limit our replies to a reasonable length --Guerillero | My Talk 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real notability, no real 3rd party refs, no article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.C (talk • contribs)

Delete. Article has been cleaned up since creation and is styled appropriately, but I cannot find sufficient sources to show it has achieved any kind of recognition that suggests it meets our criteria as an encyclopedic subject. There is almost no sign of the world taking actual note of it in a significant way either as a media company (WP:N) or a controversy (WP:NOT#NEWS), or "enduring notability" (WP:NOT), nor any other criterion that suggests it is a significant media company for Wikipedia purposes. Lots of self-pub and promotion websites of a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE nature (myspace, mp3.com etc), next to no hard recognition in terms of cites showing significant editorial coverage and focus within reliable independent sources. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

— Duplicate !vote: Advanced research (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.(left by Guerillero | My Talk 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

In terms of the above parties who are in favor of deletion, none of them has conducted proper research. Did you ever think for a moment that the cnet article might in and of itself be fundamentally flawed? The cnet article is not accurate and is actually quite misleading. AONN Records is a registered company and has been all along.

(A) AONN Records is obviously a real entity (B) Major artists who have had music on Hollywood Soundtracks such as KansasCali having appeared on the CRASH movie soundtrack, have also appeared on AONN Records albums (C) AONN Records has been interviewed by FOXNews, apparently CNN and other media bureaus, so again, there are clearly legitimate references to a company that appears to be exactly what the article says it is.

The notability of AONN Records was already established by Wikipedia in that KansasCali appeared on AONN Records November 12 Projekt track #19 titled, "I Didn't Know." The CD is available worldwide." KansasCali are now the Alternative Rock group called the Rocturnals and are linked to AONN Records on Wikipedia.

KansasCali has been featured in Billboard's 2005 Digital Entertainment & Media Awards.

It was already determined by Wikipedia that KansasCali meets Wikipedia's standards of notability through a similar dispute. Therefore, there should be no dispute regarding AONN Records. Aside from any controversy and confusion on part of third parties who are unaware of AONN Records history, AONN Records has more than established its notability with the association of KansasCali which was already deemed notable by way of a previous Wikipedia dispute.

It is asinine for anyone to try to make the claim that AONN Records is not notable based simply on the notion that certain third parties who are nonexperts are unable to find certain information about a company that is already deemed notable by way of its association with artists who were already deemed notable by Wikipedia standards back in 2007. There should have never been a dispute as to AONN Records notability.

See Wikipedia entry and notes for "KansasCali" and notice that KansasCali was signed by AONN Records for the November 12 Projekt, which was released worldwide with radio play for the single, "I Didn't Know." Furthermore, KansasCali has been on 2 major, Hollywood soundtracks, (1) CRASH (2) Mr. & Mrs. Smith

~~Keep~~

— Duplicate !vote: Advanced research (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.(left by Guerillero | My Talk 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

User FT2 is just plain wrong. AONN Records material is sold on MSN by the Microsoft Network, Bank of America, Virgin Mobile, Virgin Records, SONY Records, SONY DADC, Interscope/Interscope Digital, Amazon, HMV Canada, Tower Records, Rhaphsody, and HUNDREDS of other companies in over 150 different countries.

AONN Records material is sold in 150 countries and carried by some of the largest networks in the United States, including the Microsoft Corporation as stated above. Furthermore, AONN Records is more than notable, as the media company's materials are sold and found on literally thousands of Web sites around the world:

http://www.answers.com/topic/aonn-records-presents-the-november-12-projekt-2001-album-by-washington-state-original-artists

Ease Your Pain Rap by Doug Crawford of AONN Records Canada ... Sep 4, 2010 ... The new Canadian Boy Band/Rap Group has arrived ... canadian rap music muchmusic tv factor television bbc mtv canada hip hop r&b toronto ... www.astamusictv.com/.../ease-your-pain-rap-by-doug-crawford-of-aonn-records-canada-executive-producer-robert-taylor/ - Cached ► Aonn Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Washington State ... Before We Retaliate [EXPLICIT] On: Aonn Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt By: 495, One Sir Grove Of Evt, Mr. Brocklie, Spank Muthafu*Kin' T ... music.napster.com/dolemite-music/.../aonn-records...12.../10748019 - Cached AONN Records Canada-U.S. - DJ Sets and Tracks - Free music on PLAY.FM Tracks: Introduction, Can't Fucc wit U, So Serious, Jeepers Creepers Sneakers, Don't Be No Fool, Why?, Smokers Only, Land of the Strange, Reality, ... www.play.fm/label/aonnrecordscanadaus - Cached Rap & Hip Hop CD Results for Aonn Records Label at Tower.com Find Aonn Records label Rap & Hip Hop music on CD when you shop at Tower Records and browse CD reviews, track listings, album cover art, song samples and ... www.tower.com/.../aonn-records&cat101=88&facet=1100&cat102=4520&format=6 - Cached Politech: FC: More on AONN.gov: Feds pull plug on "cyberwarfare ... Feb 5, 2003 ... ""AONN Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt." Artists were selected from among those who proved to have exceptional performance ... seclists.org/politech/2003/Feb/22 AONN Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Washington State ... Nov 12, 2010 ... Listen to AONN Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Washington State Original... FREE on Rhapsody.com. Rhapsody lets you explore ... www.rhapsody.com/.../aonn-records-presents-the-november-12-projekt - Cached AONN Records / The Orchard mp3s, AONN Records / The Orchard music ... Download AONN Records / The Orchard albums and specific songs. eMusic also has compilations such as greatest hits and rare classic albums. www.emusic.com/label/AONN-Records-The...MP3.../109411.html - Cached Shopzilla - Find low prices on Aonn Records Presents: The November ... Shop online for Aonn Records Presents: The NOvember 12 Projekt by Washington State Original Artists (CD - 03/06/2001 and compare prices. www.shopzilla.com/aonn-records-presents-the...12.../compare - Cached soundclick artist: aonnrecords - AONN Records was created and ... AONN Records was created and licensed in 1995 by a group of young, scientific prodigies and philosophers working in multimedia, military defense security ... www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=453233...id... - Cached Aonn Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Various Artists ... Mar 6, 2001 ... Preview and download songs from Aonn Records Presents: The November 12 Projekt by Various Artists on itunes. Buy Aonn Records Presents: The ... itunes.apple.com/gb/.../aonn-records.../id4589668 - United Kingdom -

AONN Records is more notable than most independent record/media companies that are listed in Wikipedia. There has been both controversy and positive media reports that collectively satisfy and meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Again, the notion that AONN Records media company not being notable is ridiculous and quite absurd.

It was already determined by Wikipedia that KansasCali meets Wikipedia's standards of notability through a similar dispute. Therefore, there should be no dispute regarding AONN Records. Aside from any controversy and confusion on part of third parties who are unaware of AONN Records history, AONN Records has more than established its notability with the association of KansasCali which was already deemed notable by way of a previous Wikipedia dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. We establish notability based on coverage by independent outlets. Album sales via a distribution company have no relationship to notability. I am striking out your second !vote because you voted twice. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already thought this was a promo article, and the overly-long attempts at defending the article only further convince me of that. —Lowellian (reply) 00:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It is asinine for anyone to try to make the claim that AONN Records is not notable based simply on the notion that certain third parties who are nonexperts are unable to find certain information about a company that is already deemed notable by way of its association with artists who were already deemed notable by Wikipedia standards back in 2007. There should have never been a dispute as to AONN Records notability.
See Wikipedia entry and notes for "KansasCali" and notice that KansasCali was signed by AONN Records for the November 12 Projekt, which was released worldwide with radio play for the single, "I Didn't Know." Furthermore, KansasCali has been on 2 major, Hollywood soundtracks, (1) CRASH (2) Mr. & Mrs. Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate !vote: Advanced research (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.(left by FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Users here are not "making a claim" it is non-notable. We are saying that no evidence in reliable sources that meets our standards for notability has been shown to us. We can't consider claims of evidence if we have not actually verified it ourselves (between us), and the evidence that has been shown so far is very weak.

A group "KansasCali" appeared on the label. Our policy is that notability is not inherited. The fact a group may be notable does not make the label signing it notable.
A CNET article on a .gov website with a one sentence mention that "some have suggested it is a spoof [by AONN media]" apparently due to the similarity of name. Nothing more, no evidence it gained wide coverage as a controversy, and does not show that AONN media itself has gained "significant coverage" (WP:N) or that this matter has "enduring notability" (WP:NOT#NEWS). Non-major news items are almost never within our criteria
A book (itself not notable on interracial America) with a chapter on Robert Lee Taylor III. AONN is mantioned in one sentence, and then only because he was its CEO. AONN does not get "significant coverage" in "independent reliable sources" here either.

AONN is a music (media) company. It releases and publicizes records round the world, and it signs artists, which is what media companies do. Doing these things (like publishing albums or signing bands etc) is not evidence of notability, it's just what music businesses do. "Significant coverage" is quite a demanding term, and excludes a lot of poor quality coverage. There is no evidence in this discussion showing it has achieved "significant coverage" as a music company, or alternatively that the AONN.GOV issue has obtained "significant coverage" as a controversy. Last, as I commented on the article's talk page, we are not doing investigative journalism here, or parading supposed "government secrets" to the world unless the secrets have themselves gained significant coverage in a way we can verify (by seeing enough examples of coverage to convince users here that it is so). If something or some company has not already gained "significant coverage" in sources we can verify, then we don't cover it either. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other arguments regarding non-notability. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey, there you have it. It makes perfect sense now as to why Wikipedia is not considered scholarly, is untrusted, is unreliable and is not allowed by most accredited universities in North America as an accurate source of information. The above arguments regarding non-notability of the media company I wrote about are preposterous.

It appears as if Wikipedia editors will believe any newspaper article they read from any source and that a vast majority of Wikipedian's have nothing to do but create their own comfortable versions of what they believe to be reality.

OK, so you have your consensus. One guy says AONN is non-notable. Another guy comes along as says that the question is not about non-notability. Another person says that he/she believes everything written in the cnet article even though it has been explained a thousand times that the cnet article was inaccurate from the very beginning. Then, someone else comes along and says that a media company that has material selling on thousands of Web sites around the world still does not meet notability. Then, someone else chimes in and says that AONN Records never existed, even though the truth is that the AONN media company has done more than most of the truly non-notable and so-called independent record companies that are already listed with Wikipedia and that have never been disputed.

So, there it is: AONN Records never really existed (according to Wikipedia), was not/is not a real media company (according to Wikipedia) and has no notability by Wikipedia standards because some girl in San Francisco does not know how to properly search government databases for business listings and/or government contract companies.

Alright, Wikipedia's own brand of logic has opined once again. Live in denial of facts and write off AONN Records in some false way for your audience. I will keep a backup copy of these transcripts so that when the AONN media company further emerges as a major force in the world of media and entertainment which is inevitable, the world will know and see how Wikipedia tried to disrespect the AONN conglomerate. Again, this is why Ph.D.s, professors, institutions of higher learning, degreed persons and other scholars for the most part, do not allow Wikipedia to be cited in scholarly papers because Wikipedia has a tendency to delete, edit and modify true history for its own collective agenda, which is to put a warped spin and false stamp on otherwise true history.

The world has your usernames. Have fun boys and girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced research (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a company is not sufficient to establish notability. AONN Records may well exist (I have no reason to doubt that, actually), but that doesn't mean it is a "notable" topic by Wikipedia's standards. Please review these guidelines to see why we do not believe it is notable.

As for why Wikipedia can't be cited in papers, that has nothing to do with reliability, it has to do with the fact that Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a tertiary source, and tertiary sources are rarely allowed in papers. You couldn't cite Encyclopedia Britannica any more than you could cite Wikipedia. Also, kindly refrain from attacking or insulting other editors. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as A7 18:52, 11 March 2011 by RHaworth (talk · contribs)(non-admin closure). Chzz ► 04:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Molander[edit]

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

No reference. Notability in doubt. Looks self promotional. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Toral[edit]

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

The article is about a footballer who is yet to have made a first team appearance, let alone a fully professional one; thus failing the project's notability. Jared Preston (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was unaware of the previous AfD discussion. It is possible that the article could be deleted under the CSD G4. Jared Preston (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jared Preston (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. This article is not substantially different than the one that previously deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Giant Snowman 15:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per consensus and per CSD G11. This isn't an article it's a brochure. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse Institute[edit]

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

I prodded and then redirected to the institute as a good compromise, in both cases reverted by author. Apparently non notable course/programme written by the course founder. Fails WP:GNG. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Program is new, notability may not be established yet but is a notable program. Is worthy of it's own page. Any suggestions for changes or other info you need so the page can be retained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorado125 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 - spam. No indication of notability - all I can find in a search to affirm notability is other promotional content. The course is also covered at Robin Crow and Dark Horse Recording Studio, two other articles which seem to be more advert than encyclopaedic reference. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as pure spam. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam - Whpq (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ptarmigan ACP[edit]

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

not independently notable film company, apparently a single production of little note. The single production Blooded (film)is also at AFD and users may want to consider them together and any possible mergers and redirect options. The article was prodded and it was removed without any explanation by an IP with a first edit. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage shows failing of WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blooded (film) might be notable enough to keep, but the production company doesn't seem notable enough. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Khurana[edit]

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

Questionable notability, minimal sourcing. An IP tried to nominate this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROF criterion 5 with a named chair. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, speedy close. Named chair at Harvard, multiple scholarly books from major university presses. Unarguably passes WP:PROF. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:PROF#C1 (many highly cited papers in Google scholar, three with over 100 cites) and #C5 (the named chair). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Voith[edit]

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

Subject's career doesn't seem notable. Was/Is the commander of a notable unit, however, notability is not inherited. Received a low level military award. Could not find references for him. Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:SOLDIER. v/r - T P 21:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced biography of an officer that doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely unreferenced BLP. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This mid-ranked officer doesn't seem likely to pass WP:BIO and the article is entirely unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AustralianRupert and NickD. Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant Eslava[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Fails WP:ARTIST LordVetinari (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article only tries to establish that he's a professional photographer; it makes no real claim to notability, and there's no coverage. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Mbinebri said. (As he's still only a teenager [or so we are told], this is hardly a surprise.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Ticciati[edit]

