Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 16

< 15 May	17 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern College, Santiago, Isabela, Philippines (2nd Nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Three 6 Mafia. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchy Black[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any significant mentions of Crunchy Black. The article itself mentions that "little is known about Crunchy Black's current rap career but it is assumed he is still rapping..." This does not appear to meet the standards for notability, even though the group he was a member of may be notable, that notability is not inherited. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Three 6 Mafia. This guy does not have the required level of notability on his own, and a separate article is not merited. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per Doomsdayer. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NFL Combine[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT#STATS, non-notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Eagles on this one, but I do have a couple of additional reasons: 1) If the people on this list are notable, these statistics (such as height, weight, etc) will be available at their article page. Repeating here seems redundant (and repetitive too!). 2) It seems that this page really is a redundant outside of Wikipedia as well--wouldn't all this data be available at one website that already exists? Just a couple thoughts.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because of Eagles' reasoning. Its the only one in existence anyway, no other years combine has an article.--Yankees10 01:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, mistaken nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Inner Circle (The Office)[edit]

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

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed to understand the article. Fails NFCC#8, just like so many others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Umm... I think this is a mistake. Did you mean to nominate the photo for deletion? Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, indeed. Wrong twinkle button or something. Sorry about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Drill[edit]

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

non notable game Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC Terek Grozny in Europe[edit]

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

This page details the games of FC Terek Grozny football team in continental competitions. This team played only 4 games in 2004 in the early stages of the UEFA Cup. Games of low importance like these don't deserve such coverage. The results of the aforementioned games are already present in the article about the team, hence redundant. Maimai009 20:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree - the main information on the page seems to be a list if players. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not enough content to justify having a content fork; instead, I would suggest merging back into the main article, and expanding the current section FC Terek Grozny#FC Terek in Europe. Giant Snowman 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Nowhere near enough content to justify a stand-alone article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a redundant content fork. All content appears to be sufficiently covered in the main article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IKB Travel[edit]

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

Non-notable travel agency, which fails WP:SIGCOV: one source provides trivial coverage; two other sources provide no coverage whatsoever; claims of notability are still unsubstantiated. Meph^talk 19:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to comport with WP:COMPANY notability guidelines. Nothing more than an attempt to misuse Wikipedia to gain commercial exposure.--Hokeman (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Shu Min[edit]

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

Delete:Orphan, Notabable for only one minor event, not a major biographical figure in Singapore, sources are mainly blogs and forums. Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wee Shu Min elitism viewpoint, which is the only thing she would be notable for and has everything here in much more detail. (I have my doubts as to whether that would be notable, but that is an entirely different issue). Kansan (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as proposed by Kansan. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons stated by original proposor.I'm incontinent and wear Tena Slip Maxi (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (Closing early as per WP:SK criterion 1.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal losing game[edit]

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

This article is all original research and annotation. More importantly, I can find no reliable sources that this game, which I do not believe is well-known in chess annals, is actually known as the "Immortal losing game" (there are some Google hits, but they all seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or other non-reliable sources). Kansan (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Chessgames.com calls it that, and it certainly isn't a Wikipedia mirror, see this. I'll look for references. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I found a good reference and added it to the article. However, it only gives the basic details of the game and the moves, with no analysis. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I've added an external link to the source of the analysis. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did find some links to discussion on Chessgames.com when looking, but the discussion there essentially like message board content? I would be willing to withdraw this if it's well sourced, but I just want to be able to see that this name is widely held and not just coming from a pun of the day from Chessgames or a comment there or something like that. Kansan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, any registered user can post on ChessGames, so that isn't a reliable source for commentary (but it is for the other facts). The paper encyclopedia from the 1970s has an entry about the game (and calls it what this article calls it). The French webpage link appears to be a reliable source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The person giving the analysis on the French website has an international rating over 2200, which would be a national master in the US, so I think he is qualified enough to make the analysis reliable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now better sourced. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, per Bubba73's good work, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination. Kansan (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Cristall-Clarke[edit]

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

The subject of tis article does not meet the guidelines for notability. Juri Koll (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. -- AllyD (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The references in the article show he has picked up student awards and a decent review of his 2005 performance with a workshop group, but it isn't enough to meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria at the moment. Not to say he won't in the future though. AllyD (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete student work and awards of this sort is not normally considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gelman[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. References are only passing mentions of the individual. Article fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. This is blatant WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA. Qworty (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (horse)[edit]

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

Uncertain situation about the notability. Multiple sources have been provided to verifiability is not a problem. Pitke (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are non-trivial, and so the subject does meet our notability guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate, which part does it fulfill? Asking out of curiosity. Pitke (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one certainly qualifies as non-trivial coverage, and the source certainly meets our guidelines. That was enough for a keeper, although I admit luck was involved here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree that the sources are non-trivial; these appear to be routine "puff piece" article type coverage. There are many therapy animals out there; why is this one in particular notable? Kansan (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have articles on every therapy animal that makes lots of people happy. Has this animal appeared as a Breyer horse model, or have any commercial endorsements, or other indicia of actual notability other than its owners' PR machine? I agree this is a puff piece based on other puff pieces. What makes this therapy animal any more special than the thousands of other ones in the country? I mean, the TIME list includes Bucephalus but not Comanche (horse). By what criteria did they come up with this list? (Same for the dogs, why one dog but not others?) Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment external links that were removed Pitke (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Green-Buzz 9 Most Heroic Animals of 2010
Global Animal Most Heroic Animals
Miniature Therapy Horse AARP's Most Heroic Pet In America - Discover Horses
WCJB News Tiny Horse Honored
The Magic Touch - Suwannee Democrat
Newspaper articles and television news stories about Magic
National and international press about Magic
AARP Heroic Pet
Mini Magic Makes Historic List
National Honors For Comforting The Ill
Wonder
Mini Magic
AARP The Magazine
Equine VIP Talks To Magic
Miniature Therapy Horse Most Heroic Pet In America
Time Magazine
Magic: This Miniature Horse Makes Miracles
Therapy Horse Proves She Is Magic
Most Heroic Animals
Believe in Magic
[http://lakecityjournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=73&ArticleID=6255
Delete all in all this animal's notability seems to depend on "heroic" or "courageous" qualities, although I fail to see why an (apparent) website padding list using these words and listing animal individuals in no logical order and without explaining their placing on the list should be considered a notable source. Generally, IMO calling animals heroic is unnecessary romanticism and anthropomorphism -- it's sure nice if a dog saves a drowning kid, but it was his instinct and/or conditioning and training, and not really compareable to a human doing the same thing. Pitke (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And most of the above being stories about the original story. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pitke. Also, I think that it's quite possible for a 'non-trival' source to include 'trivial' information. MurfleMan (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep For subjects where there are no very obvious standard like this one, the GNG is appropriate. The references are fully sufficient to meet it. The basic idea is that we accept what outside sources think notable. If we would like to withdraw the GNG altogether, I wouldn't necessarily be strongly opposed, but it would need a veery wide discussion, and I doubt it would have anything like consensus. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this could be regarded as a trivial topic, but it most certainly meets WP:GNG and no other guideline is relevant to the topic. The Time piece seems like significant coverage, and there are plenty of local or industry-specific sources listed above that offer significant coverage as a result of that listing. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Close call for WP:GNG. Coverage is somewhat substantial.--Pink Bull 19:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pell Grant. I'll add a {{copied}} for attribution purposes; this should have been treated as a merge. T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Pell Grants[edit]

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

Newly created article (moved to mainspace on 4/27/2011) duplicating Pell Grant. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Pell Grants. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow, this is more complicated than I expected. It appears this was worked on in the sandbox of Nishii08 (talk · contribs) as a way to improve the Pell Grant article, possibly for a class project. On 24 April, Fleetham (talk · contribs), who does not appear to have been involved with that sandbox development, added a significant amount of that text to Pell Grant: [1]. The easy way out would be to re-userfy this article and inform those involved with its development of the situation, and revert Pell Grant to its state before Fleetham added the copied text ([2]), but even that might lose good-faith contributions. I am truly stumped as to what is the right thing to do here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Fleetham (talk · contribs) responded on my talk page that the edit to Pell Grant I mentioned above was indeed an intentional copy-paste. I'm still not sure what an appropriate disposition here is. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I'd close it, but I promised to take a wiki-break from such activity. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by RHaworth (G3: Blatant hoax). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Callebrection[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary per WP:NOT Phearson (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. May be redirected to an existing article, but only if common usage can be shown. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax dicdef. Zero google hits beyond this page, and no sign of a Latin word "callebrocto" either. Hairhorn (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was discussion closed as moot. Article has been speedily deleted by User:Athaenara. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pricespider.com[edit]