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

Originally PRODded but contested by page creator. Cleaned up article and double-checked sources but subject still fails each criterion of WP:ACADEMIC LordVetinari (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am afraid that this otherwise notable academic may fall foul of the verifiability issue in Wikipedia:ACADEMIC#General_notes: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I'll post a rescue tag in the belief that I am mistaken. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I tried rescuing. The edit history will show what I did but feel free to second-guess me if you disagree with something. I think I agree with your comment about verifiability but isn't mention on her college's own website sufficient for those citations where it's used? Correct me if I'm wrong. Nonetheless, I still think the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, but perhaps she will in a few years time. BTW, note this edit summary. The source I refer to is KCL not Amazon. LordVetinari (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precise opposite of what Bearian says above. There is no problem at all with verifiability of the subject's academic career, unless anyone wants to claim that King's College London is an unreliable source, but such verification shows that she comes nowhere near meeting the requirements of WP:PROF, being a lecturer (i.e. "assistant professor" in American English), and with a total of 12 citations to her work listed by Google Scholar. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She has created a work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews doi:10.1093/jts/flp042, doi:10.1353/sho.0.0200. Does this meet WP:AUTHOR criterion 3? The only reason it wouldn't is if we judge it not to be a "significant" work. But how do we judge significance, if not by the existence of multiple full-length reviews in independent reliable academic journals? Maybe a topic for Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) rather than here? Personally, I'm increasingly thinking that this specific criterion is in need of revision. --Qwfp (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her work must be influential in her field. Google Book search shows many other religious books mentioning here and her work. She is also referenced in a lot of Google scholar results. WP:PROF item 1. I believe she meets. Read the explanation of "Notes to specific criteria:" and that seems to fit here rather well. Dream Focus 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Google scholar search shows 59 results for her name, 32 if you add in the Bible book named "Job" and 25 if you filter out those that were written by her. [1] 45 results if you eliminate "Job" and just search for "Susannah Ticciati" -"S Ticciati"(this is the name she publishes articles by, so I removed those from the search). I doubt someone else has the same name as her, it certainly not a common one. Google books has 222 results for her name, all of them religious, and most not written by her but by those referencing her work. Dream Focus 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that this falls under the general criterion whereby Dr Ticciati is more distinguished than the average lecturer. Theologynina 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theologynina (talk • contribs) who is the creator of the article . — Theologynina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Your account has made no other edits outside this article. It suggests this may just be a vanity page. It would help the skeptics (like myself) if you were to be able to describe exactly how/why Dr Ticciati is more distinguished than the average lecturer. Otherwise.. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. GS cites are 7, 3, 1, 1. Totally inadequate for WP:Prof#C1, even for a low cited area as systematic theology. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as articulated by Xxanthippe above, there does not seem to be enough to pass the professor test quite yet. nancy 09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews, you would expect someone being a well know author to get at least a passing mention. fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe and David Epstein. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF, and although she is the author of a work that has received multiple independent reviews in reputable academic journals, (see my Comment above), this does not appear to be a significant work as required to meet WP:AUTHOR: the journals in question are the specialist theology journals (Journal of Theological Studies and Shofar: An International Journal of Jewish Studies), there are no hits in GNews Archive indicating no reviews in non-academic journals or newspapers, and the few hits in GBooks are for specialist theology books. Qwfp (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the above, there are 5 publications listed in WoS, but 0 overall citations. Her book ("Job and the disruption...") is held by ~125 institutions according to WorldCat. Note that number of GS hits is irrelevant (as opposed to the citations of the hits, as xxan points out). It would appear that this case must be argued on WP:PROF#1 (as others are obvious non-starters), but the statistics do not support a conclusion of notability. Rather, they are extremely typical of a junior-level academic. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Susannah is amazing. End of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.184.159 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — 159.92.184.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Do you have any substantive argument? This seems to be just personal opinion. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 18:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic4android[edit]

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

Zero notability shown. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the main author for this entry. Basic4android is not just a software. It is a new programming language. I'm new to Wikipedia authoring and still learning. I've now added two references to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erel2 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A google news search turns up some press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be another BASIC ~~interpreter~~ compiler, except this one is more like Visual Basic. Does not establish real notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not argue with you as you all appear to know everything and are much smarter than us the regular users. Some small notes. Basic4android is not an interpreter at all. It is a compiler. The language is similar to Visual Basic and Visual Basic .Net. Basic4android is the most powerful (complete) alternative for developing Android applications without using Eclipse / Java. It is still a very new product so you cannot find a lot of information about it. I don't understand why this topic is less important than many other (similar) topics like DarkBasic, FreeBasic, Liberty_BASIC, PureBasic and many others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erel2 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the status of other articles is not really the point- this article fails to meet the general notability guidelines as it is. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If we "cannot find a lot of information about it", we probably can't have it in Wikipedia. The information here should be verifiable by reliable sources. News stories and the like (not press releases), are what is needed to show this product is in fact notable. (Incidentially, if you are one of the subject's developers, you have conflict of interest. You should not use Wikipedia for promoting your product. If your product becomes notable, others will likely create a page for it.) OSborn^arf_contribs. 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a B4A user who came here to create a page about it, I have to argue in favour of the Wikipedia page being kept, not deleted. It is a very new language but already with a growing user base and has been mentioned on popular sites such as Dr Dobbs and Gizmo Crunch. It has equally as much validity as the other entries for Basic based languages such as those listed in the discussion above, of whom their wikipedia pages have their own websites as their reference source rather than independent sources despite their being longer established.

You argue that news stories not press releases make something worthy of inclusion however if you review any of the Basic languages already mentioned and that have Wikipedia pages you will see a notable lack of news reports on even the more established ones, and given its relative newness you can understand Basic4Android has less press than they currently do hence the lack of widespread external references.

You argue it has zero notability, I would argue that any new programming environment that simplifies programming for the worlds most successful mobile operating system is as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as any other such environment for any other platform.

Mistermentality (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gizmo Crunch just reprinted a press release. And the Dr. Dobbs article is just a rehash of the press release. The article is primarily quotes and taken from the same press release as can be easily seen when comparing the two. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the notability criteria are not met. Sandstein 06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keven Veilleux[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an automatic case, and not notable enough otherwise for his own article. Mandsford 21:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have wrote the page because I've seen the French page fr:Keven Veilleux and I thought it would be OK, but you're right, it doesn't match the WP:NHOCKEY guideline. But so far he played 59 games and counting in the AHL [2], so he is not far away from the criteria of 100 games in the AHL. --Giskard (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 60 pro games total does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He can easily be recreated next season if he surpasses the 100 game threshold. ccwaters (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject currently fails WP:NHOCKEY/ The player may have 61 games in the AHL currently, but will have to wait until at least sometime next season to meet the 100-game trigger for Criteria #3 of NHOCKEY. Can be recreated or restored if/when the player meets one of the qualifications of NHOCKEY. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've voted to Keep in such cases when it was near-to-certain the player would achieve 100 games within the current season. It's never appropriate to do so when the player needs another season to do it ... the more so in dealing with a minor-leaguer whose entry-level contract is about to expire and who missed most of last season due to injuries. That such players - especially when their minor league scoring record is mediocre - often move on to other endeavors is axiomatic. Ravenswing 11:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability as leader in a minor league per NYT 15 May 2009 [3] Top players (with playoff statistics and N.H.L. affiliations): RW Keven Veilleux (7 goals, 12 assists; Pittsburgh), Quebec Major Junior Hockey League March 2009 "offensive player of the month" per [4]. At worst he is on a cusp of notability - my suggestion is to Keep as a result. "Minor league record scoring is mediocre" is a bit of a reach as a claim. Collect (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What notability criterion do you claim this meets? Certainly none of the NHOCKEY criteria. Ravenswing 14:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax (WP:CSD#G3). —BETTIA— ^talk 12:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Matthews[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Elaborate hoax. Speedy deleted previously.

The article contains a link for the match report for the game in which he supposedly debuted for Rotherham (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/feb/27/match.sport9) The article does not mention him, and the lineups for the game (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/match/592044) have no Andy Matthews in them. No other reference sites such as playerhistory.com or transfermarkt.co.uk have him listed on Rotherham roster for that season either.

There is no record in any Russian media of a player by this name ever playing for FC Torpedo Moscow. Here is the official roster of FC Torpedo Moscow in 2010, he is not on it: http://www.pfl.ru/DESIGN.2001/SOKOLOV/1022_7.HTM. Here is the statistics for all the FC Torpedo Moscow players in 2010, he is not there: http://stats.sportbox.ru/club.php?sp=fb&club=1175066957&turnir=470. Google News Russia searches find nothing. Geregen2 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, as hoax. Edison (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snow keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Gold[edit]

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

removed prod so I brought here for a final judgement so it can be added to talk page if its keep or deleted if not..as apparently its been tagged for notability before. Tracer9999 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - sourcing could use a bit of beefing up, but her notability is clear in two different fields. (Full disclosure: I have been published in Xenofilkia (as has my wife); and have worked professionally in the role-playing game industry.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a non notable, non relevant, fandom writer and editor, her greatest contribution to the role-playing universe is Xenofilkia which redirects to the page itself, and the page is filled with red links, which contributes to the fact that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - if the article gets deleted its content should be merged into Alarums and Excursions. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - sourcing can be improved and article can be further fleshed out, but she has won multiple awards and has long been active in a variety of fields: a writer of role playing games, publisher/editor of both long-running and notable gaming fanzine and filk fanzine. Shsilver (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The award I see is a single one for a game periodical. he/she was just the publisher and that does not necessarily make you notable because the newsletter may or may not be, the XENOFILKIA website looks like a personal website from 1992. and is filkontario the definitive filk source (whatever that is) I mean I got an award for a spelling bee once. that doesn't make me notable. seems to me that most people have no idea what filk even is much less filk ontario. Maybe the person has other more substantial awards based on them personally.. but in the article I am not seeing it. And thats part of the problem is that it is very poorly sourced. as it stand absent something I am missing, I dont see any reason to keep this. -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - looks like a bad case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. You admit to being clueless as to what filk music is, you seem unable to figure out that Lee is female, and you don't understand that a record stretching back decades, with two widely-known publications in disparate (albeit related) fields, is part of her notability, and you apparently didn't read the article about Alarums and Excursions, which has a solid article right here in Wikipedia! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject is both an award-winning editor and an inductee into the Filk Hall of Fame and thus easily crosses the notability threshold. The number of redlinks in an article is indicative of nothing for AfD purposes (AfD is not cleanup) and supportive of WP:BUILD. - Dravecky (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The award that the author received is also not notable, and the relevance of the author for Wikipedia is greatly reduced by the fact that most of his publications are within local and limited periodicals and they don't even have a great influence on the scenario of filk or game fanzine, per Google. And about Alarums and Excursions, the article is bad written, and not does not complain with an encyclopedia esque, however it is just a bad written article, not a solid article (that would be big and well written), it could be expanded by adding information of its contributors and writers. - Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of an article is not a signal of notability. Google hits are not a reliable indicator of notability either. - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Induction into the Filk Hall of Fame is one of the most notable awards in the field. Xenofilkia isn't "local"; filkers around the world subscribe to it, and it's also one of the most noted publications in the field. BunsenH (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the cited award. Not a field terribly well covered by RS, so this may look lighter than it actually is. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the subject's coverage is likely to be in hard-to-find, print-only sources, which is not a strong signal of notability. However, as others have pointed out, there is still a substantial amount of coverage, and more important, the subject is identified as an influential figure in an academic text [5]. We do need to be careful about assessing notability based a amateur peer recognition, but the case for doing so is weakestst in fields like these, where "crosspollination" between the fan and professional communities is strongest. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- response - indeed, one of the distinguishing features of traditional science fiction fandom is that the distinction between "fan" and "pro" (the latter customarily mocked as "Dirty Old Pro") is considered trivial if not misleading. A Wilson Tucker or a Juanita Coulson is revered far more for their fannish activities than for the things which the mundane world might consider "real" work (although Wilson's Year of the Quiet Sun is a disturbingly powerful novel at a very professional level). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per Orangemike and HW. ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Book search[6] and Scholar search[7]. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute pyramid[edit]

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

Very obscure article. WP:INDISCRIMINATE Garydh (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obscure , maybe, but not covered by WP:INDISCRIMINATE that I can see. About a hundred hits on Google Books and the same number of Scholar make it clear that this is a notable concept in employment law. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a notable term in academic use. But either the author is not fully in command of the topic or they based it on a source which itself lacks appropriate academic rigour. Given the attention which seems to be given to the topic in US law schools I suspect the former. Not only is the article badly set out, there are a multitude of reason why grievances which might be litigated fail to get to court. Settlement is only one. It needs a rewrite by somebody who can identify the appropriate sources and explain it properly, but I don't think it is so far off the mark that it should just be deleted. The next attempt might be even worse (sigh). AJHingston (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Obscure" is not a strong reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Jamison[edit]

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

Delete. First time author, does not meet the criteria established at WP:AUTHOR. Article states that work has been published in Best New American Voices 2008, A Public Space, and Black Warrior Review. However, these were merely brief promotional blips rather than critical commentary. Author's first novel is not supported by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Book does not meet the criteria for notability found at WP:NBOOK. Cind.amuse 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leslie Jamison is a starting writer, however, her first novel was nominated for Art Seidenbaum Award for First Fiction, see a mention in LA Times. I found reviews in the San Francisco Chronicle, Time Out New York, Yale Daily News. It seems that the book was reviewed by Vogue and Buffalo News [8]. In my opinion, Leslie Jamison meets our notability criteria for authors. Wikipedia is an up-to-date encyclopedia and it should cover also the recent notable events in the world of literature. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvančický. Her book has received coverage in multiple reliable sources including a starred review in PW, and there have also been multiple features and interviews (see links at her website[9] that can be used to flesh out the biographical information.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect - After reading WP:NBOOK the book might meet the first cirteria, however, the author definitely does not meet WP:GNG. If there is sufficient information from secondary or tertiary reliable sources about the author to support her passing WP:BIO an article can always be spunout. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Arxiloxos accurately noted, the verifiably linked third-party coverage accessible through the author's website demonstrates that she satisfies the GNG's requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hullaballoo.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Santos (mixed martial arts)[edit]

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

This individual does not meet the notability requirement of WP:MMANOT or WP:GNG. The article has no sources except for his fight record. Article was deprodded by a new user who appeared to apply the "Google test". The problem is that WP alone has 10 football (soccer) players with that name. I also found a developer, a model, a designer, and a streetsweeper with that name. I'm sure there are many others, so care has to be taken when searching. Astudent0 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:MMANOT. Article also needs better references. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically an unsourced article about an MMA fighter who doesn't meet the notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keepi've heard of him. i say he is a keeper! 149.68.97.25 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're a new user you might want to look at the AFD arguments to avoid. You've just used one of them. Astudent0 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. That is, delete without prejudice to recreation as an actual article about the Bible verse, rather than as a compilation of its translations. Sandstein 06:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus 21:12[edit]