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

been tagged for cleanup for over a year, not cleaned up, opening AFD on this one as it also sounds like advertising. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: PriceSpider's realtime tracking and price history capability lets the consumer have access to the latest pricing data while enabling them to check against price trend history. This allows the consumer to make very informed decision about best pricing for their intended purchases. Sounds like advertising? The best Google News results are just listings in general stories about price comparison websites, mentioning that this is another of 'em that's available. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. I already tagged as such. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Intifada[edit]

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

This article had previously been deleted because it was created before the event in question. The current article has been created after the event in question, but the event does not appear to be notable. Rather than a long term intifada, the event appears to have been a one-day protest (see news reports here and here). Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for stated reasons and for having no sources whatsoever and biased language. PluniAlmoni (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that this is the start of a real intifada. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a good reason not to tag it Db-repost for speedy deletion ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As explained in the nomination, the prior nomination was for an article in anticipation of the event. The current article was written after the event, and so the underlying policies are different. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think you are being very kind. The details may differ but the articles are substantially the same, a description of something that doesn't exist yet called the Third Intifada. Not only that but the topic is covered by discretionary sanctions so I would have been inclined to kill with fire but I guess the outcome will be the same either way. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under the principle of Not News. This is a one-day protest in no way comparable to the two Intifadas. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence as yet that these events will be important or will be the "Third Intifada." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intifada for now, recreate if this really takes off and becomes known as the "Third Intifada". Qrsdogg (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a current event in its infancy. Events similar to this have usually become notable. The quality of the article is more the issue than the notability, and had it been written well, it never would have been put up for deletion. Linda Olive (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it really isn't because there is no such thing as the Third Intifada. There are the events of Nakba_day#2011_commemoration. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've speedied earlier versions of this. It's pov and unsourced, also deleted by a previous afd Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia does not deal with speculated future historical events. No reliable sources say that this event actually happened. In the current form, should be speedily deleted. Marokwitz (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, at least one reliable source (CBS News) does verify that something happened that was spurred by this facebook group. (See the links above in the original nomination.) But that something was not much different than any other day-to-day uprisings that occur in the region. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If that was an Intifada why not then call the widespread uprisings "the Third World War"? BTW You might want to speedily delete this page as well since it covers the same subject.--Rafy talk 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if written properly: The news search shows dozens of stories discussing the possibilities and efforts to organize. The various viewpoints make the concept notable, whether or not full blown ongoing protests are labeled that way. Just curious as to how many protests make an intifada in minds of those who would delete it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AQB Sports Ratings[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable. No hits in Google Scholar, one hit in Google Books that is not previewable, and no reliable sources turn up in a Google search. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources simply do not exist. Nothing to demonstrate notability, and notability really isn't even claimed. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability guidelines. Harrias ^talk 19:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable football rating system. Giant Snowman 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Warburton1368 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Plumbe[edit]

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

Recently deleted by PROD and then undeleted after request by the subject himself. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG The-Pope (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral position: More notability would certainly be useful to defend this article, I am not able to vote delete due to lack of awareness of this persons contribution perhaps an Expert in the following star trek (sic) and/or the authors writing and/or the games critics side of things might advise, if this is worth saving? I have added expert and category Star Trek User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 10:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBeckett (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - marginal figure in all these categories; note that he was not a member of Star Trek fandom, but rather a paid editorial person hired to run an Official Fan Club by the owners of that particular commercial franchise. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews, fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Box (2011)[edit]

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Fails WP:FILMNOT. elektrik SHOOS 09:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all references found in search refer to a 2005 film of the same title, and to an earlier film by Noel Coward. As per WP:FILMNOT the following is failed: The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate per WP:TOOSOON. The film by Jason Balas, an assistant professor at the University of North Texas,[3] appears to be in post-production. We can afford to have it stored out of mainspace until its release is confirmed and it gets coverage and/or reviews. If it does not, the incubated article will be deleted. A non-bitey win-win for the project. Sorry Jason. Get this one some coverage or it will not be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 9 May 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, Sandstein 11:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Incubate An independent film that hasn't even been released and hasn't been covered. Incubation is a bit generous, but better than keeping as is. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karimbil Kunhi Komen[edit]

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

Biographical article with no indications of notability. Article has been recreated on several occasions. Speedy deletion templates removed by IP editors. Assuming good faith that this is not a case of IP sockpuppetry, I'm bringing the article to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Filing a lawsuit alone doesn't pass the bar. If it has been recreated more than twice (I don't have access to that info) then salting might be a good idea. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
add: karimbil kunhi komen is a well-known man. we have always wondered why he didn't figure in the list of famous people in nileshwar. retain it: it should never be deleted. karimbil kunhi komen was a legend of his times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.75.192 (talk • contribs)
- Comment It is quite clear that a certain subset of Wikipedians (possibly a subset as small as one) feels that this gentleman merits a Wikipedia article. However, no evidence has been produced to support this assertion. No references to anything other than the fact that he filed a lawsuit. No mentions in any media (books, magazines, etc.). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
add:One !vote per user, please karimbil kunhi komen passed away in 1988. the media wasn't active then the way it is now. he has been quoted in numerous malayalam newspapers. the entries of which would be difficult to get now. that too online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.75.192 (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he has been quoted in numerous Malayam newspapers, and you know this to be true, perhaps you could put your hands on one of those Malayam newspapers and provide a reference. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~retain:~~One !vote per user, please he was the first man from kerala to challenge the mighty land reforms act. we have learned it in college. his name we know like that. when you search his name in google, you see all his lawsuits. i agree with the point raised above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.75.192 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is a discussion of the policies, not a vote. Just making sure you realize that :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I search his name in Google, I come up with four hits: the Wikipedia page currently under discussion, an article on Konnakkad written by the same author, noting this person as one of the notable people from Konnakkad, and two user and/or project pages tracking deletion issues. That's not to say a search in Malayalam might not turn up other results. Unfortunately, I don't speak Malayalam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Add~~:1 !vote only Dennis Brown (talk) Karimbil Kunhi Komen was a legend of his times. Almost everyone in Kannur and Kasargod districts of Kerala know him well. He passed away more than 20 years back. It's only through such channels of expressions we could connect him and his life to the younger generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.99.98 (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying that the Wikipedia page should be kept because it is the only way current generations will know about this man. That's not the way Wikipedia works. If there is not any other source material by which the current generation can know about this man, than there is no reliable source on which to base this article, so the article can't be allowed to remain. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it stands now, does not meet our notability criteria. There is a possibility that the lawsuit and the subject have received coverage in RS, but unless those are added, this fails WP:N--Sodabottle (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~ADD:~~ Again, 1 !vote per user, please. it is a a shame that there is a discussion to prove the greatness of karimbil kunhi komen. he passed away in 1980s. the media wasn't as flourishing as it is now. i am from mangalore, and i share no relation with komen gurrukal. but my father had always told me that in life he should be your role model. i was lucky enough to visit the ancestral karimbil house. i just want to emulate him in life.

Comment A different IP address doesn't hide the fact that this IP use is the same editor who created this article, based on the same random characters that keep getting introduced to pages every time he edits them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thodoris Moschonas[edit]

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

A candidate for speedy G4, but the nom was declined, even though this player still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. He doesn't just easily surpass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL he clobbers it down much like The Thing of the Fantastic 4 would. This guy is the goalkeeper for one of the top SuperLeague teams in Greece. It doesn't get any more notable than this in Greece. In fact, it doesn't get anymore notable than this in Europe considering that AEK regularly clobbers international teams. How could anybody nominate this goalkeeper? He signed a professional goalkeeper's contract with AEK when he was only 18 years old. He may be baby-faced but he is a kickass goalkeeper. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real kickass. from 1st (and most recent dated) ref (translation)"The young goalkeeper is theoretically fourth in order of priority in the group behind Saha, Arampatzis and Lukacs..."--ClubOranje^T 06:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, he meets the Association Football element of WP:ATHLETE because he has played an international game as a Youth player whilst on a professional contract "at the highest level". And in my opinion he meets WP:GNG too. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is contracted to Superleague Greece club AEK, but according to both the article and the player's profile on AEK's website, he has no first-team competitive appearances. Therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, which requires a player to play in fully-professional competition; having a pro contract with a big club isn't enough. No-one has yet shown evidence of enough non-routine media coverage to get him through WP:GNG. Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. He is a goalkeeper in a team that plays internationally (i.e. not just domestically). He meets WP:GNG because he has had a full-on interview on radio in Greece (and the interview has been published). See first reference. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the team is not in question, but Mr Moschonas hasn't yet played for it. That first reference now added to the article proves that he has been noticed by the media, but a short interview when a big-club's youngster moves up to the first-team squad is pretty routine. The sixth has one sentence saying he signed his first pro contract. The other four are stats pages or squad lists showing he's a member of the club's squad but hasn't appeared for the team, which the link to the AEK website already indicated and AFAIK no-one doubted. Routine sports coverage doesn't get a youngster through the GNG. Struway2 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added second interview. He is a current member of the squad. He has played for the AEK's junior team and there are many articles about that too (but have not added any of those yet). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was also another AfD, in January 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodoros Moschonas, which resulted in speedy deletion. As far as I know, nothing has changed since then. Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was AfD'd in July 2010 and he was interviewed on radio and the interview was published in July 2010. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being contract to and having actually made an appearance for a club a two different things. He fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Recreate if and when he makes his debut for AEK or anyone else at a fully-professional level of football. --Jimbo^[online] 15:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. He doesn't fail WP:GNG have added two references with interviews of Moschonas to the article. And there are many articles where he is mentioned and he appears on the list of every recent AEK Super League game. He meets WP:GNG and he is a current member of the squad. Moreover, he was a member of the National Youth squad that played against Germany in February 2009 (which means that he meets the Association Football element of WP:ATHLETE because he has played an international game as a Youth player whilst on a professional contract "at the highest level"). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we've done him before and nothing has changed, still has achieved nothing of particular note. Started with AEK in 2007. AfD'd in July 2010 as a footballer with 0 appearances senior pro, no senior international appearances, only youth, thereby not played at a notable level by Wikipedia standards. Still has not played at the required level. Still has 0 appearances for AEK, still has not played senior professional football, still has not played senior international football, youth caps still do not confer notability. Coverage is pretty standard general sports coverage. The previously deleted article also presumably claimed he played for AEK otherwise it had no claim to fame and would likely have been A7'd rather than discussed, so I fail to see the rationale behind the speedy declination - but then, I'm not looking at the previous article. --ClubOranje^T 07:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He meets the Association Football element of WP:ATHLETE because he has played an international game as a Youth player whilst on a professional contract "at the highest level". And in my opinion he meets WP:GNG too. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re sports notability.

The general criterion at WP:NSPORT#Notability guidelines on sportspersons requires a sportsperson to "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". International football at youth level is not and never has been considered "competition at the highest level".

To satisfy the association football-specific criteria, a player must either (1) have played in "any officially sanctioned senior international competition" (my bolding); or (2) have "appeared ... in a fully-professional league".

On (1), youth internationals are by definition not senior international competition;

On (2), the many statistical pages cited in Mr Moschonas' article agree that he has not yet appeared in a fully-professional league.

The note below those two statements at WP:NFOOTBALL says explicitly: "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." (again, my highlighting).

Mr Moschonas clearly doesn't yet meet the football notability guideline. Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there are no arguments that he does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated above, he very clearly fails WP:NSPORT. The references all appear to be routine sports journalism and are therefore insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring two media interviews which clearly meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Coverage is routine. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Southgate[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The references cited do not provide any substantial third part coverage in reliable sources. For example, http://www.wjdxfm.com/new2/featured/f/3115 says "© 2010 Barry Southgate", so it is not an independent source. Not only does the page http://www.frontiertouring.com/brianmcknight contain no mention of him, but using the web site's search facility for "Barry Southgate" produces the message "No results were found". http://www.theopenhouse.net.au/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=barry+southgate+ barely mentions him. http://www.shadedblaque.com/blog/shaded-blaque-approved-the-melodic-sounds-of-barry-southgate/ is a blog. http://thecsperspective.com/about/ is a personal web site run by "two friends", and not a reliable source. And so it goes on... JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm He did play the role of Customer in a Power Rangers Ninja Storm episode, isn't that notable? I didn't think so. Delete as failing general notability in spite of bad references. May just be too soon. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Brian McKnight site is an example of the difficulty of linking to some sites. Click the "Special Guests" tab for the text about Southgate being cited. (It's not much, but it does exist.) - Dravecky (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The main contributor seems very eager to have this artist included on Wikipedia, but unfortunately the subject lacks coverage in reliable third party sources. As Dennis Brown points out, possibly just too soon. VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfiy- User is eager to get this page out, but it's too early. Page should be moved into userspace, so that the user can work on it.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Changing to Delete per below[reply]
Why? Is there evidence of notability? If not then it should be deleted. If there is then what evidence, where? "User is eager to get this page out" is not a reason for keeping.JamesBWatson (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike London (journalist)[edit]

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

This is an entirely negative WP:BLP1E which seems non-notable apart from a controversy. Information might be mentioned in another article but keeping this inexpandable stub is dangerous. - filelake shoe 10:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a One Event hit piece, per nom. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom is spot on, a one event personality, with the very weak one event. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11 as advertising for selfpublished book (note that book does not appear on Amazon or Google Books search). NawlinWiki (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Heuristic Triangle[edit]

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

Non-notable analysis concept. The concept of the Heuristic Triangle is only described in the cited book. The author can offer no evidence that it is used or even known by anybody else. Dcoetzee 10:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see even a single reference of where this concept has been used, I am not sure as to how it even qualifies for a discussion for 'deletion'. Vinod.napier 10:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Shore (banker)[edit]

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

Minor late 18th/early 19th century banker. No articulation of why topic meets WP:BIO, no evidence of substantive third party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7. I don't see any claim of notability other than he started a bank, which I don't think is normally enough to pass the bar for WP:GNG even if perfectly sourced, which this isn't. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is inappropriate to hammer articles of historical figures with Speedy Deletes because they don't seem notable enough to this person or that. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one was hammering him. I just fail to see a claim of notability in the article. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is a historical figure, or at least the article doesn't claim he is. Any BLP that fails to make a claim of notability is subject to CSD, no matter how long ago they passed on. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Genealogical piece of family interest, seemingly part of a nice effort on the net at THIS URL. Unfortunately, founding a failed bank doesn't constitute sufficient significance to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on present evidence as not notable. I'm completely with Carrite on avoiding speedy with articles such as these; the West Yorkshire Unitarians at this period are an interesting and important group of people and this is a well connected family. Assessing notability can be a bit of a specialist task and may well require knowledge of material not available on the web. There could still be something more that could tip him over the edge into notability and this clearly isn't someone whose life history has none of the necessary requirements. Family historians are often poorly placed to assess the sorts of things that are important to Wikipedians. But having said all that I doubt he can make it. --AJHingston (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Parker and Shore's Bank seems to be notable, so an article on that could be a suitable home for this content. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep the founder of a bank that lasts for a century is notable. We should also make an article for the bank. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was only one of five/six co-founders (three/four Shores -- depending on whether the article is referring to two different Williams or one William twice, one Roebuck and the Parker after which it was also named) and the bank only lasted for 69 years. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Whittock[edit]

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

Minor 19th century engraver, with no articulation of how the topic meets WP:CREATIVE. Little evidence of third-party sourcing. No biography in www.oxfordartonline.com Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only 32K ghits, 1300 Gbook hits - and such a common name too. Let's keep bashing the newbies. Grove does in fact give him a sentence at "Bird’s-eye view", and he is often mentioned elsewhere as a prolific author of instruction books for drawing, and much else. Now has 4 good sources Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS, more WP:GOOGLEHITS & WP:Assume bad faith. Who needs to even consider notability guidelines and third-party sourcing when you have these? I would point out that "a sentence" is hardly "significant coverage", and that "often mentioned elsewhere" is hardly a full reference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article now has these. What is it with you? If you don't like something, just tag it. You know how to tag - you seem to do little else. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it doesn't. What is it with me? I think policy and guidelines should actually matter. And you know how to remove tags without first correcting the problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For an historical artist, the sources provided in the article establish notability and satisfy guidelines. freshacconci talktalk 13:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what it is with you: you seem to think that following your idiosyncratic interpretation of policy and guidelines matters more than writing a verifiable neutral-point-of view encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod and Tyrenius's useful essays WP:HISTORYBIAS and WP:HART. freshacconci talktalk 17:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the most important thing about this topic, if Johnbod is to be believed, is that he once titled a book: "The decorative painters' and glaziers' guide: containing the most approved methods of imitating oak, mahogany, maple, rose, cedar, coral, and every other kind of fancy wood, Verd Antique, Dove, Sienna, Porphry, white-veined and other marbles, in oil or distemper colour; designs for decorating apartments, in accordance with the various styles of architecture; with directions for stencilling, and process for destroying damp in walls; also a complete body of information on the art of staining and painting on glass; plans for the erection of apparatus for annealing it, and the method for joining figures together by leading, with examples from ancient windows." And, as everybody knows, notability is directly proportional to title length, thus clearly establishing his jinormous notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, seems notable enough and valid. From a cursory google search [4] easily notable..Modernist (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, emphatically. I find it bizarre to argue that the length of the book title is somehow an argument against notability (we'd best be deleting a number of Renaissance humanists, then, because the titles of their books are just too damned long). Whittock seems to have been the author of multiple books about art, and as an engraver himself produced a number of documentable works. We have thousands of articles on minor fictional characters in sitcoms, popular novels and the like, presumably for the purpose of creating a comprehensive encyclopedia that covers all aspects of culture, even if I myself find most of this trivial and fan-oriented. In what way does it damage the credibility of WP to record the historical existence of an engraver who also wrote several books? "I'm not interested in this guy" is not an argument for non-notability. "Minor" does not mean "non-notable." Cynwolfe (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep clearly notable historical figure. I totally fail to understand the "comment" by Hrafn. It seems the epitome of IDONTCAREABOUTIT. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independent sources to establish notability of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nevi'im. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew Prophets, nabiy'[edit]