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

This isn't bibleipedia CTJF83 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nomination. And aside from the possible cut and paste job from Biblos, the view given of the text is not directly supported by the reference but appears to be an expression of one individual's religious position. The web offers us numerous opportunities to expound our beliefs, but Wikipedia is not one of them. AJHingston (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I don't think that anyone holds copyright for the Bible, but it does indeed seem to be one individual's unsupported interpretation of the Bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFlyChick (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many English translations of the Bible are indeed copyrighted. Public domain editions can be translation into other languages and then copyrighted. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: "ditto"AerobicFox (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - actually, several organizations do have copyrights on their own translations of the Bible. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Jus da fax 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone here. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of Biblos's compilation of translations of this bible verse (i.e. using the exact same group of translations in the same order). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Just to let everyone know that I removed all the copyrighted material on the page. I think the rest of the text meets G1. Minima c (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio and a really, really bad idea for an article. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that the copyvio concerns are overblown: All the texts are either public domain or allow brief excerpts for commentary, which this is. Once we get past these concerns, there's a real possibility that sufficient RS commentary exists to sustain an encyclopedia article on this one passage. Failing that, it can be Redirected in lieu of deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this one more notable than any other? CTJF83 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, most individual Bible passages are notable. Consider: Google Scholar. Enough RS to write an encyclopedia article? Sure. Is the current state of the article even close? Nope. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:QUOTEFARM. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of thousands of well-known passages from the Bible, which are not in themselves notable. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of quotations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not for the reason the nominator cites (there are many articles based on Bible verses and chapters, so that's not the issue here). The reason this lot has to go is pretty simple, it's utter gibberish and mish mash in violation of WP:NOR; WP:NONSENSE; WP:MADEUP; and probably WP:HOAX as well. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Strong Delete: ditto?" Sheesh. Copyvio concerns, probably mistaken in any case, are nullified by the removal of the offending material. After that, most delete votes here amount to WP:IDONTLIKE, methinks. Anarchangel (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First as to the "copyvio" claim - sourced quotes of short nature are not copyvios (noting I am looking at current article). The KJV is, in fact, under "perpetual copyright." Scratch that as a reason for deletion. Is the particular sentence "notable"? is the only criterion for deletion remaining. It is, however, often found in discussions about the death penalty - vide the NYT [10] 7 March 2001. Thus it is independantly notable onits own, and not just as one sentence in the entire Bible. Collect (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In and of itself, this verse is not notable. The information (although not the extensive list of translation) could easily be added to an article on the death penalty, or Exodus, or the Mishpatim as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without OR) or delete without prejudice to recreation. We don't cover "Bible-cruft" but most biblical verses probably do have good solid credible coverage - and secondary analysis - in multiple reliable sources. I don't have a strong view on covering all bible verses but a good case could be made that we should. (For instance at the risk of touching on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we have full articles on every episode of many TV series that got much less coverage in WP:RS than 2000 years of biblical analysis). Copyright doesn't seem a problem - most translations of Exodus are not copyright in the United States and even if one or two are, a single verse would not be breaching copyright (at worst fix it). The problem is that this is an appallingly poor stub (as others also said). It's a translation list with what appears to be a brief personal view. Either remove original research/unbalanced views and allow eventualism to expand the stub with analysis and balanced commentary, or delete without prejudice for now. Same net effect. As a valid article could surely be written, no real benefit to deleting. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Lean Delete: The copyright concerns are bogus, God is not going to sue us. (Don't get technical with me about translations, its one sentence anyway and we'll never get sued by anyone except maybe .... Satan.) By itself, this article isn't useful, as it has no discussion as to why this verse is notable. I do not agree that every bible verse is notable, though every book is.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Satan has access to lots and lots and lots of lawyers! Carrite (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters. Will leave history intact in case anyone wants to merge any of the content. J04n(talk page) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Crocodile Cook[edit]

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

Delete This article about a character in a Japanese anime series, was created on 17 October 2006 yet no one has found reliable sources to verify the content. In addition, the article's subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, namely the general Notability guideline, as there appears to be no specific guideline for fictional characters. Lastly, the content appears to contain interpretive original research based upon watching the anime series Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. --Bejnar (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Fix Nothing a little elbow grease couldn't take care of. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any reliable sources, but I don't have access to reliable anime fan magazines. Four and a half years of editing did not produce results. Theoretical elbow grease does not save an article. --Bejnar (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters. This is the standard way of handling non-notable characters. Deletion should only be reserved for incidental characters; and even then, redirects are cheap. However, this character isn't incidental and does have a significant influence on the plot. —Farix (t | c) 00:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the character list, no sources to prove independent notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per Farix. – Allen4names 08:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. G. Battu[edit]

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

Establish the notability or delete rather than keeping such pages 0ukieu (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a professor of pharmacognosy (New word for me, too.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is customary for deletion nominators to explain the reasons why they don't consider subjects to be notable rather than bark out orders to other editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' - First of all this is not a hot headed discussion. When a page remains as a not notable for a long time, there might be some problems with the page itself or the way how it is being administered. Whatever the case it may be, it is time to study the notability and keep/delete the page as appropriately. I have expressed my feelings on thia page. Someone might have written this page without realizing what could end up to such pages. Battu's work in his fielddoes not make him notable, nor his Ph.D from the US. He was a principal of a college in Karnataka. There are hundreds of colleges in Karnataka. Yet, that may not be enough to be considered for notability. Let us have a fresh look on this page and keep it as necessary by removing flag "he is not notable". Thanks. 0ukieu (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He had hardly 3 to 4 publications in the field of applied science. That is too far less. 0ukieu (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. He appears as co-author on a number of papers in the automated Google Scholar and Books searches, but they do not appear to be widely referenced. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think Google scholar is likely the best way to measure his impact in his subject and time frame, but I can't find any other evidence of notability or nontrivial coverage of him in Google news archive and Google books. And with no nontrivial coverage of him in sources we can use, even if we had reason to believe him to be notable (which I'm not seeing), there's nothing we can verifiably say about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mangesh V. Nadkarni[edit]

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

Establish the notability or remove it, if the material does not support notability, add more 0ukieu (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a professor of English and authority on Sri Aurobindo. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is customary for deletion nominators to explain the reasons why they don't consider subjects to be notable rather than bark out orders to other editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has edited the nomination statement, thus removing the context in which my previous comment was made. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have reversed as it it is not the correct way. Thanks. 0ukieu (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment '. First of all this is not a hot-headed discussion. When a page remains as a not notable for a long time, there might be some problems with the page itself or the way how it is being administered. Whatever the case it may be, it is time to study the notability and keep/delete the page as appropriately. I have expressed my feelings on thia page. Someone might have written this page without realizing what could end up to such pages. Nadkarni was a professor of English in India and Sr. Lecturer in Singapore University. His work in english literaure does not make him notable. We need to evaluate his notability in his area. He might had spent time studying Aurobindo Philosopy for his life style. Yet, that may not be enough to be considered for notability. Let us have a fresh look on this page and keep it as necessary by removing flag "he is not notable". Thanks.0ukieu (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' We need to evaluate - During the course of his professorship, he guided Ph.D. candidates and published his research in theoretical and applied Linguistics in national and international journals. The rest of the materials have no value on his page. 0ukieu (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless it is a different academic entirely, the automated Google Books and Scholar searches appear to reveal some fairly widely cited papers on the structure of Dravidian languages. He has also written a book about Sri Aurobindo. He would appear to meet the notability guideline for academics. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you be specific to write the criteria # used 1 to 9 for academics? Can you give here the numbers for his widely cited papers? I have not seen them. Have you evaluated his book on Sri Aurobindo? Is that considered as a scholarly work or has it the book made any impact on society? Note that his last position at the National University of Singapore was Sr. lecturer of english. In India, he was with the Central Institute of English. ~~(Not an University).~~ In India alone, there are more than 6000 colleges, institutes and universities and ~~he is was one of them~~ he might be the better ones ~~working for such institutes~~ worked in India. ~~We have to be very careful to call many of these as notable in their fields.~~. Why did wikipedia set - "he is not notable" for all these years ? There is something wrong here and we need to discuss it. I suggest you to read Peter Heehs who also wrote books on Aurobindo. His page is clean. It may not be advisable to keep pages to please someone with the label "he/she is not notable". Remove such pages and move on. Thanks. 0ukieu (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an easy way for you to have answered your own questions--follow the link above in the AfD heading to Google Scholar. His article "Bilingualism and syntactic change in Konkani" published in - Language, 1975 - (a major journal included in JSTOR) has 86 citations. There are some other articles also. Four of his books are in WorldCat. Now, all this is relatively minimal, but many of the works will be of interest primarily in India, and worldcat does not include Indian libraries (and there is no source that does). I would ordinarily not say keep for this, except he explicitly meets criterion 2 of WP:PROF, for he received the tribute of a festschrift or commemorative volume, Paranjpe, P. N., and Mangesh Vithal Nadkarni. Explorations in Applied Linguistics: Prof. M. V. Nadkarni Felicitation Volume. Pune: Shubhada-Saraswat Prakashan, 1995. ISBN 9788186411070, which is not just a work of parochial interest, as it is found in 30 worldcat libraries, including most of the most important US libraries and several European ones also. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, a felicitation volume is proof of academic notability in India.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why was it set on his page that Nadkarni is not notable

? Is Nadkrni notable because he was in academia or he followed Aurobindo? Note that Konkani language without a script is spoken by a very few people. I wonder his work on Konkni language alone makes him notable! Does he really 100% wiki notable or 50% or less? Is his work enough? He is no more and we wouldnot be expecting additional work from him. The number of citations you presented is pretty low for this type of work. The quantity of books is not the factor, it should be the quality. I do not agree with you, but it is your decision. 0ukieu (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment which Paranjpe are you talking about? Does wikipedia recognize him as a notable? Why was Nadkarni felicitated? Have you read the volumes? WP:PROF #2 reads like this - 2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. What highly prestigious was awarded to him? Anyone can filicitate anyone in India or elsewhere and there are many such types of felicitations. I'm afraid to say that you are breaking the WP:PROF rules. He was felicitated at a local level - not at national level. Shubhada Saraswat Prakashan was a Konkani people publication- Nadkarni was a Konkani(Saraswat). Who felicitated were his people0ukieu (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)0ukieu (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Black Christmas (1974 film). Will leave history intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy (Black Christmas)[edit]

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

This article violates SIGCOV and relies on primarily sources. -- LittleJerry (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no evidence that he's notable independent of the films, and the article is mainly an excessively long in-universe plot description, but it's a reasonably good plot description and there is a bit of useful wording that might be incorporated into the articles about the pictures' plot summaries, so a merge and redirect (thus preserving the editing history) may be appropriate. Billy Lenz (currently a redirect to this article) is a reasonably likely search string. The puzzler is that there are 2 films and (according to the article) his full name is used only in the second film; nevertheless, I tend to think that the first film is the better redirect target. So, my less-than-perfect suggestion is merge and redirect to Black Christmas (1974 film). (And the corresponding item on the dab page for Billy should be revised to point to the film article.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into each of the two films, which can cross-reference each other as needed. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to original film due to lack of significant coverage about the character in a way that could not be covered in either film article. In contrast, T-X may appear in one film, but I found coverage (see talk page) that analyzed her character pretty thoroughly in relation to portrayal of feminism. I'm not seeing that kind of coverage for Billy here. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the film article. Not enough sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautified Project[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. My Elder Goth ♥ tells me to argue for a "keep", but I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this band. Please, please, prove me wrong! Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Sorry, this may be a cool band, but no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Not to mention that the contributors are edit-warring to maintain a version of the article that runs afoul of a laundry list of policies and guidelines, such as WP:COI WP:OWN WP:ADVERT WP:SPAM WP:EL WP:MOS. It's a lost cause, at this point.

Delete. There are no references to back up the article's claims and I can find no evidence for any of it in reliable sources. Therefore the entire article falls foul of WP:V. Furthermore, even if true, the band does not appear to meet WP:BAND - specifically, there is no listed Armenian WP:GOODCHART so even if "best selling" albums equates to chart success criterion #2 cannot apply; I can find no evidence to support the existence of their record label so it's certainly not notable so criterion #5 does not apply. The best bet for establishing notability would be the nominations at the Armenian Music Awards. Whether this would be sufficiently "major" to meet criterion #8 is doubtful, but irrelevant without evidence; certainly it's not mentioned at the award website: [11]. So try as I might, I am unable to prove the nominator wrong as they requested - sorry. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miscellaneous Cartoons[edit]

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

Unreferenced list of miscellany. No discernible context. LordVetinari (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is about as indiscriminate a list as can be imagined. This user is going on quite a bender duplicating content as well, I left a note on their talkpage, hopefully we can reign in this energy. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the presses! I actually agree with Tarc's characterization of this as indiscriminate! Even with a suitable explanation of why these "miscellaneous cartoons" should be so-linked, I can't see how that characterization would be encyclopedic. Sounds like an enthusiastic newbie or a chain-jerking troll... (oh, and Delete for those who need to see the bolded term) Jclemens (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No discrete standards for inclusion makes this an open-ended list. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These seem to be Disney cartoons that are not part of any series. All the article needs is a better title and an introduction explaining that. Topic is notable and of interest. (There might already be a list of them here.)Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that everything in this list is already accounted for at List of Disney animated shorts. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fuzzy inclusion criteria does not make for a useful discriminate list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hmm, there is no definition of "miscellaneous" cartoons given, so it would confuse readers, lists of the cartoons are probably available elsewhere (as said by Tarc), and I doubt anyone would come looking for "miscellaneous" cartoons. 123 Hedgehog 456 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't just a poorly named list, it's an incoherent one. Even assuming this is intended as a list of nonseries Disney projects, the names "Mickey" and "Donald" in the titles indicate that the selection criteria aren't very logical. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Waters[edit]

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

Biographical article: Subject does not meet the GNG and fails WP:ANYBIO. Lack of reliable sources and no obvious Google hits. Pol430 talk to me 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources needed for his life, but subject matter could be notable Smithsonian (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as notable per se as former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Gonzaga University. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of THIS SOURCE indicates that Fr. Waters was indeed made Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Gonzaga in 1983. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC) There is an extensive list of publicatons that can be verified. There is much supporting information on http://www.gonzaga.edu

I have to ask this question: Is the purpose of a Wiki article only to parrot what some other website already says? If someone has published all these works, not with a vanity publisher, isn't that significant? Here is a guideline for notability of an academic : The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Fr. Waters was a College Dean at Gonzaga. So the only counter argument is that either Dean of a College isn't a major post, or that Gonzaga isn't a major institution. I would like to see either of these specific qualifications argued, or else deletion of this article would be arbitrary and against Wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPersyn (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect some sort of bias in the nomination for removal of this page. I'm beginning to not want to put any effort into Wikipedia because of these deletion nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPersyn (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peace, friend, this is a slam-dunk KEEP here. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Dean is not the "highest level position" at Gonzaga, the president opf the university is. He may well be notable in other ways, but WP:PROF#C6 is a clear fail, very much the opposite of a slam-dunk. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Department heads of major universities have been regarded as fast Keeps in every AfD debate that I recall. "Highest level position" in this context does NOT mean University President. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may often turn out to be keeps, but they are not keeps by that criterion alone. WP:PROF says explicitly "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone." —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Highest Level ACADEMIC post, which is applicable. The President is the highest level ADMINISTRATIVE post. Words mean things, no? Dave 22:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop your WP:WIKILAWYERING and read the clear text of WP:PROF. Not just the part you are quoting, but the part later that explains what it means. No, he does not pass WP:PROF#C6. End of story. You need to find a different reason to keep the article. In any case, dean is just as much an administrative post as president. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF at all (let alone #C6; see above) but the discocraphy seems to indicate some notability as a composer. However, the article is badly sourced and indiscriminate, making it hard to tell for sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Thank you, Prof. Epstein, for the vote. I will continue to source things as I find online sources available and improve this over time, and hope others do the same in a true sense of collaborative effort. Perhaps then, his notability does come from musical publication, awards, etc. Again, in his milieu, documentation is hard to find, but I'll plug away at it. Dave 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have reviewed, and believe that he meets the requirements of WP:COMPOSER #1 and #6, especially since listed in the French publication cited in the article. I would appreciate before deletion input from the classical music genre experts on the music side. Thanks! Dave 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Dave 00:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambuli[edit]