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

This is a totally incomprehensible mish-mash that violates WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, WP:NEO ("nabiy'" does not explain or help to understand "The Hebrew Prophets"). What little is salvageable should be merged into the main Nevi'im (Hebrew Prophets) article as some sort of "Interpretations" section and not be a probable violation of WP:CONTENTFORKING to it. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to main Nevi'im (Hebrew Prophets) article. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Nevi'im. I can't see any reason to have two article on the same subject. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Nevi'im. I developed this from an earlier article entitled "Shouters". There was very little and the title seemed unprofessional. I followed the lead to the Spanish article and put a google translation into the article. But, I agree that it is in rough. The Spanish article seemed quite good. I would not like to see all the Spanish information lost in the merge. But, I am in favor of the merge nonetheless. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per IZAK, if anything is actually salvageable. This smacks of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poor, and needs both renaming and extending. However, the topic is notable, and sources for a good article exist. Merging to Nevi'im is not the answer, since that article is about a set of books, and this article is about a religious community mentioned in 1 Samuel: a completely different topic. -- 202.124.73.248 (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the above. If this topic is indeed notable (and it might be), then a fresh start on it would be best. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep the topic is clearly notable. The article needs improvement, and the way to improve articles is to keep and improve them, even if a good deal of the text needs rewriting. There's no advantage in deleting first. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NFL Undrafted Free Agents[edit]

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

A standard linkfarm, most of which are red. Clear case of WP:NOT. Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article serves a purpose and the red links on the names will be updated once some of the players make teams and will have a page created. I am still updating this page so please do not delete. If you can make the page more marketable, please help but this page is very valuable during a very unsual time in the NFL. Thank you carthage44 Talk • 02:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the appeal only seals neutralhomer's point so eloquently... clear delete.... if you want to know what we're trying to keep wikipedia from becoming, read the above keep rationale. Shadowjams (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Convert redlinks to plaintext. Remove players not mentioned in secondary sources. AfD hero (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have converted the red links to plaintext and it looks much cleaner. Many hours have been put into this page and people are always looking for undrafted free agents therefore page should be kept. Carthage44 (Talk) 05:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Carthage44 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep I couldn't find exactly which section of WP:NOT where this article fails to comport. Continue the cleanup process (adding sources, cats, etc).--Hokeman (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was undrafted in this draft again (even with a stellar 8.00 40-yard-dash time), so I guess I have to be added to this list. There are thousands of players undrafted this year, as there are thousands of players who played as seniors last year. This running list is not useful, and while I applaud the creator for his/her tireless work on it, it simply isn't notable. Typically the most notable undrafted free agents are added to the ends of draft articles, but not the hundred others that aren't that notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a distinction between the notability of any particular player, and the notability of the article as a whole. It is perfectly fine for players to be mentioned in this list, even if they are not individually notable. The relevant section of WP:N reads as follows:

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list.. AfD hero (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because that sounds better than moving the article to List of non-notable American football players in 2011 or List of American football players who couldn't play well enough to make a professional team in 2011. Indeed, some on the list will be notable due to WP:GNG and other factors... but that is not a reason to make this list. It doesn't appear to be helpful in any way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simple WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is far more notable to be one of the 254 that are drafted as opposed to the ~2,000 eligible seniors that aren't. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a link for a reference that shows only the top prospects that were considered for the 2011 NFL Draft. The list of players on this page will only includ those who were being considered for the draft not just any senior in all of college football. Once again this is a needed page and should stay. Carthage44 (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Carthage44 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems relevant: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Fails to establish notability as specified by WP:GNG. It is also arbitrary which undrafted players are included on this list, as the list is not complete. If the page was not obviously notable, it should have been developed in the user space per WP:MINDREADER. —Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary listing with no real verifiable inclusion criteria. It's WP:NOT as well of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I'm going to go off on a tangent - if one editor is using this list to work on bluelinking football players as they sign with teams, why not let him/her userfy it? Notes and working drafts (the article kind) are precisely why we have a userspace. I concur that the list doesn't really work that well as a stand alone article - I wasn't drafted in the 2011 draft either, much to my dismay. Some of the more notable names might find their way to the main 2011 draft article, if references exist - but the entire list isn't quite gonna work in this form. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got no problem with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The different statuses of French in England between the 11th and 21st centuries[edit]

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

Looks like a research paper that's been pasted into Wikipedia. Could be worthy of inclusion (perhaps as History of the French language in England or some such title??) but with the "Conclusions" section and the one reference this looks like huge WP:OR. JaGa^talk 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The article in it's current form is not written in a wikipedia style. Nevertheless it contains a lot of good information, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue against the notability of the topic itself. AfD hero (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to neutral. If the article is deleted, do so without prejudice towards recreation in the future. AfD hero (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The intro alone clearly indicates this is an essay. (count the uses of the word "we"....) Further reading looks like synth, complete with a Conclusions section. Clearly does not belong here. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:OR (the "conclusions" section even says "this research.."). No doubt an interesting topic, but not a topic for a WP article at present. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on the history of English and/or French would be appropriate for Wikipedia, but this is unsalvageable for encyclopaedia purposes. Almost completely unsourced and full of opinions and subjective emphasis. Interesting take on the subject, but this is the wrong website. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OR is not valid grounds for deletion of a notable topic. Proper course of action is to improve the article by removing OR, even if that means editing it down to a stub. AfD hero (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated below, WP:OR is grounds for deletion if removing the OR means removing everything and a replacement stub would be meaningless. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that after this content is deleted, it should be userfied to AfD hero, or incubated. AfD hero seems convinced that this is salvageable, so he should not be denied the opportunity to try.
I must say, though, that we will not find sources on "the different statuses of French in England between the 11th and 21st centuries". We may find sources for Jaga's suggestion, "History of the French Language in England"—so if this is kept, it would need to be renamed to what the sources call it. And also, removing the unsourced content would leave us with a tiny stub; replacing it with sourced content would mean a total rewrite from start to finish. Thus, if the outcome of this is "keep", then it's keep but with a different name and different content; I'm having trouble seeing the point, personally. Good luck with improving the article, though.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:CFORK that is covered by France – United Kingdom relations#History. OCNative (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Essential reading for this topic is For to Speke Frenche Trewely which is reviewed here at the Journal of French Language Studies. Developing the topic from such sources is our editing policy; deletion is not. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one book covers 1000–1600, not 1000 to the present. And the time frame here seems arbitrary. Why not the 3rd century to now? 1951 to 1973? It also doesn't address the fact that the current article would have to be completely deleted IF (and I do mean if) it was notable, as it is 100% synth. You can't convert this from an essay to an article without using liberal amounts of fire. Sorry if it comes across sharp, but we often do delete if nothing is salvageable and notability isn't obvious. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The timeframe is since the Norman conquest (or since a Norman woman married into the English royal house). —Tamfang (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep the subject is notable. Col.W has shown there are specific sources devoted to it, and thee are of course many others that discuss it. For almost any broad historical period, there are various possible cut-off dates, and there is no reason to expect or require exact correspondence as long as the subject is treated. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. In reviewing the discussion below I cannot see any consensus to delete. Opinions are split between keeping the article outright and redirecting to their notable product. Further discussion on the possibilities of a redirect or merge can take place on the articles talk page if anyone is interested. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Software[edit]

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

This is a non-notable company. The article is only two sentences long, and it even says this video game company has only made one video game. OCNative (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG via following sources:

Local news article about company,
Article about the founder and the company history,
Interview with founder about company, AfD hero (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first article is indeed a local media source.
The second article is of questionable reliability, as clicking on the WTN Media link, the page says, "Through events, publications and online services, WTN Media helps you convey your brand message and brings you closer to your clients and prospects. With a redesigned web presence and updated line of offerings, WTN Media is a valuable partner for your marketing efforts."
The third article is most definitely not a reliable source because it is a customer testimonial! Teamspeak sold their service to Guild Software, and the CEO of Guild Software is simply providing his company's testimonial as a customer of Teamspeak.
Of the three articles described above, the first one is the only one that meets WP:RS. According to WP:COMPANY, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The first article is from local media while the second and third fail WP:RS, therefore notability has not been established under WP:COMPANY. OCNative (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to the game The game is notable; the founder is notable. If the company ever makes another game, they'd be notable also, but at this point there is no real justification for an article DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above references contain sufficient information about the company itself to source a solid article. Company passes GNG via nontrivial coverage in multiple secondary sources; number of games published is irrelevant. AfD hero (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my comments above explaining why those sources are not adequate to establish notability for Guild Software. OCNative (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, here are more sources. not hard to find...

[5]
[6]

AfD hero (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is still local press while the second is media of limited interest. OCNative (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to jump through any more hoops. As nominator, perhaps you would consider spending a few minutes looking for sources yourself. AfD hero (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already looked. Had I been able to find sources that met the criteria of WP:COMPANY, then I would not have nominated this in the first place. OCNative (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find the Inside Mac Games and JSOnline articles together satisfy the general notability guideline, although I would not object to DGG's redirect. Marasmusine (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Vendetta Online - as DGG says, if they release another notable game, they might meet the notability criteria, but they don't at the moment PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Parakala[edit]

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

The individual concerned does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. wctaiwan (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was created by an admitted, paid representative of Kumar Parakala. The creator works for the PR firm that represents the subject, and has a strong Conflict of Interest. Further, I believe the article does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and as such, should be deleted. AndrewN ^talk 05:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, reads like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. - SudoGhost ™ 06:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, also WP:COI issues. Mtking (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete; no proof of notability. The fact the article was made by a PR man is secondary. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Huffer[edit]

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

An ~~junior~~ athlete who appears not to qualify for notablity under Wp:athlete Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the athlete Craig Huffer does meet notable athlete criteria and features on IAAF All-time lists as well as being the 15th fastest senior ever over his distance in Australia. Also he has ran the same or better performances over the 1500 meters than several other collegiate middle distance runners with wikipedia pages such as German Fernandez and Miles Batty, as well bettering the performances last year of Australian athletes with wikipedia articles such as Jeremey Roff. He he also proved to be successful at the international level by winning the Mondo Keien Meeting last year ^[1] an IAAF sanctioned event and meeting another of Wikipedia's athlete notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellington athletic club (talk • contribs) 09:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search confirms the notability of this athlete with multiple news articles, images and videos of the athlete. They are also feature particularly prominently in the US and receive a lot of attention amongst track fans. Amiler (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)— Amiler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I only see three sources on Google News, would have expected more if they are "notable" but images and videos of the person doesn't make them notable. Bidgee (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-4miler is still a notable athlete - especially when his 1500m mark coverts to a 3:52 mile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.21.81 (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked number 14 on world list for indoor mile in 2011 and broke the track record at the US champs venue earlier in the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.21.81 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not competed at top amateur level for international athletics. Junior records and "top 14" finishes are irrelevant. Looks like his friends have popped up at this AfD. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with LibStar as along with Sam Chelanga Craig Huffer was the only collegiate athlete that was allowed to compete in the prestigious 2011 New Balance Games 3000 meters - one the world's top indoor meets events that is televised nationwide on ESPN 2 in the USA. The athlete like Chelanga receives more coverage in the US than their home country. Also the Number 14 is a world ranking amongst all athletes (professionals and amateurs) over the year and not just a mere event placing. With this attitude no prominet NCAA runners like Huffer, Chelanga, Batty, Fernandez and co. would have articles and their needs to be reliable references with all the hype and rumours floating about on the forums about their ages and backgrounds Wellington athletic club (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC) — Wellington athletic club (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Keep. A sub-4 minute miler (confirmed by the IAAF) who has competed in a national championships (as long as this can be properly sourced) cannot seriously be considered to have never competed at the highest level. Having said that, the article needs trimming to that material that is verifiable via reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the criteria is clearly here WP:NTRACK. national championships is not a qualification. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A 3:59 Mile and 3:36 1500m meet WP:NTRACK criteria 9 and far exceed national level performances. This is supported by the athlete's results at premium IAAF meets WP:NTRACK criteria 3. On the grounds of meeting two of the criterion publication seems logical, plus their notability as a collegiate athlete and national title winner with Adams State would constitute a third criterion being met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.21.81 (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC) — 119.18.21.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Yeah mate, as well meeting three of the criterion (two for track athlete and one for collegiate athlete), there general notability as a collegiate athlete is an important one WP:NROUTINE. I've also just included about Huffer winning Australia's richest mile race in 2008 to meet road racing criteria which would would mean four criteria are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellington athletic club (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NTRACK --Σ _☭^★ 02:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Merge can be discussed further on the talk page, if needed. T. Canens (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finwë[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability with reliable, third-party sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete per nom, unless there's a place to merge and/or redirect it to. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is referenced in multiple external sources. Why do you not consider it notable? Francis Bond (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references you refer to are a book about the writing of the Lord of the Rings used to confirm the age of the character and a fan site showing a genealogy. The fan site is not a reliable source and I doubt that the book by Christopher Tolkien could be used to prove notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confused the fan site with a journal, my apologies. I do consider the books in the History of Middle Earth series by Christopher Tolkien to be secondary sources, as opposed to the primary sources of the Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion. I note that there are several google book hits: some obviously not good sources but some that look like academic works (Die Weltdeutung im "Silmarillion" von J. R. R. Tolkien. There isn't quite enough context shown for me to be able cite them, but I consider that enough to show notability. Francis Bond (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Die weltdeutung... Google translate gives "The interpretation of the world" which is quite a vast title; is there a Google books version available to see it in context? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon's read it now does not show anything in the table of contents regarding Finwë, as far as I can tell. The whole book is not available though so that doesn't offer much help. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon's read it now does not show anything in the table of contents regarding Finwë, as far as I can tell. The whole book is not available though so that doesn't offer much help. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Christopher Tolkien books may provide appropriate context - while large parts of the HoME books are reproduction of unpublished work by JRR Tolkien, there is also a significant element of original work by Christopher Tolkien on the creative process. In principle this is no different to any other critic unpicking how a book was put together. If there is a significant amount on (say) the creation of the character of Finwe, this would contribute to establishing notability. You'd probably want another source as well though. 4u1e (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed those books I have access to, and there's almost nothing on Finwë. He is not mentioned in Letters or in Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Tolkien. Neither is he mentioned in Tom Shippey's two books on Tolkien or in John Garth's Tolkien and the Great War. Of the Christopher Tolkien books I have, he is only mentioned in Peoples of Middle-earth, but almost all mentions are in-universe and there is no discussion of the development of his character. Having said that, I do not have the most relevant History of Middle-earth volumes to hand (The Book of Lost Tales, The Lays of Beleriand, Morgoth's Ring and The War of the Jewels) and from memory those do contain some (brief?) discussion of his development. 4u1e (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning toward supporting deletion of Elros, who took little if any active part in the fictional history; he's significant mainly for being the ancestral link between Aragorn and various figures in Beleriand. But Finwë has a more active role in the Silmarillion, so I reckon he's worth keeping if Joyce Summers is. —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't about how important a character is in a book (and Finwë is hardly one of the main characters of The Silmarillion), but about how notable the character is in the real world, as indicated by secondary sources. 4u1e (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Changed my mind per Cenarium's reasoning below. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)) Merge and redirect to List of Middle-earth Elves. Martinez wrote another essay on Finwe (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/78484 – can't be linked because the host site is on the spam filter) explaining his genealogy and his role in the development of Tolkien's fiction. There's also a book by Hammond and Scull, J.R.R. Tolkien, artist and illustrator, that treats Tolkien's design of a heraldic device for Finwe and his royal house (Google Books page of the German edition). And what Temfang wrote above should also be considered. So ~~while we might not need a full article,~~ the current content itself should not be deleted. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be hundreds of third-party sources for this topic and so its notability is evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Are they reliable sources? Fan sites and magazines aren't acceptable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as the numerous books listed in the search link at the head of this discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link as you suggested, and the results end up:

Two novels with a similarly named character or at least quoting the same passage.
A book that seems to list the names of Elven kings (not necessarily in a real-world context.
Three French books, one of which looks like a translation of the Lord of the Rings
A book on the languages of Middle Earth, which we cannot see inside.