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

The film does not yet exist and has no planned release date and consequently the article appears to fail to meet WP:NFF. PROD quickly removed without explanation (along with all earlier improvement notices) so raising for wider discussion. Though the publicity blurb claims this is the "first Stereoscopic Tamil 3D Thriller", this seems a weak rationale for an exception to NFF, particularly as there is no claim that this is first 3D film available in Tamil or the first 3D thriller with Tamil subtitles or dubbed. Fæ (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Films. Its minimal coverage[12] might merit it a metion in the director's article, but not yet as an seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFF "going on floors today" and the shooting of ‘Ambuli’ starts from today is Indian English-speak for "filming has begun". This is a notable production with a notable Tamil star in the lead. More mainstream media coverage on the filming - [13][14]. I have seen tv coverage too. Its actually the first 3d film to be made in Tamil in 23 years and they are twisting it to say "first 3d film" ever (there were a few attempts in the 80s like elsewhere in the world)--Sodabottle (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sodabottle. Struck my earlier !vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donal Greene[edit]

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

PROD contested by Special:Contributions/SENTRY ROBOVAC5000. Initial concern was: Poorly referenced BLP. Despite being of start-class length, there is no explanation of why the individual meets the GNG. Despite de-PRODding, no explanation has been given. —W F C— 10:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having only played in semi-professional league fails NFOOTBALL, does not appear to have done anything to be noteworthy outside of that, no indepth coverage.--ClubOranje^T 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and nothing has been found to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé: The Ultimate Performer[edit]

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

Not much reliable sources. I searched everywhere, and all I could find were retailers. Novice7 (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything to satisfy WP:NALBUM and no awards. It'd be nice if there was a "-retailers" parameter in Google search. Similar AfD here.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage, except for retailers. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (G11) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The digital handshake[edit]

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

This book exists, but doesn't seem notable; not even the author has a Wiki page yet. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 09:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, article essentially without either content or context; all we get is the title and author of the book. The full title, The Digital Handshake: Seven Proven Strategies to Grow Your Business Using Social Media, looks like more Make Money Fast on the Internet stuff. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 14:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KingdomQuest[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Prod removed.[15] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the article nor the BGG article linked make any assertion that the game is notable. No awards, coverage, etc. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable coverage in the sources, could not find any reviews etc... This would only leave novelty of the game from a strategic point of view. The mechanism of rotating a cube is uncommon but not unheard of but it has depth problems. There are no competitions in the game. Not meeting any of the above points I have to conclude that the article cannot be kept as even meeting some of the points would not qualify the game.Tetron76 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Noel[edit]

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

Basically unsourced bio of obscure regional musician; can't comprehend half of the article due to the press release style and fansite blather. Orange Mike | Talk 03:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Google News yields only local sources and passing mentions. Goodvac (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Miller (director)[edit]

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

fails notability Alan - talk 03:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look at this. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0589106/ Alright then, problem solved. Notability has been proven. Remember the rule is WP:BEFORE. Check for information yourself, with a quick Google news archive search or if the person is in the movie or film business check IMDB BEFORE you nominate something for deletion. Dream Focus 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that couldn't be more wrong. An IMDb does not at all give automatic notability. What's needed is coverage in reliable sources that establishes an actual notability in more than just a trivial mention; I'm pretty sure it's a long-standing consensus that an IMDb alone is not proof of notability. And being in the film business alone is absolutely not a reason by itself either. Maybe you should be the one reading BEFORE, if I may suggest it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click the link. Does he have over a hundred things listed? Are a lot of those things clearly notable? I wasn't making the case that having an entry made you notable, but instead pointing out when you have done that many notable projects you are notable. Dream Focus 04:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has won a directing Emmy and a DGA Award, as well as being nominated on a number of additional occasions[16]; thus notable per WP:ANYBIO.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. If someone is a television director and has won a Primetime Emmy (with three other nominations) and a DGA award (and another nomination) for directing, they are most likely notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Makes NYT which is sufficient. Many many credits listed in NYT, unless it is OR to point this out. Collect (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per an incredibly prolific career as director and producer[17] and award wins and nominations[18] that meet WP:ANYBIO. With respects, a nomination that simply states "fails notability" seems indicative of a total lack of due diligence before nominating. The subject's common name aside, what we have here is an article in need of expansion and sourcing, not deletion. I'll be glad to work on it tonight myself, as I see a sweet DYK on the horizon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a good nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Roy King[edit]

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

fails notability Alan - talk 03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won the Creative Arts Emmy for his directing work on Saturday Night Live. [19] Other news mentions of him to sort through. [20]] I'm going to go work on the article now. Dream Focus 03:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to the article, with a link to a New York Times article confirming the information. Anyone who has played a significant part in notable work is notable. Dream Focus 03:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to his IMDB entry also. [21] Remember, always check there and Google news archive search BEFORE you nominate something for deletion. Dream Focus 04:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won 2 Emmys, nominated for a bunch more[22], passes under WP:ANYBIO.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per an incredibly prolific career as director[23] and award wins and nominations[24] that far surpass the instructions of WP:ANYBIO. With respects, a nomination that simply states "fails notability" seems indicative of a lack of due diligence before nominating. What we have here is an article in need of expansion and sourcing, not deletion. Another possible DYK for a 5x + expansion just waiting on the horizon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blooded (film)[edit]

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

The reviews are pretty obscure, and I fear that we are merely being exploited to publicize this obscure hoax film which had no significant impact. Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the notes at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Blooded (film). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same issues with this article, obscure hoax film presented with undue weight and of limited notability. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:TOOSOON. Definitely not a hoax. See Αθηνόραμα (October 25, 2007) google translate of original Greek However, lack of coverage currently fails WP:NF. I'm fine with userfication to its author, and if/when this one ever gets proper commentary in WP:RS, we might consider its return and caution the author about maintaining NPOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (STRUCK - See comment below)[reply]
- The article probably isn't a hoax, since the film appears to really exist, but the film and it's marketing obviously is, so the nom is correct in referring to it as a "hoax film". That's not grounds for deletion per se, but is grounds for demanding a much higher stander of sourcing than a typical film, since we have to be especially careful about using truly independent sources, and have to assume everything said by the film's producers is part of the marketing. --Rob (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All films tend to use exageration and hype in their promotions. It's what makes advertising the annoying industry it is. Referring to the assumed good faith edits by a newcomer as "hoaxes" is perhaps more bitey than neccessary, as a new author[25] might use such in a perhaps forgivable, and usually addressable misunderstanding of Wikipedia's requirements for a neutral point of view. I note that even just today, March 11, 2011, JoBlo reported the film "will have its world premiere at the Bradford International Film Festival on Match 18. Revolver Entertainment will then release the film in select theaters and on-demand services on April 1 before it hits DVD on April 4."[26] As new articles about the film are even now being released, we might soon find it having enough coverage in RS to meet NF. Not yet, no... but perhaps soon. And if enough more becomes available, a cleanup for style and a return to mainspace is a viable consideration. Userfication to author is a non-bitey, no harm and no foul solution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Absolutely not. Most fictional films make very clear that they're fiction, and some will even have an advisory stating they are fictional, just to avoid being sued by real people/companies that resemble the subjects. The problem is that we have a situation where the most important fact about the film (the fact it's a hoax) is not really reported on properly. I consider userifying unacceptable. We're basically linking people (by naming them) to a deception (invoking BLP). Also, this confuses reality with fiction. For example, the current article actually makes it seem like "Real Animal League" is actually real. It gives to citations about their "reception" to the film. We have a situation where the producers are intentionally planting false information on the web. We have to extra cautious about anything we pick up and repeat. This necessitates a complete deletion. If the film becomes well known, and well covered, then somebody can make a brand new article, with new content. There is nothing of value in the current article. It's existence discredits Wikipedia. --Rob (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - HUH?. You sent a link that did not prove your assertion, as the version you linked specifically states "... the film uses the fictional actions of an imaginary animal rights organization called The Real Animal League..." So pardon me, but it's difficult to read that sentence as an assertion that the "organization" is at all real. And so you might re-read the article again, as it has continued to evolve since your statement and all comments from or links to this fictional organization's non-reliable SPS website have been removed. And We're not naming even one worthy organization, nor are we saying anything derogatory about these organizations (though the film itself might, and that's on them). Since nomination, the article's POV has been neutralized as an addressable issue... and no matter the film topic, or how it is being marketed, as long as Wikipedia maintains a balanced neutrality, and follows the instructions of policy, a topic that receives enough coverage to meet WP:NF can stay, no matter the topic. And please keep in mind that I did not vote a "keep". If the film's controversial content is itself reported in such sources as The Independent which writes "...it all has the whiff of a clever publicity stunt" then our own linking to coverage in that article in a reliable source is exactly as required by POLICY. Good editing mandates that we provide our readers with balance and neutrality in such sourced information so as to not mislead. And you might not like it, but userfication for improvement of problematic articles IS an accepted practice that improves the project. But in considering the controversial nature of the film, and that it will premiere in less than a week, I now think incubation is the better choice so it can be worked on, kept neutral, and recive better sourcing from editors who do not have the COI of the author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I linked to the then-current version, which indicated it was fictional in parts, but under "Reaction" treated the fictional organization as real. After I made the comment above, I removed the misleading sentence. The article superficially looks better now that the intentional distortions are removed, and is more truthful. However, we now say things that we know are true, but can't actually verify. We know "The Real Animal League" is an imaginary organization, and we say that in the article. However, we don't actually have a reliable source which explicitly states its confirmed that to be the case. So, we're in a bind, honesty demands we say the organization is imaginary, but it's a violation of policy to say so, without verification. What's the solution? complete deletion. --Rob (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Remember, inclusion in Wikipedia is not about truth... it's about verifiability (see WP:V). If the mentioned imaginary and controversial organization cannot be verified in reliable sources,[27] we do not write of it as it existed and we lend it no further credence than does our reliable sources. That this unsourcable (fictional/imaginary) organization was likely created as a plot deveice to help promote a film is a reason for us to be alert, but not a reason to delete an article otherwise being sourcable. The solution is not deletion... the solution is editing We'll know more in less than two weeks when the film has its premiere and its "message" stirs further controversy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If we can't say anything verifiable about the most important truth of a topic, that suggests a lack of notability. When dealing with truly notable topics, it's always possible to cover all the major points, using reliable sources. Editing is the solution, only if there are sufficient available sources. However, there isn't enough, and there may never be. This may remain a nothing movie. Without a crystal ball we can't tell. Rob (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, please remember, inclusion in Wikipedia is not about truth... it's about verifiability. And to meet WP:NF, "truth" of a film's topic not a requirement... but it receiving critical commentary that addresses the film directly is... and so far, we do have reliable sources reporting on the film and we know when and where it will premiere. Your good faith suppostion that a controversial film on a controversial subject will not receive additional overage is just as crystal as supposing it will... though in considering the subject matter and how it is being promoted, my own good faith assumption is that it will get more coverage, and not less. This is why WP:INCUBATION was created as alternative to outright deletion. And yet again, please note that I am not saying the current article should stay in mainspace. What I am saying, being an editor in good standing with a proven track record for article creation and a strong history of improving articles for the project, is that I have a good faith belief that it can be improved within a reasonable time. WP:Incubation is a proper course of action in this case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete lack of substantial sources, and it's also to soon. --Rob (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and userfy as per user Schmidts comments detailed comments, if the user wants userfication. - It is WP:TOSOON, it will be much easier to assess notability after release. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
clarify - it is not that the article is a hoax (i.e., the film does exist), but rather that the film itself is a hoax, a gigantic lie in the Blair Witch viral marketing tradition. The creator of the film is obviously an employee of the company that made the film, and has done no edits which do not aim at publicizing the films and its makers; it's impossible to AGF as far as WP:COI is concerned on this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was my experience as well, logo , advertising poster and company logo and soundtrack sample all uploaded at the same time by the article creator have since been deleted as copyright violations, no evidence of permission but the uploader claimed to own them all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote to Orange Mike when he brought his concerns to my talk page,[28] pretty much no matter who writes an article or their reasons for doing so or their inclusion of hype in their article, if the film, no matter its subject matter, is released when the sources state it will be and subsequently recieves critical commentary, it 'might' merit inclusion under WP:NF. If the film is not released and does not receive independent critical commentary, the article will not be back. The fictional film's subject matter or how it is presented is not the issue at hand, as the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the reminder. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Film uses totally misleading viral campaign about events that never happened. There Youtube video page has under 1000 views. Not notable even as a viral campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.159.217 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To animal rights IP 81.102.159.217, the fictional film's subject matter or how the film presents its fictional subject matter is not the issue at hand, as the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It will either eventually meet WP:NF and then can be edited and sourced to our standards, or it will not meet NF and will not return. It's really just that simple. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate now per WP:ATD as I have myself been addressing the article's style and tone and do not have the conflict of interest as might the article's author. I have a good faith belief, specially as the film is nearing its release date and is of a controversial enough nature, that it will likely get proper coverage after release. What was first sent to AFD is NOW more suitable for placement in the incubator for a few weeks. If it does not get the required coverage, it will not be back. A win-win for the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I support this option presented by Michael and his improvements to the article and the docu-films release date in three weeks have made incubation a viable option. Off2riorob (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources already present in the article seem adequate and we can expect more soon as reviews typically appear during the week of general release. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film has yet to be given it's premiere so reviews would be scant at this stage and many existing reviews may be speculatory or based only on the premise of the film or the trailer. I personally know someone who has been invited to the première screening in order to review it. Jalendarous (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2011— Jalendarous (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Blair Witch is one analogy that can illuminate the deliberate obfuscation of the line between documentary and fiction that the producers of this film engaged in, but a better one is The Amityville Horror: A True Story Anarchangel (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy. It appears that my words were truer than I knew: the obfuscation presented by the creators of Blair Witch as publicity is now referred to on WP as a "ground-breaking campaign", which is true neither in the sense of it being legitimate to lie about whether film events are real, nor that they were the first to do so, as Amityville had done it already. Ground-breaking in that many people decided that they did not care anymore, perhaps? I still do.

The sources in the article are of a very low standard, amounting to nothing more than blogs and fansites. If someone can find even one citation in Google News, I might revise my opinion.

The article has been much improved from the original monstrous amalgamation of a PEACOCK on a SOAPBOX, but there seems to be a tendency to hold onto uncited or even uncitable claims about its subject. The film is said to "address the hunting debate in the UK", and it "has provoked reactions from parties on both side of the hunting debate in the UK", both claims, naturally, uncited. Even trivial facts that most certainly should become citable, should the film become notable, are cited by stretches of the imagination, for example the fact that the Greek source was written in 2007 and the interviewee said, "I just finished <<Blooded>>" are the only rationales for citing that "Principle filming was completed by October 2007." Who knows what part of the filming process the interviewees work represented? I have seen a lot of claims of SYNTH in my time here, but this is actually the first time I have seen the real thing.

MQSchmidt's characterization of CRYSTAL as CRYSTAL is tortuous and ignores TOOSOON. Rob/Thivierr is correct to point out that there is considerable doubt about the future of sourcing for this article, especially given the quality of the sources so far. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is not currently ready for mainspace, and it is certainly not I who said anything about current sources being perfect, and indeed, it was I who spent time neutralizing the current version to address the gross misrepresentations and mis-leading use of false sources originally included by its author... making certain to include a relable source specifically stating the film's promotion "has the whiff of a clever publicity stunt".[29] Yes, it is WP:TOOSOON, but as we DO have confirmation in reliable sources that the film will premiere at the Bradford International Film Festival on March 18,[30] and have limited release in select theaters and on-demand services on April 1, and DVD release on April 4,[31] I think your characterization of my use of crytsal is what is "tortuous", specially as I specifically suggested WP:INCUBATION because it is TOOSOON... as a guideline encouraged reasonable alternative while we await anticipated sources, the "future" of this article as rests in limbo will be deternined when it is (or is not) screened and reviewed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to remind those who do not know or misunderstand what the incubator is for: "The article incubator is a place for holding articles that do not meet Wikipedia's content criteria (WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V), but a rationale has been put forward that the article meets the incubation criteria, which means there is an intention that the article can and will be improved."

Incubation criteria:

The article does not meet the excluded criteria (does not now meet exclusion criteria)
The article has been either previously deleted or has been through a deletion process and a decision reached that it does not meet inclusion/content criteria (discussion ongoing)
A rationale has been put forward by at least one person that the article could meet inclusion/content criteria if given time (more than one editor has stated this rationale); for example:
Sufficient reliable sources which deal with the subject in depth may be found, though they may not be readily available online at the moment (expected within a few days)

The article may be rewritten to remove any suggestion of original research or biased point of view (already done)

The article may be developed sufficiently to clearly establish notability (considering the controversy of the film's topic, is emminently do-able)
A willingness has been established by at least one person to work on the article; (me, for one) or
a convincing reason has been put forward why the article would benefit from being put on hold now, to be worked on in the future (such as a belief that the subject is important, but as the subject is not current or popular in the developed world, reliable sources are not easy to come by, though they could be found eventually) (the "convincing reason" is that the article is premature and my reasonable argument is that its debut will likley bring sources and critical commentary in reliable sources)

Usefication to its author is problematic, so why be opposed to it being incubated??? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Men of Essex[edit]

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

Fails WP:V. The reference provided isn't a reliable source and doesn't refer to any organized group called the Men of Essex. Google searches show the term is commonly used, but seems to simply refer to men from Essex, not to any particular group of Essex men. The only reference I can find which capitalizes Men of Essex is this not very reliable looking source. Pburka (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the context of the Peasants' Revolt the term may be validly used to distinguish the Essex rebels from those from Kent, but to project from that to the supposition that they were a distinct faction with a clear political agenda is not supported by the sources. In traditional English usage, the men of ...., the women of ... or the people of .... is a non-notable way of distinguishing people by use of a geographical label. Confusingly, Men of Kent has acquired a particular meaning - see East Kent. AJHingston (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You'll get more results trying "Essex men." Nevertheless, this probably does not deserve a separate article - it should just be mentioned in the Peasants' Revolt article that there were subdivisions who did different things. ("The Kent men entered through the Bridge Gate and the Essex men through Aldgate," "On the 14th of July the king rode out to meet Jack Straw and the Essex men at Mile End...But the Kentish men broke into the Tower as the king left") Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Although a distinction has grown up between the Men of Kent and the Kentish Men, no such distinction has arisen between the Men of Essex and the Essex men. It is not a matter of whether the "way of distinguishing people by use of a geographical label" is notable but whether the people themselves are notable and this has not been challenged. Regarding the terminology, I don't think there is a need to be precious about it, but as there was a significant group of people from Essex who marched upon London I think it is clear that there is scope for an informative article detailing this, the journey they took, who were their leaders and related events in Essex in the sort of detail which would be less appropriate in a general article on the Peasant's Revolt.Harrypotter (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But all of that is in the Peasants' Revolt article. There has to be a question about whether the Essex rebels are independently notable, and I do not think the case has been made. Remember that the contemporary sources are incomplete and not necessarily reliable, these are an example, and Wikipedia should not base itself on what might have been the case. AJHingston (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find something more substantial to write about this. There doesn't seem to be anything to write about the Men of Essex other than that they were involved in the peasants' revolt, that that's already covered in the Peasants' Revolt article. At a push it might qualify for a redirect, but as I suspect there are many other groups using the title of "Men of Essex" it's barely worth it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Graeme Bartlett (speedy G12) (NAC). Raymie (t • c) 14:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Cutter and Josiah Savage[edit]

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

Uses a blog as its only source. WP:OR Phearson (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I think it is the blog. The Interior (Talk) 02:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE seems to be un-notable and self-promotion Alan - talk 03:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible hoax; I haven't yet found any mention of this outside of the snowhillhistoricalsociety site. If they were infamous, they would be mentioned elsewhere. If this is real, they are quite thoroughly forgotten. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this as it was a word for word copy of the blog. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 10 March 2011 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted "William Cutter and Josiah Savage" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://snowhillhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com/cutter-and-savage/). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinion by MoonLichen makes no sense in terms of Wikipedia policy, and that by Greg Comlish is unpersuasive in view of WP:BURDEN. Transwiki or merge is also not possible with zero sources. Whether to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beach bunny[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced substub on non notable slang term. No assertion of notability. No sources. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Contested prod; prod removed by new SPA created for the express purpose of removing prods. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Slang dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What have we become? Look down at your hands, the ones typing these words full of vitriol. Are they hands that create and build? Are they hands that caress and nurture? Or are they hands that destroy? No, my friends, of course you are not destroyers. You don't want to delete these articles. It's not you. It's not who you are. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the picture of two women at the Jersey shore. One doesn't ordinarily think of "beach bunnies" as being an east coast thing, I found that enlightening... Carrite (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Transfer to Wictionary (if that combination makes sense). Google searches seem to use it as a brand name of swimwear-- which is not the point of the article. Wictionary is the place for defining terms, not here. Wabbott9 (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term has been used in passing for decades, but I have not been able to find any reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth. By the way, I am looking at my hands, and they are typing thoughts that convey Wikipedia policy rather than any vitriol. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Surfing culture. Borock (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a perfectly good slang term, but that doesn't mean that it belongs outside of Wictionary. I agree with Gene93k, there doesn't seem to be any difference between beach bunny culture and surfing culture. This is emphasized by the inability to find substantive discussion of beach bunnies in non trivial publications. --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beach bunny culture is clearly distinct from surfer culture. This article needs citations, but it can and should be fixed. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. While it's clear that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion for terms that should be defined there, I have not been able to find any in-depth coverage of beach bunnies in reliable sources - indeed I'm struggling to find in-depth coverage in unreliable sources also. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder how old the use is, since online sources of its origin seem sparse. I can find a 1952 reference to model Bunny Yeager titled "Beach Bunny", so its clear it was in use by that point.[32]. I'm not convinced its not notable, because we went through the same thing with Guido (slang), but this is harder.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The oldest a quick google books search finds is [33] from a 1959 magazine. The context makes it clear that the readership is expected to know and understand the term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ahh, that google date is deceptive, as they sometimes are for "books" which compile periodicals. That entry is for a 1986 episode of Silver Spoons. This 1964 reference[34] in Boy's Life magazine though, shows its a valid term in surfing culture at that point.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect My preference would be to redirect to Beach#Beaches and recreation. It seems like this section could then be expanded into its own article. The original beach article could primarily serve as a discussion of the beach as a geological feature. A separate article, maybe called beach (recreation), could include reference to beach bunnies, but also sunbathing, beach volleyball, swimming, sandcastles, surfing, etc. Currently, no such page exists, even though it would seem to logical to include. In fact, sunbathing currently redirects to sun tanning, which isn't exactly the same thing. One seems recreational, whereas the other seems cosmetic (hence, tanning booths, etc). A new page could at least highlight this type of activity as well as address the current nomination. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Tiffoney[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2011 March 10 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. (PROD-nn) Having only ever played in Scottish Second Division, he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. PROD was contested without explanation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to point out that the correct spelling appears to be JonathAn rather than JonathOn, which may affect search results. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My recollection (from somewhere that I'm failing to locate now) is that the Scottish Football League is recognised as an awkward marginal case on the Football notability criteria, as a mix of full and part time teams and even players within teams? Even with that, Tiffoney may at this point be a marginal case anyway, but it's worth pointing out that he has also played in 3 games against Scottish Premier League clubs during 2011. AllyD (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the SFL First Division that has a mixture of mostly fully professional and a few (sometimes none) semi-professional clubs. Tiffoney has only played in the Second Division, which is mostly (if not wholly) semi-professional. He plays for Ayr United, which is currently a semi-professional team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Hand King[edit]

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

No independent coverage from third party sources apart from the Reverbnation site, which appears to be a self-made profile. Non-notable musician - does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cntras (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ovide Lamontagne[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Three-time unsuccessful candidate for office; only claim to notability is chairmanship of New Hampshire State Board of Education, but that claim is currently sourced to his own campaign website, and does not in and of itself establish notability. (The claim is enough to preclude a CSD nomination, however.) Almost all of the citations in the article are sources which are not independent of the subject (campaign site, company bio), blogs, or op/ed columns. Horologium (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. lacking indepth third party coverage besides of failed candidature. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. Already mentioned at target, any further content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Hearts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 02:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vitālijs Artjomenko[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, Wikipedia:FPL doesn't mention Latvia ( and that's where this player has played his professional matches ) in any of the lists, be it "Fully Professional League" or otherwise. Can the nominator provide the proof of the Lativan Higher League being semi-professional ? --Ezhuks (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot. However, the burden of proof is to establish notability, and in the absence of any information the pro status of the Latvian Higher League, we cannot assume it is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think he is notable player. And AEP Paphos is in fully pro league. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that AEP Paphos is in a fully pro league is moot, because he has not played for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as whether he meets the sport-specific guideline seems to be slightly in doubt, I decided to weigh this article on whether the subject meets the general notability guideline or not. After a search, I couldn't find any English sources that show significant coverage. Therefore, as no-one has provided any references showing that he meets the GNG, I'm going with delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SILENCE, I believe we should threat this the same as an uncontested WP:PROD. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoca Gallery[edit]

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

Unremarkable Joomla gallery. Little or no coverage on the web, besides how to guides. All references currently to official website. Worm^TT 11:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Catholic Church most certainly does not have any authority over Wikipedia's content guidelines, and I'm quite certain they have never claimed that they do. While the Catholic Church as an institution certainly has many notable aspects, consensus here seems to favor the view that this particular parish is not one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Casimir Roman Catholic Parish (Yonkers, New York)[edit]

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

Merely being associated with a particular ethnic group is not sufficient notability for a parish, and that is really the only datum of note given for the parish. The author of the article is relying on a notability guideline which he wrote himself and which in my opinion has not been subjected to sufficient scrutiny by the larger community. Note that this nomination is related to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 26#Catholic parishes in the United States as essentially every page in the category subtree is subject to the same criticism. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some kind of crusade against the Catholic Church or religious discrimination or religious intolerance?

Since this is another attempt to minimize the information about the Catholic Church.

See previous explanation: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability.

Also similar request has been closed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) --WlaKom (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The similar request specifically imposed "no obligation to wait before renominating individual articles for deletion." And as I said above your proposed notability guideline has not been subjected to adequate scrutiny. Whatever rules apply to Catholic parishes would also apply to Anglican and Orthodox parishes, not to mention Protestant congregations of all sorts, so a discussion restricted to one WikiProject and commented on by a single person requires a much more general discussion. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Churches may be notable as historic buildings, but parishes almost never will be. There's nothing here that would prompt me to keep this article. Same with most of the other similar articles. WlaKom's comments about religious discrimination and intolerance are uncalled for. I am interested in church history, but I certainly don't want to see articles about every parish of any denomination. This falls into the category of a non-notable local branch of a major organisation, which fails WP:ORG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- but parishes almost never will be, and I certainly don't want to see articles about every parish of any denomination, and similar comments proof more and more about religious intolerance at enWiki.--WlaKom (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a churchgoing Episcopalian I should think I am immune to accusations of general antireligious or anti-Christian prejudice, though I suppose it's still safe to accuse me of anti-Catholic sentiment. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it appears that any opposition will provoke accusations of religious intolerance from WlaKom, who appears to be unable to distinguish opposition to countless articles about non-notable subjects from opposition to the Catholic Church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to countless articles - how many? It's probably a big joke that some people considered the religious authorities and want to decide on the notability of the Church objects having a hundred million followers. I agree about "Sadly", but referred to luck of understanding "Roman Catholic Church" and its organization. Also, to selectively ignore, the notability of Catholic Church objects. If any religion recognizes that rocks or hills are very important, they must be notable also for all on Wikipedia if the articles referred to this faith. Once more, none of us has right or legal attitudes to different interpretations. Is that clear?--WlaKom (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, none of that is clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WlaKom is trying to say that if it is recognized by the Catholic Church, it ought to be notable to Wikipedia by default. Is that what you are saying, Wlakom? (BTW, I disagree with this stance.) LadyofShalott 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what he is saying then yes, I clearly disagree with it too. What we consider notable is not dictated by what outside agencies consider notable, since somebody is going to consider pretty much everything notable. That's why we have notability guidelines and AfDs. Just because the Roman Catholic Church is a vast organisation does not mean that everything to do with it is by default notable. Many things are, many things aren't. And accusing those who express an opposed opinion of being religiously intolerant or anti-Catholic is neither true nor helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if it is recognized by the Catholic Church - wrong. It is the Roman Catholic Church law which can not be interpreted differently.