I don't see how any of these books could be used to proof notability. Most mention Finwe in passing and don't focus on him, and there is a general lack of real-world context. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diaeresis may cause some difficulty. When this is allowed for then satisfactory sources are found. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the link above, so the diaeresis should have played no role. Perhaps you could link to one (or more, preferably) source(s) that discuss(es) Finwë in depth? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diaeresis does play a role. Sources include:

The complete Tolkien companion
The complete guide to Middle-earth
Tolkien: the illustrated encyclopedia
The evolution of Tolkien's mythology
A reader's guide to The Silmarillion
The origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth for dummies
J.R.R. Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion
J.R.R. Tolkien and his literary resonances

Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, any quotes to show that it is not just a passing reference or just a rehash of information found in first party sources? A Google books version would be better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the diaeresis, I meant that it was included so I should not have gotten any results for Finwe (without the diaeresis). Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you now see, this is a significant issue. It is often the case that some variation of search keywords is required to bring out the richness of the sources available. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it from the beginning. The books I was referring to were this one and this one, which use the diaeresis. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep (changed after identification of suitable sources by Cenarium below)4u1e (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) a brief mention to List of Middle-earth Elves. We don't need to keep the plot summary element of the article. There does not appear to be any significant real world commentary on this character - the references given above largely come about because more notable characters in the mythology are descended from him, so we get many google hits for the "descendants of Finwë", "sons of Finwë" for example. 4u1e (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of "real world" commentary on this character, as demonstrated below. Cenarium (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here are some Google links to the list by Colonel Warden with at least two important findings for the understanding of Tolkien's legendarium:

The new Tolkien companion (not the "complete" companion): 20 hits within the book
The complete guide to Middle-earth: One dedicated in-depth entry on Finwë and several other hits
Tolkien: the illustrated encyclopedia: one encyclopedic entry, several other hits in the book
The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: one large chapter on "Finwë and Míriel" that among other things expands on the fact that marrying again after the death of one's spouse was unheard of for Tolkien's elves until Finwë did it
A reader's guide to The Silmarillion: 16 hits in the book, not clear though how comprehensively Finwë is being treated
The origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth for dummies: apparently only mentioned in passing
J.R.R. Tolkien and his literary resonances: views of Middle-earth: Interpretation of the Silmarillion that points out that it was actually the slaying of Finwë that drove his son Fëanor into his desastrous war of revenge, not so much the theft of the Silmaril by the archvillain Morgoth.

Apart from that one might even add a print-published slash fiction with Finwë as a character: The Silent Hustler ("Exiles", 163-177). That book itself may be non-notable but it demonstrates that the use of "Finwë" has gone beyond internet fanfiction. On that note it would be interesting to know whether the Tolkien Estate actually approved of Finwë being used in a gay short story. De728631 (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links. I am however concerned that they may not be applicable under WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. This one may be useful for describing the creative process behind his creation, but sadly it cannot be read in full. (As a side note, I fully agree that finding out how the Tolkiens would react to published homoerotic slash fiction, or if they approved it, would be interesting... any friends to the family?) Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets covered in books other than those published by the author himself. Dream Focus 14:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect [to List of Middle-earth Elves. Lacks coverage that isn't WP:PLOT/WP:INUNIVERSE. No sources giving WP:Real world perspective. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and suitable for a standalone article. The subject has been discussed by numerous secondary sources, and as one can check, the coverage is significant, as shown above and as I'll further demonstrate. WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:Real world are style guidelines, not relevant to notability or suitability for article-ship. WP:PLOT is relevant, but if you look at the coverage in secondary sources, it allows to write much, much more than just plot information.

Before substantiating this case, I'll make a general comment. It seems that several commentators consider that coverage by reliable secondary sources is acceptable for notability/suitability assessment purposes only when it is of purely 'real world' nature, such as creation of the character, reception, etc. This is wrong, WP:GNG doesn't specify which type of coverage is acceptable, and nothing in policy suggests that some sort of 'real world notability' is required, however that might be defined, what is required is notability according to WP:GNG. Of course when considering suitability for article-ship, we have to consider more than only notability of the subject, and there comes into play WP:NOTPLOT. But the corollary of WP:NOTPLOT regarding suitability for article-ship is that there should be some coverage which goes beyond pure plot information, and certainly not that only coverage of 'real-world' nature is relevant when discussing suitability. Now, regarding this case:

As an example of "more than plot" coverage, the subject of Finwe's remarriage (to Miriel) as a societal topic has been discussed by various sources. E.g.: J.R.R. Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion by Richard Purtill, in I Am in Fact a Hobbit: An Introduction to the Life and Works of J. R. R. Tolkien (how it involves monogamy, and how it led to "The Debate of Finrod and Andreth", documented in Morgoth's Ring), Tolkien in the land of heroes: discovering the human spirit, and Mythprint: Volumes 31-32 by the Mythopoeic Society (describing on this a 'fascinating debate').

Regarding the development of the character and its place in Tolkien's work, this is extensively covered in Arda reconstructed: the creation of the published Silmarillion, by Douglas Charles Kane. Finwë is mentioned in dozens of pages throughout the book, the story between Finwe and Mfriel is thoroughly covered, and the importance of Finwë's house highlighted. The author even makes the following commentary which further attests to the significance of the character: "Christopher's decisions to omit the bulk of the material on Finwe and Miriel and not include it as a separate chapter [in the Silmarillion], as Tolkien clearly intended, (...) are very disappointing." (emphasis mine), points which is further stated throughout the book.

This is also covered in The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide by Christina Scull, Wayne Hammond, where the relation between Finwe and Miriel is described as "an important element to the mythology".

In The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth, finwe and miriel are given a full chapter.

So this proves that the subject is notable, and that a standalone article is warranted in order to provide proper encyclopedic coverage of this topic.

Cenarium (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding your first point, note that WP:WAF (part of the MoS) says that "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources—this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." Emphasis mine. I don't regard most of the coverage previously given above as relevant, but you do identify some suitable looking real world secondary sources, which is enough to tip me back to keep (with the proviso that somebody actually embodies them in the article!). 4u1e (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed but I think that the use of 'real world' here is innocuous, it means that the element should be notable in the sense of GNG, as opposed to just being notable in the work of fiction itself. GNG doesn't make distinctions based on the type of coverage; a source which would make the case that an element of fiction is important in the work of fiction for example, even without making reference to real world, would be valid for establishing notability. Cenarium (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how that warrants a full article. A well developed section at List of Middle-earth Elves, okay. However, right now we have some sources analyzing the marriage in the context of the book and the writing process behind him. As shown in the GNG,
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.