somebody is going to consider pretty much everything notable - also wrong. Not somebody, but one of the biggest Church on the world and its Canon Law. I am just messenger.--WlaKom (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that is not clear - what is "the Roman Catholic Church law" to which you refer? LadyofShalott 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So hang on, WlaKom, you're saying that we should be dictated to by the Roman Catholic Church? If the RC Church considers it to be notable then it's notable? And then you claim it's "canon law"? Are you therefore claiming that Roman Catholic canon law has some authority over Wikipedia? These claims get more outlandish as we go along! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-written and sourced article. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the subject's notable or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it meets the notable requirements, but barely. They own a listed historic building, and is a community organisation. 82.41.27.12 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The John Copcutt Mansion, which is the building in question, has its own article as you can see. I think that simply owning/using it is not notable. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I err here, it'll be on the inclusionist side. In my opinion (and I've read through the discussion linked above, which has not led to any consensus or guidelines AFAIK), parishes do rise to a certain level of notability. Dioceses are (practically speaking) automatically notable, so are towns and villages, and without wanting to establish jurisprudence here, let's say that at least there is some sourcing here, and some claim to notability (even if "just" in an "ethnic" sense...). Parishes are important elements in the organizational scheme of the RC Church, and as such they have relevance for us. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The implication of that is that every congregation is notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing out that implication is your activity, not mine: a congregation is not the same thing as a parish. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the implication is that every parish is notable. —Lowellian (reply) 17:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A congregation and a parish are not really different on this level; either is the organizational component standing behind a church building. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability for an organization such as a parish or religious congregation is determined by the guideline WP:ORG, which this one fails due to a lack of reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Most religious congregations are not in fact notable organizations, and their articles typically get deleted in AFD. "I like it" or having "Some sourcing" or an article being "well written" or their being a "community organization" falls far short of the requirements of WP:ORG. There are hundreds of thousands of equally nonnotable religious congregations in the US. Notability cannot be inherited simply from their owning a historic building, which in fact already has its own article. If there were no article for the building, then that might be an argument for a combination article on the building and its congregation. In this case, there could be a redirect to the article about the building. See the essay WP:CONG for the views of some editors on what makes for a notable congregation. Edison (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:ORG guideline and general WP:GNG rules. Disclosure: I am another one of the Episcopalians, and I often visit my brother who lives in Yonkers. In fact, enWP has over 500 stubs and articles on Roman Catholic churches, see Category:Roman_Catholic_churches, and the giant List of the Catholic dioceses of the United States, with links to every single diocese and almost all their bishops. Church buildings are often notable, and dioceses and bishops of major denominations are almost always notable. However, parishes would not be, and in such cases, are often redirected to the building, for example, Saint Savior Parish is the parish of the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think parishes per se, without some unusual claim to notability, meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. —Lowellian (reply) 00:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naima Adedapo[edit]

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

An obvious case of WP:BLP1E, failing to meet GNG or even the standard required for WP:BAND. Sufficient biographical info is already included in the parent article American Idol (season 10). -- RexxS (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." All of the sources clearly cover Adedapo only in the context of American Idol. She has no public attention beyond this and unless she wins or is placed in AI, she fails MUSICBIO#9: "won or placed in a major music competition". Being placed does not mean the top thirteen, and I should point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered a counter-productive argument at AfD. If Adedapo is really notable for more than one event, then the sources and content to demonstrate that need to be in the article. --RexxS (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is just as much about ensuring that the encyclopedia does not become clogged up with non-notable subjects, who manage a single brief flash of exposure in the spotlight and then fade forever from public view. Are you suggesting that every finalist of every TV contest since TV began is automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article? As for the other finalists, you already know that they were correctly proposed for deletion as unreferenced via BLP-prod. The fact that more articles failing BLP1E exist is hardly a good reason to keep this one. --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:MUSICBIO #1 and #9. Aspects (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has a long tradition of including all the finalists from each season of American Idol. Wiwaxia (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plus that all other Top 13 candidates have pages already according to above. Why make this candidate an exception to all the other 12? werldwayd (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides easily passing GNG, WP:BLP1E was created for the privacy of "low profile" (exact words of WP:BLP1E) individuals who inadvertently found themselves in the news, ie "Peoria Man Accidentally Mows Off Own Foot." An individual who willingly appears multiple times on one of the most popular television shows in history and signs god knows how many release forms is in no manner "low profile."--Oakshade (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aspect and Oakshade. Candy o32 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their is no reason to delete it; it provides sources and is part of the tradition of having all of the finalists' Wiki articles per season. Grammar is fine too. ATC^{. Talk} 03:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Swing[edit]

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

A it's unsourced. B it's just as notable as anyother mini swingn and there for does not need a separate article. For example you don't see an article about the Australian Open Series (comprises of 3 tournaments) nor the British Grass court swing comprising of 3-4 tournies depending on how you see it KnowIG (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to the article. I think the Golden Swing is different from the other two swings/circuits you mention here. The Golden Swing aren't four seperate tournaments (as for example the British Grass court tournaments). The four tournaments were explicitly linked as a four tournament-circuit by the ATP in 2001 (see the first reference). StephanQz (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But so is Brisbane, Hobart Sydney and Melbourne by the Australian Open series coined by Tennis Australia. And that like this swing it is not a separate race like the US Open series (where a money/points race happens). AO series does not have an article and is explictly linked so I was wondering what others thought of this page. KnowIG (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get your point. The reason why I added this article is because in the last few weeks I read in different media things like "Almagro can be the first player in history to win three Golden Swing-tournaments". Similar articles appeared last season when Juan Carlos Ferrero could win three of the four tournaments. I never read anything similar about the Australian tournaments. That's why I think it's useful to keep this article, since it gives a quick overview of all the (multiple) winners since the circuit started in 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephanQz (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point can also be made about the Asian swing as well. But as I said I want to know what others think. As your view point is/was obvious before I start this (no offense). KnowIG (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ATP also calls it the Golden Swing so it is kind of notable of an own article. Kante4 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think TBF that was already established. KnowIG (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kante4--REMEMBER C ^M O 02:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~keep~~ no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thia Megia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An obvious case of WP:BLP1E, failing to meet GNG or even the standard required for WP:BAND. Sufficient biographical info is already included in the parent article American Idol (season 10) RexxS (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has three sources and meets the first criterion of WP:MUSICBIO which states "A musician ... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Note the use of may be notable because a bio has also to pass the common-sense test of WP:BLP1E. The sources clearly demonstrate that the public attention that Megia has attracted is solely related to her reaching the finals of American Idol. I do not believe that criterion number 9 is met as that identifies "won or placed in a major music competition". Since the finals are only now starting, this bio is premature, because I maintain that being one of 13 finalists is not being "placed in a major music competition". That should be reserved for 2nd and 3rd places (as commonly understood), and we have to draw a line somewhere in our biographies to avoid confusing Warhol's prediction of "15 minutes of fame" with actual encyclopedic notability. --RexxS (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be helpful, if Megia is to pass the WP:BLP1E restriction by having notability for more than one event, then the article needs to have properly sourced text to illustrate that – which it doesn't at present. I note that the consensus at the previous deletion was effectively because she did not progress past the first live round of AGT, it was insufficient to establish notability. Perhaps the closer of this discussion may accept it as sufficient once the AGT appearance is solidly sourced; but reading the article, I'm still not seeing a convincing claim of notability as it currently stands. --RexxS (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megia has already satisfy the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO #1 and #9, also for #10 (for performance in a TV show). She certainly is not a case of WP:BLP1E. She was the subject of coverage and interviews not just in US but also in the Philippines (an example here [35] ). She achieved notability by just being a finalist in American Idol, and should she proceed on to the Top 10 which is very likely, she will then participate in a national tour and she would satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criterion #4, especially given that some past American Idol tours were more successful and had grossed more than some of the biggest names in music. Her song is now in an Idol compilation album which is currently high in iTunes digital album chart, and since a compilation album will be released each week this year, she will also likely satisfy again criterion WP:MUSICBIO #10 for compilation album. She will certainly be appearing and performing in other TV shows if and when she gets eliminated as this has been a tradition for past finalists. And she will be releasing music after the show, perhaps even during the season if she gets elimianted - a contestant who didn't reach semifinal this year Chris Medina has charted in Billboard Hot 100. Proposing this article for deletion is not only premature and without foundation, but also adding to unnecessary bureaucratic process and I'd suggest nomination for its deletion be withdrawn per WP:SNOW. Hzh (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO#9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" - Megia has not won or been placed in a major music competition. Fails#9.

WP:MUSICBIO#10: "performance in a television show ... But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E ... for further clarifications." So the policy is to discuss the finalists in the AI article, and this article should not exist other than as a redirect to that parent article.

This is most certainly one of the clearest cases of BLP1E imaginable. The closer only needs to read the article and observe the complete lack of reliable sources relating to Megia's notability outside the context of one event: American Idol. There are currently three usable sources: "Thia Megia makes it to AI’s top 13", "'American Idol': Top 13 finalist Thia Megia is living the dream", and "Fil-Am Thia Megia among frontrunners in ‘American Idol’". The NBC source is merely a link to a video clip from her appearance on AGT and that certainly does not represent the "significant coverage" that a source has to present to qualify under WP:GNG, and a previous version of this article was deleted because consensus was that the AGT appearance was not notable. The clip is sufficient to establish that Megia made an appearance on AGT, per WP:V, but does nothing to contradict the fact that her claim to notability rests entirely on her appearance on AI, which will fail BLP1E unless she wins or places in the competition. The possibilities that she might go on a tour, or that she might satisfy the criterion for compilation albums, or that she might have a Billboard 100 hit, are simply insufficient to justify an article right now, let alone when it was created last month. The only thing that is premature here is the article itself. Should Megia become notable at some point in the future, this article can be revived and expanded with all of the sources that will have become available. We have process here, bureaucratic or not, to ensure that the project remains an encyclopedia, and not a celeb gossip magazine. My suggestion is that those arguing to keep this obvious BLP1E should divert their energies into incorporating relevant information on the Finalists into the American Idol (season 10) article where it properly belongs. Not one of the keep arguments stand up to inspection, and it is the strength of the arguments that determine the closure, not the number of fans that turn up to !vote. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just make a few points here and I'm done -

1) All finalists on American Idol are considered placed, that means she is de facto placed even if the exact position would not be known for some weeks, so she qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO#9. Arguing otherwise would be WP:LAWYER.

2) She has performed in two prominent TV shows, and has received coverage for both shows. I have given you a link for the coverage she received after AGT which you completely ignored. Argument cannot proceed properly if you ignore evidence to the contrary. She qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO#10 and certainly not a case of WP:BLP1E.

3) In particular, she has received extensive coverage in the US and the Philippines for her appearance in American Idol, just an example out of the numerous press reports here - [36], she therefore qualifies under WP:GNG.

4) It is unnecessarily bureaucratic because she has already achieved notability under multiple criteria, and she will likely achieve more in a couple of weeks' time. There is no justifiable ground for this nomination of deletion.Hzh (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done apart from the later comment below?

1) On the contrary, your argument is WP:LAWYER because you're defying the spirit of the guideline. Try applying WP:COMMONSENSE and you'll see that "win or place" does not mean "was in the final thirteen". It means top three just about anywhere else, and there is no good reason for making an exception for your favourite show. The fact is that it is WP:CRYSTAL-ball gazing to create articles based on future outcomes.

2) You gave a link to a YouTube video! You need to understand that it's the reliable sources that are in the article that establish issues such as notability, and anybody can see at even a cursory glance that the article's sources still don't show anything more than the BLP1E of American Idol.

3) The reliable coverage she has received is all AI coverage. Look at the article. Lots of people in the news have enough coverage for one event to meet GNG, but they don't have their own articles. They are covered by in event article, and WP:BLP1E explains that we do it that way.

4) Reading the article clearly demonstrates a subject whose coverage is entirely related to one event, no matter how many times that is denied on this page. Repeatedly attempting to smear a proper nomination for deletion based on well-established wikipedia policies is disruptive editing, and I'll request that you refactor your ill-founded attacks. There is no justification for having an article now, for someone who may be notable "in a few weeks time". It needs to be deleted. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no more point in arguing when you have no idea what "placed" even means in American Idol. Third place has no more significance in American Idol than 4th or 5th. Within the context of the show they get a home-town visit, that's about it. Far more important to the contestants is getting into the Top 10, that means they get to go on a national tour which will earn them a 6-figure paycheck. I don't think you even read the article properly to realise that the link with interview after AGT I posted in already is in the article. Next time do more than a cursory glance. Hzh (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do us all a favour and admit out that your entire case rests on this YouTube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-6WYtqsmwM. You have got to be kidding us. There is no way that it is acceptable as a reliable source; we're writing a serious encyclopedia here, not a gossip site for teenies. And quit the bad faith. I've looked hard at the seven (was four when I posted) "sources" in the article. Have you? There are now four independent sources that would make a claim to being reliable in this context - and they all are coverage of Megia's appearance on American Idol. Two of the other three are merely videos of Megia performing that do nothing to establish "significant coverage in reliable sources". I could post a video of my cat on YouTube and claim it was significant coverage by your standards. The final reference is a blog called "Teen Star" where Megia has posted her own promo material. This is the sort of desperate, rubbish sourcing that shows there is no substance to the suggestion that Megia's notability rests on anything other than American Idol. She fails BLP1E. --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:MUSICBIO #1 and #9. Aspects (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is obviously not a case of WP:BLP1E. Thia has performed in two major TV shows, American Idol and American's Got Talent, therefore qualifies under WP:BAND, so there is no ground for deletion. Hzh (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC) - Thanks Mrs. Megia[reply]