As such, having topics that discuss it in detail in universe to me shows that it might be kept, but it is up to consensus. There are quite a few editors (including myself) who believe that information about the writing of a rather minor character in one of the most popular series ever written should have a higher standard of real-world notability to avoid having too many articles. This seems to have precedent; Cho Chang (main character in HP5, supporting in three others) redirects to Dumbledore's Army, Yuffie Kisaragi (one of seven playable characters in FF7, and supporting character in FF7-verse]] redirects to Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series, and Míriel Serindë (wife of Finwë, as noted above) redirects to List of Middle-earth Elves#Míriel, even though they all had their own page once upon a time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not only shown that the subject of the article was notable but that it was suitable for a standalone article. There is largely enough reliable secondary sources to make a full fledged encyclopedic article satisfying all the relevant policies. It may be that the article can be merged, but that is an editorial matter, out of AFD scope. AFD is here to determine suitability for a standalone article, not for whether a merge is appropriate. I'm not aware of any stricter standard for fictional elements of popular works of fiction. Also, other stuff exists. Cenarium (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Other stuff is useful for showing precedent. Previously, things have happened like this. They may not here, but they previously have.~~ Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff is an argument that argues that an article should be kept or deleted because another exists or does not. For example, the Pokemon test was essentially an other stuff argument, like "Keep. If Rattata has it's own article, this should too." I am trying to argue that other actions have been taken before, setting precedent. If precedent were not allowed, the would be no point in referring to the Common outcomes when nominating articles for deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not bound by precedent, consensus can change. That being said, you have not shown in any way that there exists a "precedent" for requiring higher standards for a fictional element when it is part of a 'popular' fictional universe. Míriel Serindë didn't go to AFD, it was an editorial merge. Yuffie Kisaragi didn't go to AFD either, it was an editorial merge. The suitability for a standalone article on those has never been tested. Cho Chang was the subject of one AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cho Chang, which resulted in speedy keep; it was later editorially merged. A topic may well be worthy as a standalone article but for editorial reasons better if merged somewhere, but this is not what AFD determines. The present topic is clearly suitable for inclusion as a standalone article, whether it should be merged on editorial grounds is not the question of this AFD, and even so the argument that you seem to make for it, that is WP:PAPER, does not credit your position since the relevant policies are satisfied. There's no question regarding notability, and there is much to be said beyond just plot information: the analysis of the marriage as a societal topic (not just within the universe), that Tolkien intended this story arc to be included in the Silmarillon, the creation and evolution of the characters, etc are more than 'just plot'. Cenarium (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On Crisco 1492's comment a few paragraphs back. How does one decide if there are too many articles? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. One valid criterion would be that they are blocking up the name space, but this is not the case here. The main resource bottleneck is in fact editor time, and trying to delete harmless articles (those that do not contain false and misleading information) that other people want to keep does waste this valuable resource. We all have our own different views as to what is more important, but there clearly is not a consensus that we gain anything by deleting articles like this one. Francis Bond (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is not, and it can never be perfected. My main argument for deletion / merger (I'm open to that) is that this article may not be notable enough to warrant its own article, per WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. However, one of the reasons why the notability criteria is in place is to limit the number of articles. We could not be considered an encyclopedia if we had an article on, for example, myself, no matter what somewhat impressive things I've done; I am not notable enough yet. Although Wikipedia's standards of notability may be lower than paper encyclopedias, they still exist and are ironically notable on their own. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straying slightly from Finwe. If we look at a standard definition of Encyclopedia a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty (from WordNet, but other dictionaries have similar definitions, the only meaningful difference I have seen is that sometimes a definition adds "written by experts"). Wikipedia's notability criteria are purely an internal thing. I think the main practical reason is to restrict the number of pages we have to verify and patrol for vandalism. There is also a prestige issue, with some people feeling that to much trivia somehow cheapens the whole collection of knowledge, but that argument basically reduces to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Encyclopedia Britannica had to carefully choose articles because it paid people to write them and paid to print them. We don't have those costs. Returning to Finwe, he is a minor character in a major work, but one who is important to several of the philosophical issues that stand behind the work. Wikipedia's minimum standard of notability is "discussion in multiple reliable third-party sources" and Finwe is over that bar. I see absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in shifting the information about him to another page and redirecting there (merging) or deleting it. Sorry to go on for so long, I also care about precedent, and I am hoping I can persuade you, and others, to preserve a little more and delete a little less. Francis Bond (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Note also, the Foundation's concern about declining participation in Wikipedia which is the subject of a current banner notice. The discussion there indicates that aggressive deletionism is a factor in driving editors away and we should be sensitive to this concern. Tolkien is a major author whose works are the subject of detailed and continuing scholarship. There are numerous third party encyclopedia and reference works which detail aspects of those works such as this and so it is proper for us to summarise their findings. Moving material about from one place to another is unproductive and not the purpose of AFD, which is to delete items which have no value at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doing a quick search engine test, I did not find reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability. In reliable sources, I only found trivial mentions, which, in my opinion, do not show that the topic meets the general notability guideline by itself since most of them are analysis of Tolkien's work as a whole, not about the individual fictional character. Within the article, there are only two sources, one of them a primary source, and none of them amounts more than a plot-description, which does not show how is this character notable in a real-world context. Most of the sources that I found are about the plot of Tolkien's work, not about the fictional character Finwë. I have yet to find a reliable source that addresses in detail the fictional character Finwë with more than one paragraph or that at least talks about the relevance of the character outside of Tolkien's work. Tolkien works are notable, as demonstrated by the many literary criticism essays, but notability is not inherited to every content fork. Per the policy what Wikipedia is not, since this article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context or sourced analysis and I do not believe that there is evidence that shows that the fictional character itself meets the general notability guideline, I do not think that the article should be kept. Jfgslo (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you also address the sources that have been identified during this debate? Francis Bond (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I will omit the first eight mentioned in the first keep comment since Crisco 1492 has already pointed out that they are just passing reference or rehash of information found in first party sources and also the ones in De728631's comment since plot descriptions do not show notability. Hits within a book are in no way a measure of the quality of the references, and passing mentions from a plot-only point of view also do not show notability.

The ones that I have verified do not talk about the fictional character. For example, J.R.R. Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion by Richard Purtill doesn't address the fictional character and it's barely mentioned in page 166 in reference to Fëanor, but not in a real-world context.

In I Am in Fact a Hobbit: An Introduction to the Life and Works of J. R. R. Tolkien by Perry C. Bramlett, Finwë is only mentioned in one paragraph and in regards to his marriage with Míriel and, in fact, it is only used as an example of the real subject of the text, Tolkien's works and how he explored some topics. Same with Tolkien in the land of heroes: discovering the human spirit by Anne C. Petty. Note that none of these books cover the fictional character in detail or give analysis of it, they only mention the character as an example of Tolkien's work and even then it is not in detail.

Arda reconstructed: the creation of the published Silmarillion by Douglas Charles Kane once again does not treat the character significance in a real-world perspective but instead it is a description of how Tolkien developed the Silmarillion and how the concepts came to be, such as the Finwë and Míriel story. Using this as an example of the character notability is the same as saying that any concept that was developed in the Silmarillion is notable. Similarly, The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth is once again an account of the history behind the creation of Tolkien's work and again does not show how Finwë is notable in a real-world context.

So, the sources given here and in the article in discussion in this AfD don't show how the character is notable outside of Tolkien's work. The concept and creation accounts do not show notability in any way, they are merely a description of how the fictional character was created, which is the only thing that is supported in the sources cited here or in the article.

More importantly, none of the cited sources gives a detailed review of the fictional character without relying on explaining it from the perspective of the plot of the books. This, in my opinion, shows that Tolkien's books are the notable ones and that this character, Finwë, is not notable outside of them and, therefore, does not have real-world significance by himself, contrary to Frodo Baggins who is easily referenced from a real-world perspective without relying on the plot of the books and for whom sources that aren't related to analysis of Tolkien's work are available. Jfgslo (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion confuses significance, which virtually no fictional constructs have in the "real world," and "real world" notability (as opposed to "in-universe" notability.) Aquaman and John Steed have precious little if any "real world significance" either, but they are notable because of the third party coverage satisfying the GNG. Much of the coverage dismissed here by Jfgslo is precisely the sort of coverage that demonstrates notability; the coverage described from "Arda reconstructed" -- exposition of "how the concepts came to be, such as the Finwë and Míriel story" -- is almost a paradigm of what we look for regarding fictional characters. To dismiss the coverage by saying that accepting it as indicating notabilitywould be "the same as saying that any concept that was developed in the Silmarillion is notable" is just wrong -- it is the same as saying that any concept whose development in the (various evolving stages of) the Silmarillion is covered by reliable third-party sources is notable, and that's virtually a tautology. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works and that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. If no sources provide real-world context then articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work, which is not material for Wikipedia. "Almost a paradigm of what we look for regarding fictional characters" according to whom?

Also, comparing how other articles treat fictional characters has nothing to do with the individual merit of this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). John Steed is a terrible example since his article is in terrible shape and in fact doesn't show reasons to be kept. Aquaman's notability is not particularly well established in his article either, which is why it is not a good article, but it can be inferred that it has notability since the character is recognizable outside of its original medium as shown in Aquaman in popular media. Is Finwë known outside of anything related to it's original medium? If you want to compare Finwë to other fictional characters in Wikipedia, then I would recommend to use Superman, which shows real-world context for his notability. The sources provided within the article and here show that Finwë is only notable within the fictional work. He is merely a character in Tolkien's work, no more notable than others fictional characters that are not known outside of their original stories. All these cited sources only show that Tolkien's work is the subject of several literary criticism studies, but they still don't show that Finwë is notable as a fictional character instead of just a plot-point in Tolkien's work. And if a fictional character doesn't have significance outside of their original work, then they should not have an article. In my opinion, the fictional character does not meet WP:GNG because all sources provided are either trivial mentions or do not treat the character (the subject of the sources cited here is the development of Tolkien's work, "Finwë and Míriel story" at best, but not the fictional character) and it also is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:PLOT, as I also mentioned in my original rationale for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That line of argumentation is totally unsupported by policy. It seems you are trying to push for some concept of "real world notability, requiring real world significance", but the community never endorsed anything like that; and even rejected specific fiction notability guidelines along those lines (not even that drastic it seems). The only notability that matters is WP:GNG, and this is satisfied, I don't see how this point can be disputed; you may not see it after a "quick search engine test", but the sources cited above prove it.