Where do you draw the line? Every person who has appeared on America's Got Talent? Including the audition episodes? Everybody who's appeared on AI, including the audition episodes? The top 24? The top 13? Everybody who's appeared on Big Brother? On Survivor? Corvus cornix_talk 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are talking about a finalist of American Idol, the line is pretty clear, and your point is moot. American Idol is the biggest show in US TV history, it being the #1 show for an unprecedented 6 consecutive seasons, and is on course for the seventh #1. Shows like Big Brothers or Survivor are not remotely comparable. An exceptional number of finalists from American Idol have found success, not just in music (some of them are multiple-platinum selling artists), but also in theater, TV and film. Being a finalists in the show is notable achievement. The show has an extraordinary impact on the entertainment industry, and it is right that something so big in the popular culture should be properly documented in wiki.Hzh (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The clear line is the standard of "win or placed" that is documented at WP:BAND#9 which none of the finalists can pass at this moment of time. You are attempting to make your own rule by claiming that since AI has a larger audience than other game shows, it should be allowed to be an exception. So Corvus' point is well-made: if we make one exception for AI, where do we draw the line? Your comparison with Survivor, for example, is patently wrong: Survivor: The Australian Outback had Nielsen figures of 30 million, while the current AI is drawing an audience of around 24 million[37]. That's even less than the UK TV audience for Miss World during the 1960s and 1970s, so by your logic, we could justify articles for all of those 15–20 finalists for each of the 20 years. Somehow I don't think so. The keep argument suffers fatally from americo-centric recentism. This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball, and we don't have articles on people simply because an editor expects them to be famous at some point in the future. If any of these AI finalists goes on to find fame, then we will have the sources needed to write their article beyond the context of a single event (per BLP1E). At present we don't have those sources and the closer will only have to look at the article to see that is the case. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All American Idol finalists are placed, that you are ignorant of this fact is not a basis for argument. And please don't use selective data in your argument, there are any number of American Idol episodes that have higher numbers than Survivor. And once a year event is never considered in the ranking of regularly scheduled shows. (Do you know how big the audience for Super Bowl are?) It is odd to use the word recentism when I just showed that American Idol is the biggest show in ALL of US TV history. Giving a good account of such a significant cultural phenomenon is important for giving future generations an understanding of its place in its contemporary popular culture. 13:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To be accurate, AI is not the biggest show in US TV history. But it's close, and I think this person does pass the notability bar, though barely at this moment. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to choose different criterion and say why another show may be bigger, but I would just like to point you to this article from 4 years ago - [38], even then it was already regarded by rival TV execs as a show unprecedented in the history of television. 4 years later, it is still beating every other shows in sight. There isn't another show like it. Hzh (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't understand WP:NPA, as your comment of 13:35, 13 March 2011 demonstrates, you might at least make an effort to look at the policies that have been brought to this discussion. If you want to bring a claim that "Shows like Big Brothers or Survivor are not remotely comparable" to American Idol, you'd better put some facts on the table – as I did when I showed that the viewing figures for AI are very comparable to those for e.g. Survivor. They are both in the 20–30 million range with Survivor's average being greater than AI's current figures. No amount of bluster will change the fact that your claim was shown to be wrong, nor will trying to divert attention by introducing straw-men like Superbowl (which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim or my refutation of it). The fact is that AI is just another TV game show, and will be less memorable than "Beat the Clock" (which had a bigger audience) in a few years' time. There's nothing special about AI, and you've made no case that justifies creating a dozen or more BLPs for individuals whose claim to fame is no more than being a competitor on the show. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you completely misunderstood why it is considered the biggest show in US TV history (and the reason has already been clearly stated). It is the biggest because it has been the #1 for 6 consecutive seasons. This is unprecedented, and the show is on course for the 7th consecutive #1. Survivor was only #1 for 1 season, it's not remotely comparable. Plenty of other shows have achieved one #1 (and even more had higher viewing figure for individual episodes), but no show in the history of US TV has been #1 for so long. Not only that, the most important ratings are for the 18-49 age range, American Idol has already been #1 for 7 consecutive seasons, and will be #1 for the 8th season. Read the article I posted why the show is so feared by other networks, I can post a dozen more articles like that. Using Big Brother or Survivor as examples just showed you aren't aware how unexceptional those shows are in the US. For example, All in the Family and The Cosby Show had viewing figures that far exceed American Idol (or Survivor) and were #1 for 5 seasons, but American Idol is thought a far more significant show because All in the Family was only a weekly half-hour show, whereas American Idol can be up to 5 hours a week. The show simply bulldozes all competition away for up to 3 days a week. To other networks, American Idol is like having a Super Bowl on Fox every week. Hzh (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pity you. You are being taken in by the hype of television executives desperate to revive their flagging ratings. If you knew anything about the television industry (particularly from an international and long-term perspective), then you'd realise that AI's figures have been dropping for a couple of seasons now[39], but so have most shows. Being #1 now is much less of a big deal than it was years ago. Have you any idea how the viewing figures compare with popular game shows in the UK, or Canada, or Japan, now or in the past? In truth AI has lasted well and has been a successful show, but it's nothing special. The length of the show really isn't as significant as you think. A 5-day cricket test series can generate can generate over 35 hours of coverage a week, but it doesn't make it more significant than say, the Davies Cup in tennis which is much shorter. In summary, there's nothing about AI that should cause us to abandon the common English meaning of "win or placed" = first three. I'd love to be able to go down to the bookies, place an each way bet on the Grand National, and then go collect my winnings when my horse came in thirteenth (on the grounds that it's the #1 horse race).--RexxS (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is getting absurd, now you are dragging in TV ratings in UK, Canada, and Japan. We are talking about a US TV show, and its significance in US TV history. You clearly have no idea of the place of American Idol in US TV history, and you are arguing from the position of ignorance. You have no idea what prime time TV means in the US (cricket and Davis Cup?) and why American Idol is so dominant (on many episodes this season American Idol has more viewers than all the other main networks combined), you have no idea what "placed" means in American Idol (you don't know so you just make an untrue assumption), it is not good for someone so ignorant of other subjects to declare what is important and what isn't in those subjects they are ignorant of. It is simply bad for wiki. I don't go to astrophysics pages and declare what is important and what isn't and start nominating pages for deletion without having some basic understanding of the subject itself. It seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and isn't actually trying to have a constructive discussion, and really no good can come of this, so I won't be contributing further to this discussion. Hzh (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The absurdity is that you are claiming a special exemption from the commonsense definition of "win or placed", based on your limited perspective that American Idol is somehow special enough to make its own definition of "placed". Humpty-Dumpty would have been proud. This is the English-language Wikipedia and only about a quarter of its page views are from the USA. To most of the English-speaking world, AI is nothing out of the ordinary. Your repeated insistence that I have somehow become "ignorant" because I don't share your Americo-centric recentism, is tiresome. You need to understand that your small corner of Wikipedia is also subject to the same policies as the rest of the encyclopedia (BLP1E and BAND, for example), and not to definitions that you stretch to avoid policies that are inconvenient. It is not necessary for me to be an expert on US TV to be able to understand how policy applies to Wikipedia, as I can read sources and I can tell the difference between a reliable source and a piece of fluff being passed off as encyclopedic. I'm sorry but your requirement for subject expertise before being allowed to comment at AfD is abhorrent to the wiki-philosophy and you should be ashamed of holding such views. To determine who is doing the arguing here, I'll direct your attention to the contributor's history for this page,showing you've made 41 edits here and this will be my 7th. --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder, folks: WP:CIVIL. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 10)#Top 13 .28March 9.2F10.29 until such a time as she passes WP:BAND. Corvus cornix_talk 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless she wins American Idol, this entry deserves to be deleted or else everyone and their dog will end up with a wikipedia page.

Keep': Per Aspects. Candy o32 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes (barely) at least two criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. I'm not a big fan of Idol, but a whole lot of other people are. (For the record, I was the nominator for the second AfD on this article, but that was pre-Idol). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It appears that every contestant still in the finals as of last week (see this page) has his or her own article. Take from that what you will. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Meets WP:MUSICBIO parts 1, 9, and 10. - 22:27, 16 March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.158.144 (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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Limburgish dialect[edit]

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

Non-notable dialect. One of the hundreds of the articles based on wp:OR and wp:SYNTH written by user:Ad43 (a Germanic languages "academic", also called nl:Gebruiker:AJW in the Dutch Wikipedia). It's not clear whether the article should be deleted as pure original research or merged somewhere. I couldn't find anything on the web that could be considered reasonable or reliable about this dialect. Ingadres (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Limburgish language. Merge if the information can be verified, although it seems that the publisher of the cited book is not a traditional publisher but the local historical society of Geldern/Venraij. Cnilep (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page on the Dutch language wikipedia has some sources. No specific reason to delete this particular dialect of Limbabwe. MLA (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: At 11:22, 3 March 2011 someone editing from the IP address 109.65.119.99 removed comments by MLA, noting in the edit summary, "removing my vote; i abstain". Those comments were restored by User:Cnilep at 12:48, 3 March 2011.
  - With thanks to Cnilep for the revert, I do of course wish to retain my stated position on this article. Quite an amusingly clever bit of minor vandalism by whoever removed my comment in the first place. MLA (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M. K. Hume[edit]

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

Can't find anything besides this local (to Queensland) newspaper article [40] and a review here [41], An editor only editing Hume related articles did add a Booksmonthly award, but that's someone personal website. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - She appears to have had some measure of success, but I can find no better referencing than that already pointed out by the nominator. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that would satisfy WP:AUTHOR for the writer, or WP:BOOK for either book. The author has been published by Headline Review, but I don't see any reliable third-party sources that would establish notability for either her or her works at this point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. How often does an admin get to close the same AFD as both "delete" and "keep"? Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Elizabeth Michaels[edit]

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

Although the article itself looks pretty good, I have serious doubts about her notability (I guess WP:ANYBIO applies for "event producers", right?). Google search yields basically no results, as does a news (and archive) search. The article has been created by Cmckibben (talk · contribs), pretty obviously a single purpose account, so I'm suspecting a conflict of interest here. Can anyone verify this person's notability? bender235 (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't even verify the person's existence. A quick Google search finds very few Ghits, and no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, she appears to exist all right. But her book is self-published (by Outskirts Press) [42] and she doesn't appear to have any other claim to notability. The first three hits on Google are all to Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "delete" but I am relisting this discussion per a talk page request. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the contributor to an article entitled "Andrea Elizabeth Michaels" that was deleted this week. Mr. Ron Ritzman was kind enough to reinstate the article after I contacted him on his talk page. Because I was out of the office, I was unaware that a deletion review was taking place. The reasons listed for the deletion were:

1. Andrea Elizabeth Michaels was not “noteworthy” enough to be included in Wikipedia. 2. That a Google search turned up little information on her. 3. That I am probably a single-purpose contributor and therefore have a conflict of interest in writing this article.

Please let me address each point. In the event production industry, Ms. Michaels is known world-wide. Yes, she self-published her book, but she has been the topic of three other books, multiple magazine and newspaper articles and quoted or interviewed on multiple Web sites, all of which are cited in the 50+ endnotes at the bottom of her article. The event industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and Andrea Michaels is one of its pioneers and leading authorities working today. She produces events internationally for Fortune 500 corporations, and her name is a staple in that industry.

In the deletion review, a comment was made that she couldn't be found in a Google search. However, her article was supported with approximately 50 endnotes with references to her in articles, newspapers, books, magazines, Web sites, etc. All of them can be found via Google. A quick Google search on her this morning yielded approximately 30 results in the first 9 pages. There are several other “Andrea Michaels” listed, but she is the “Andrea Michaels” associated with her company “Extraordinary Events”.

Finally, it was also commented that I am probably a “single-purpose” contributor who has a conflict of interest. So not true. As a newbie to Wikipedia, it took me weeks to learn all the rules and regulations and to successfully get this article completed. I worked closely with a number of other experienced contributors (who I thought were editors) to ensure that the entry was encyclopedic and neutral in tone. Unfortunately, I do other work which pulled me away from contributing to Wikipedia, but I fully intend to contribute more, now that I understand how. This article is not a conflict of interest for me, because I have been writing for trade publications that address the event production industry for 25 years, and my focus is on all the personalities in that industry. I was the founding publisher of Special Events magazine and launched the event industry’s first and largest trade show, The Special Event, 25 years ago. I am considered an authority in the industry, and Andrea Michaels is one of the pioneers and outstanding leaders in that industry. Representatives of this multi-billion-dollar industry are notably absent from Wikipedia, and I hope to change that. They include such greats as the late Tommy Walker, the Creative Director of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, and the late Bob Jani, Super Bowl Half-Time producer.

Please reconsider re-instating this article.

I am happy to answer any question that you might have for me about this article or make necessary changes as needed.

Thank you for your kind consideration of my request.Cmckibben (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Cmckibben (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I'm not without sympathy to the previous deletion votes, the article still reads like a puff piece. But WP:GNG is clear enough, and "Special Events: A New Generation and the Next Frontier By Joe Goldblatt", p. 354 [43] and this piece from the LA Times appear to be from reliable, secondary sources and to provide signficant coverage of the subject. I would suggest deleting almost anything left unsourced or sourced from primary sources, but that's a content issue, not a deletion vs. not-deletion issue. Even the book source semi-interview needs to be treated with care, but I'd say some of the early introductory comments, including awards won, are reliable enough. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this should have been closed 'delete', because I think notability is established through significant coverage in reliable sources - as mentioned above. Disclaimer: I assisted the user with creating this via WP:AFC, and I moved it live - as, in my opinion, it met basic inclusion guidelines. The user does have a conflict of interest, and this is - to date - a single-purpose account - however, neither of those are deletion reasons in themselves. I think the concerns expressed could be addressed through the normal editing process. Chzz ► 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the contributor and am happy to work on correcting content issues. I also plan to not be a single-purpose contributor and have spoken to others regarding how I can continue to contribute on other subjects.Cmckibben (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the contributor of this article and am also currently working on a new article regarding the late Robert Jani (known as the "father of event production") on my user test page. In addition I am working on "cleanup" projects and on articles that need review and input. Again, I am happy to work on correcting the problems that this committee sees as necessary with the Andrea Elizabeth Michaels article. Thank you. Cmckibben (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Multiple reliable sources now verify her existence and notability. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/redirect. It seems clear that this software is not notable unto itself, while the broader subject of the Google Lunar X Prize is. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moon2.0[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY A WP:PROMO article about a piece of software written by User:Tristancho -- the same name as one of the software authors. Searching for "Moon2.0" and programmer name gets less than 80 ghits, including various posts by him; nothing that reaches the point of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working in the Moon2.0 article that is not only a piece of software; it is about the return of manned flight to the Moon. I think it is important to introduce the tools to achive such a goal. There is few publications about this concept. --Tristancho (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above editor added material on the Google X-prize effort - which already has its own page - and a few sections which are one sentence or less. And then there's the full paragraph promoting your software and yourself. It now comes up as WP:PROMO with a piece of parsley on the side. I'm glad that your proud enough of your own software that you feel it is a vital tool; however, your pride does not make it notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am expanding the article's issues. Open colaboration issue is done for an initial guess. I need to complete the other three issues before go in deeper with this one. It is not easy to find good references for this issue. Still I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia rules and standards.--Tristancho (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Employs technojargonish "2.0" --MoonLichen (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, very little of the article actually talks about the subject. Not until the last paragraph do we learn that Moon2.0 is a peice of software developed for the Google Lunar X Prize. Furthermore, none of the sources actually discuss the product, except for the blog post it was released with, and there is no claim to notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMOTION, and this is a ~~strong delete~~ redirect to Google Lunar X Prize per discussion below. I don't think that MoonLichen's comments really need to be responded to either. Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 20:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet notability guidelines; lack of any sign of verifiable information about it Chzz ► 20:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google actually seems to give a few more hits than previously mentioned - 46,700 [44]. There is also the Xprize page [45]. The article is notable, correctly titled and factually accurate. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Chaos, the Google Lunar X Prize is also referred to as Moon 2.0. Most of the G-hits, and the link you provided, are actually talking about the competition, and not the similarly-titled piece of software (Moon2.0) entered/involved in the competition (Moon 2.0). Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 22:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. The software text from the article should be removed, or a new page for it created Moon 2.0 (software) if notable. If the remaining text is only to do with the competition it should be merged with Google Lunar X Prize or Lunar Lander Challenge. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the "software text" is the subject of the article... If you remove that, then you change the topic of the whole article. Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is totally about the Xprize project. There is no mention of any software until the second paragraph of "Dedicated tools", which is the only place that the Moon 2.0 software is mentioned, alongside the third paragraph which talks about the software available from thrustcurve.org. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the editor who wrote this (and who happens to have the same name as the developer of the software) added all that extra material to save it from deletion. It was originally more about the software before he added all that extra material to keep from losing it. Anyway, redirecting is fine - in fact, it should be done anyway since "Moon2.0" is so similar to Moon "2.0". I'm changing my !vote to reflect that. Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it should be noted that the material that has been added to fluff out the WP:PROMO appears to be WP:OR; the "key" points claimed in the intro are sourced to a presentation that bears the Tristancho name. Also, the claim that this is correctly titled is wrong; if it were about the Google term for further exploration, it would be "Moon 2.0", with a space; "Moon2.0" (no space) is the name of the software. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Nole - The Moon 2.0 redirect already exists, so that would be the most sensible choice I think. "Moon 2.0" software = 3 hits in Google for news Chaosdruid (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- and while two of those hits are about the Google X-Prize effort, the word "software" only appears in ad boxes around the edges of the pages, not in the article itself. The third, from Italian Rolling Stone, is not about the topic at all (it's got a reference to "Pink Moon 2.0", hence the hit.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that the term Moon 2.0 should be redirected to Moon2.0 because this article introduces the original source but not the only. The present article is not only a Google initiative but a global effort to back to the Moon and to change the way to explore the space based on the community effort and not only in agencies. Of course I am involved in this effort and because this I have a good position to know well the meaning of this term but far from me. I am only a Wikipedia writer and supporter and a fan of this fantastic term. I try to have global and good references, not only GLXP. --Tristancho (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the sources used. Reference 1 is a dead link, has been dead since at least the day that this article went live; it seems likely that this ref was cut-and-pasted from somewhere, rather than consulted in the writing of the article. The embedded link is an X-Prize page that does mention "Moon 2.0", with the space, but is not discussing specifically putting a manned base on the moon, which this article claims "Moon 2.0" is about. Reference 2, which is now attributed in the text to Gutierrez, bears in it the names Gutierrez and Tristancho equally, and the only mention of moon-2-point-0 type phrasing in it is a dead link to a page for software code. Reference 3 is to an over-a-decade old article that not only doesn't mention Moon 2.0, it doesn't mention the moon, as it's about putting items into orbit. Reference 4 is to a PDF made under "Director: Joshua Tristancho Martínez", and the only invocations are as "Moon2.0 simulator" - the software. Reference 5 is in support of SpaceX, which already has its own page; the article not only doesn't mention Moon 2.0, it doesn't mention "moon". There's [an external link for a site with info on rocket motors. Reference 6 is for an article on the software, "Moon 2.0 Simulator", programmed by Tristancho and Martinez. So all in all, this appears to be Tristancho's documentation of his theories of the future of space exploration, pulling other references in to support his original research, and pushing his software as being particularly worthy of note. Tristancho, I do hope you succeed in helping establish a manned, womaned, and puppied base on the moon, and I encourage you to spread your ideas far and wide to achieve those goals... but a Wikipedia article is not the place for you to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was started with few sentences related to the current meaning and then I have got a problem with a reference format. I was unable to improve this article before the Nat Gertler comment that said that this article is about a piece of software which in fact it is not. My initial focus on this concept was to use the moon-20 software to illustrate the key points by putting examples of different scopes: Propellant, Launchers, Trajectories, Hovers, Rovers, etc. moon-20 is a free and open tool to implement the Moon2.0 concept. No one have got direct benefit form it; is the community who has the benefit to keep the quality without paying. I never knowed that this was considered WP:PROMO in US-Wikipedia and then I changed the focus (Not the meaning) in order to follow US-Wikipedia standards and people opinion. There is no need to make a new article about "Moon2.0 software" if it is not notable. So, I based the article in Jordi's ideas that also reflect the concept of Moon2.0. To write a good article takes time and community effort. --Tristancho (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to talk about the term "Moon 2.0" or "Moon2.0", you've provided no verifiable source to support even that it means what you say it means ("Back to the Moon is the meaning of Moon2.0, a try to establish a permanent manned base on the Moon.") If this article is to demonstrate the ideas of Jordi and/or you, we lack the reliable sources to indicate that these ideas are notable and thus worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nat Gertler for your corrections. --Tristancho (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the links you've added - there's a link to the page for your software, an article about the X Prize, which doesn't discuss manned bases, a link to a page that uses "Moon 2.0" but again doesn't talk about manned bases as the goal, a Huffpo blog entry from the guy behind the X Prize, using the term "Moon 2.0" but not saying that it has anything specifically to do with manned bases, an X Prize page which again doesn't have the term referring to manned bases, an X Prize blog entry, same limitation, an X Prize press release which does suggest a permanent base but says nothing about it being manned, and a personal blog entry with what appears to be someone's loose notes on a talk. Far from establishing what you're claiming as the base of this article, this collection of links establishes the inaccuracy of the claim you're now building the article around. There's enough here that one might mention the phrase "Moon 2.0" within the X Prize article, but the way the term is most commonly used is not even how it is being used to justify this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't seem to know what it is about. Look at the current intro:

The term Moon2.0 or Moon 2.0 was proposed by Google related to the so called Google Lunar X-Prize. Back to the Moon is the meaning of Moon 2.0, a try to establish a permanent manned base on the Moon. This contest was born under an open participation around the world. Also Moon 2.0 is the meaning of a New Era of Space Exploration.

What does this mean? Should it be a redirect to Google Lunar X Prize? Should it be a redirect to Moon#Current_era:_1990.E2.80.93present? Or is it meant to be an article simply about the meaning of the word? I'm not clear from the current content what this is supposed to be.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the software is the primary subject of the article. However the editor, who happens to have the same name as the software's developer, added a whole lotta other stuff to save it from deletion. The software clearly isn't notable but the name "Moon2.0" is so alike to the term Moon 2.0, that this should probably be a redirect there. Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 19:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator Big Dom 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William K. Boone[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Article fails to indicate why Boone is significant apart from a few memorials constructed to him. None of the footnotes in the article mention him, and the of the external references, one is a blue book and one only has a mention on one page. William K. Boone gets only the briefest mention in this genealogy of Boones. This article was created here by Boone's grandson after being deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Lear's Fool 12:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. -- Lear's Fool 21:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 12:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To: Lear's Fool[edit]

Hi mate,

Thanks for pointing out the deficiencies in the article on my Granpa.

Perhaps I followed strictly your name-sake's advice, much too closely (and "to the letter", as we say in Spanish, my native language):

"Mark it, nuncle.

Have more than thou showest,

Speak less than thou knowest,

Lend less than thou owest,

Ride more than thou goest,

Learn more than thou trowest,

Set less than thou throwest;

Leave thy drink and thy whore,

And keep in-a-door,

And thou shalt have more

Than two tens to a score."

(King Lear, act I, scene 4, line 645)

First of all, let me point out that I -- acting the grandson -- was the one who inserted the commentary that the article had been previously twice removed from the Wikipedia in Spanish. I did not deem it appropiate to elaborate on the reasons that may have lurked under such actions. I have taken my time in elaborating the English version of the article. Just recently, a Wikipedia friend sugested that he would be re-submitting my grandfather's article to the Spanish Wikipedia and would assist me in documenting the references. He started on it late last night, just shortly after midnight.

Secondly, the "blue-book", as it is well known among historians in Veracruz, turned out to be a misnomer. Its full name in English is "State of Veracruz, Facts about Mexico, The Country of the Future, The Blue Book of Mexico". It was originally published in 1923 when the bad times of the Mexican Revolution seemed to be over and the future looked promissing. It was only "one brief shining moment", as those dreams soon turned to dust. But my Granpa's legacy lived on. My Granpa is mentioned extensively throughout the book; see pages 15, 67, 170. 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 196-198, 197 (article authored by himself), 199.

You surely are aware of the fervent nationalism that swept over Mexico after the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920, and of the Yankee go home sentiment that has pervaded politics in Latin America, particularly shortly after World War II. It should be no surprise that my grandfather was very much ignored by history books and that his contributions were instead credited to revolutionary generals - re: the Stadium at Xalapa. But, surprisingly enough, he did receive (albeit, posthumously) some recognition. That alone makes him quite notable, I should say. Very much unique, I might add, he being a U.S. citizen (a consul, at some time) living in Mexico in those convulsive times. Inspite of adverse circumstances, he had good loyal friends that stood by him and his memory, even many years after he had died, and who went to extremes to have his name remembered, even when no Boones have lived in Xalapa after the 1960s.

In submiting the article to the English Wikipedia (thus to shelter it away from nationalistic editors) I had assumed that photographic evidence --some of it published in Popular Mechanics of 1923-- would be proof enough that he was the one who had "built" the Stadium -- the first one of its kind in Latin America (in the style that was accustomed in Classical Greece), and that the Stadium ought to carry his name (or at least show a token memorial) instead of sporting the name of a revolutionary leader.

Also, I had assumed that my Granpa's project of building a spiral twin road" up to the rim of a crater of an extinct volcano --documented in detail in that same issue of Popular Mechanics-- which eventually helped Xalapa in becoming the permanent state capital of Veracruz, would require no further praise coming from a third-party.

I am trying to make up for those shortages. My sister Carmen, being a historian, has provided me with more references to substantiate my Granpa's case. I am starting to add and/or clarify these references in his Wikipedia article.

If these are not good enough credentials for a man to be considered notable then all I can say is (one of my favorite quotes from Shakespeare):

"This cold night will turn us all to fools and madmen."

(King Lear, act III, scene 4, line 1876)

In any case, "don't worry mate, she'll be right".

Cheers,--Wkboonec (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Filibuster much? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. If they're still running a race named after the feller, it's pretty definitely a public figure worthy of inclusion. Not all family bios merit the kiss of death... Carrite (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These potential sources need to be taken into account: [46][47]. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article as drafted did not make the case for notability as clearly as the author's statement above, and although the references as made could have pointed more clearly at the notability of this subject, it still seems there is enough here for an article, especially if some of the references pointed out by Phil Bridger are harvested and employed. The article could use some development, but I don't think it should simply be deleted. Tkotc (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but) - The man appears “noted” in Wiki terms, if only for the “still running a race” observation by Carrite - there are many articles which exist with less than this photograph of a poster – not a valid argument I know. I think his article in Popular Mechanics would be the type of thing that would allow many a lesser personage to survive on Wikipedia. However, the thing in large part appears like a page from a genealogical one-name-society web site, pushing it close to promotion - though I understand that this was probably not the intention. Enthusiasm is the driver here I think – not a bad thing. The earlier versions of the article, ‘though not perfect, are better. So, I can’t see the reason for a family tree, the Biographical Sketch with its un-needed sub-sections and trivia introduction, his son’s birth certificate, links that can only be read in Spanish, and Notes that point to notable ancestors who are an “inspiration to him and his descendants”. What has his descendants got to do with anything unless they are worthy of Wiki articles? – and we all have notable ancestors if we look hard enough. And his Legacy – is he noted anywhere as a significant genealogist or collector? This article should be re-written to Wiki standards, but I suspect that if it’s “nodded through” it will disappear under the radar, and nothing will change other than with the addition of hyperbole and yet more photographs (already too many) by those not-disinterested. Keep, but with a copy-edit from an editor unrelated to Boone. Acabashi (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Acabashi's analysis is a good one - if we handwave this through, it will likely fall through the cracks. There is development to be done, as noted, but the subject probably merits inclusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playwright Theatre[edit]

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

Delete: Stub, unsourced, and not majorly edited since June 2009 Mezuu64 (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable venue. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House of Hohenzollern / Albrecht Line[edit]

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

Lack of WP:Notability und WP:Verifiability. There is no real source that proves the existence of this line. It appears that the author made up a couple of members as well: Horst Albrecht von Preußen and Erich Albrecht von Preußen for example. Millbart (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro , per Millbart. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ich möchte Sie höflichst bitten das Sie sich die auf dieser Seite aufgeführten Referenzen anzuschauen. Sie müssten diese Artikel allerdings schon richtig lesen und verstehen. Falls Sie Nachfragen haben sollten stehe ich Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. HRH Prinz Peter Eric Albrecht von Preußen 15:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ich möchte dich höflich bitten uns hier nicht über mehrere Sprachversionen zum Narren zu halten. Deine Artikel wurden als eindeutiger Fake enttarnt, weshalb du in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia bereits bis in alle Ewigkeit gesperrt bist und auch hier wird es sicher nicht mehr lange dauern, wenn du so weiter machst. --StG1990 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: I want politely that you do not trick us across different languageversions. Your article has been detected as a clear fake and because of that you've haved blocked in the German Wikipedia already till infinity. Here the same will happen in a short time, if you go on like before. --StG1990 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Über Ihren Ton und Ihres un-diplomatische auftreten bin ich nicht erfreut. Auch Ihre Zensieren gefällt mir nicht - dies sind undemokratische Vorgehensweisen: Ich lasse mich auch nicht von Ihnen einschüchtern. Dies sind Nazi oder Kommunisten Methoden die Sie anwenden. Falls diese Seiten auf den USA gesperrt werden, werden wir hier gerichtlich vorgehen. Bitte bedenken Sie dies!

Translation: I am shocked about your undiplomatic behavior and your ruthless communications style. I also dislike your censorship these are non democratic actions you are taking. I also stand up to your bullying. Bullying are Nazi and Communist Trademarks. I will stand for this! Please keep in mind that we will take legal action in court if our Wikipedia sites here in the US are blocked, temper with or vandalized. HRH Prinz Peter Eric Albrecht von Preußen 16:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In the german spoken Wikipedia your communition style you would be infinit blocked soon - which was happend yesterday. To threat with the law is allready a reason. There are no rights by law for having a Wikipedia ariticel. --Codc (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In view of the evident COI, this would require much better sourcing. The last para seems to indicate an intention to add numerous spam links. Note that the author has been blocked on :de (where checks would be easier) for adding "Fakes". JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced, dubious claims, clear COI. Favonian (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Young[edit]

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

Notability not asserted. No verifiable references other than a link to IMDB. Significantly, though, it fails WP:PORNBIO. LordVetinari (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources and large body of work. Article needs work tho! --Stormbay (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some examples of the significant independent sources you've found? Epbr123 (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try google or some such device yourself and spend a little time. I'm not a fan of the genre but she has accumulated a fairly impressive resume. --Stormbay (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, and insufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable porn starlet and an unsourced BLP to boot. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has her own blog. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some clean up and referencing has occurred on the article. It has improved. --Stormbay (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Everybody who's okay with a BLP with the following unsourced line, raise your hand: ..is known for appearing in fetish films which have included themes such as innocence, bondage and bukkake. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewrote article and added sources from industry news sites considered reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. Nihola (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. Since the "improvement" to the article touted by Nihola consists of nothing but adding citations to seven corporate press releases to the article in lieu of actual references, it counts for exactly nothing. Regardless of anything written by Wikiproject Pornography, or any other wikiproject, reliable sources, especially those cited in a BLP, must be independent of the article subject and have a reputation for accuracy. Company press releases -- that is to say, advertising -- is completely unacceptable as a source and is expressly disqualified from establishing notability by the GNG. The claim made here is beyond frivolous and approaches the point of being disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's pretty strong language. I used those sources specifically because I was trying to find reliable references out of the endless number of google hits, and Wikiproject Pornography says those are reliable sites for industry news. They are releases that indicate that she is indeed a porn actor, there is no assertion that she is 'the best' or 'the richest' or anything like that. I don't think rewriting a page to remove all the garbage and attempting to find solid sources is disruptive or frivolous, and you should apologize for that. Which sites in this industry do have a 'reputation for accuracy' then? I would think a Wikiproject's concensus about this would bare some weight, but if it doeson't then I apologize. Whether it's enough to prove notability will be determined by the rules. Please refrain from writing on my user talk page Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I'd prefer the discussion be here, out in the open. Nihola (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG—the current sources constitute trivial coverage of Young in unreliable sources like ainews.com and xbiz.com. That these sources are endorsed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography is beside the point, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has clearly explained. Goodvac (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO, lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources - only PR Chzz ► 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No pornbio, no general notability. I will note that "has her own blog" is now officially the worst keep rationale I have ever seen. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am constrained to agree with Tarc on this one. Which means there is a 100% chance this will be deleted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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