Now, in addition to this, articles should be able to satisfy relevant content policies, such as WP:PLOT but this is distinct of notability. Then again, there are sources which can provide for more than just plot information. The article can discuss the reception and significance of the character: there has been commentaries, of sociological nature regarding the remarriage (cf Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion, Mythprint, etc), criticism for not including more of it in the Silmarillion (cf Arda reconstructed), many commentaries regarding the importance of the character in Tolkien's mythology (his story with Miriel is called an 'important element' by companion & guide), which is a literary subject of its own, so definitely "real-world". Cenarium (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, neither the sources here nor the ones within the article show that it covers the WP:GNG, because Finwë as an individual fictional character is not the subject of the literary analysis works in any of these. At best, the one thing that's analyzed is "Finwë and Míriel story" as a whole. In fact, the "Concept and creation" section of the article doesn't treat Finwë's creation but how in the different drafts he had different children. The main claim of notability is that the character has several Google hits within books that analyze Tolkien's work without taking into consideration whether the hits are for trivial mentions or not. The ones that aren't trivial mentions are for "Finwë and Míriel story", which shows notability for that, not for the individual characters. None of the sources provide here or in the article address Finwë in detail and per the WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail and it is more than a trivial mention, so I still don't see how these sources somehow provide evidence of presumed notability. As you exemplified, it is Finwë's marriage with Miriel the one thing that is notable according to the sources provided, not the individual fictional character Finwë. Jfgslo (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:GNG says also that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Significant coverage does not at all mean that we need a Finwe-only coverage but it is sufficient if the character has been significantly mentioned and partially analysed in secondary texts. And that criterion is clearly met here with the sources provided above. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting the first part, which specifically says that significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The main subject of the sources is Tolkein's work and the subtopic that is addressed in detail in some of the sources is Finwë and Míriel story, which does receive some real-world context regarding the relationship between the two characters. Finwë, the fictional character, is not the subject of anything more than trivial mentions. If anything, some sources merely repeat part of the plot of The Silmarillion when mentioning Finwë, which makes them redundant and does not constitute analysis of the character, more in line with other fictional minor characters such as Mary Watson in Sherlock Holmes's books. So I do not think that the fictional character Finwë as a subject meets the criteria of the WP:GNG at all, much less WP:PLOT. Jfgslo (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary claim of notability of Finwë rests indeed in the "Finwë and Miriel story", as the sources define it. But you forget that the meaning of "directly in detail" is specified by what follows, i.e. "so no original research is needed to extract the content"; and clearly no original research is needed to extract content on the topic of Finwë as a fictional character from the coverage by the sources on the topic of the Finwë and Míriel story (Finwë, with Míriel, being, as one might imagine, the main subjects of it, and as can be verified in the examples of coverage provided, for example the subject of Finwë's remarriage directly concerns Finwë, the commentators consider his decision in light of its mortal status, etc). If you do maintain your point though, then I suggest the best way to address that is by creating (or moving Finwe to) an article on Finwë and Míriel, which may indeed be an improvement; but already as a topic, Finwë is acceptable. Cenarium (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are also forgetting that coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion, per the WP:GNG, and the sources that talk about Finwë do it so from a plot perspective, which makes them WP:PLOT, material that falls into what Wikipedia is not. Certainly, that wouldn't be OR, just repeating plot. Other sources only talk about the drafts of Finwë and Míriel story. So, the sources merely repeat information from the plot or the drafts (in which Finwë and Míriel story is the subject), but do not give any kind of real-world context regarding the reception or significance of Finwë as an individual character, so it is not a subject suitable for inclusion because it falls into WP:NOT. The current article reflects this, since it does not provide significance or reception for Finwë as an individual character. In fact, the article provides real-world significance for Finwë and Míriel story (relying on primary sources by the way), not Finwë, which means that it is extrapolating the significance of Finwë and Míriel story to the individual character Finwë, even though Finwë does not have significance by himself. Even if you believe that Finwë as an individual fictional character meets the WP:GNG, if the sources cannot provide reception and significance for the fictional character, then the character does not need to be included in Wikipedia. And discussing a character's decision from a plot-perspective is not reception or significance. And, by the way, I do not believe that Finwë and Míriel story deserves an article either, even if the concept shows notability, because that would be a complete exposition of all possible details regarding the Silmarillion instead of a summary of accepted knowledge. Jfgslo (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT merely rules out articles that only consist of plot summaries. But the current article has two sections that inform on the literary concept and on the significance of the Finwe and Miriel story with regard to the literary evolution of Tolkien's entire legendarium. This does of course reference the plot of the Silmarillion but it doesn't fall under WP:PLOT. Instead the two out-of-universe sections provide reliable external views on the subject. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned, two sections, one of which does not treat Finwë as the topic and which is the one that shows significance for the fictional work, equating Finwë and Míriel story with Finwë, the individual character. The other section provides the concept and creation of Finwë's family, not even even Finwë himself, nothing related to the character's reception or significance. WP:PLOT is clear when it says that Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works, and there is nothing of the sort for the individual fictional character by himself. It is always Finwë and Míriel story as a whole the subject that shows presumption of reception and significance. And I already mentioned what I think about Finwë and Míriel story. Jfgslo (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the Finwë and Míriel story is a particular aspect of the topic of Finwë as fictional character. I really don't see how you can argue that the story of a fictional character is unrelated to that fictional character. Sources may focus their attention on a particular aspect of Finwë as fictional character, but it certainly constitutes valid coverage for assessing notability. Independently of this AFD, for editorial reasons, it may be better to have the article Finwë and Míriel and redirect Finwë and Míriel there, but this is not a reason to delete Finwë. And again, WP:PLOT requires that there exists some valid non-plot coverage on the topic (which exists in this case), certainly not that only non-plot coverage is valid for notability-assessment purposes; the satisfaction of WP:PLOT is totally distinct of notability considerations. Cenarium (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to House of Finwe. Cenarium's analysis is sound, and there's no solid basis for deletion, but the article as currently presented is rather skimpy, and the content probably would be more useful both to casual users and to Tolkien devotees if placed into an article providing a broader perspective. If the article can be expanded to more solidly establish the significance of the character within Tolkien's cosmology, or if the history character's conception could be expanded, it would be easier to sustain a discrete article, but in any event the content should be kept. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cenarium. If there is not a consensus for that view, I think that List of Middle-earth Elves or House of Finwe are reasonable merge targets. This should not be a red link as it is a plausible search term (e.g. he has an entry in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth). Eluchil404 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or weak merge to either House of Finwe or The Silmarillion. This is coming from a Tolkien fan too. I agree with Crisco, where a lot of more important characters in their respective works do not have their own article, but it's obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Finwe, while important to the history of Middle Earth, is not important in the real world. Most third party are really only referencing the work, and many have admitted that Finwe is only mentioned in passing. The only really valid source is The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide, mentioned previously. Because of this reference, merge is a possible option instead of a delete. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification -- The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide actually relates Finwe to the real world, claiming it to be an important element of mythology. The The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth might be a valid source as well, but I haven't read the chapter on Finwe to say for sure. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the points made by Cenarium. /Julle (talk) 15:55, 11 May 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, -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all major characters in Tolkien's writings are notable , not just the ones in LOTR. Christopher Tolkien's books about his father's work are good secondary sources DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does this keep getting relisted? Concensus is keep. AfD hero (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the consensus (Personally I think that it isn't yet... quite a few good arguments from both the keeps and the deletes/merges), it may not be clear enough; hence the relisting ("so a clearer consensus may be reached". Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the concensus had been the other way around, it would have been deleted without a relisting. This creates an imbalance where "concensus" is judged more harshly for keeping articles than for deleting them. AfD hero (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus has been reached. As I noted above, I don't think there is a clear consensus yet; although it is clear that there will not be an out-and-out deletion, a merger is still a possibility and has many strong arguments for it. The keeps also have strong arguments. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting should be only for pages which received little comment initially. Unclear consensus should default to 'Keep'. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there are enough sources to justify an article here. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is based primarily on Christopher Tolkien's books about his father's work, which are not independent sources as required under WP:GNG and WP:V, and can't be used to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia's guidelines for independence state ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". The History of Middle Earth is a collection of scholarly analyses of Tolkien's work, including much hitherto unpublished material. Specifically, they are examples of "books published by respected publishing houses" WP:SOURCES. There is absolutely no problem in using them to WP:verify notability. Francis Bond (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is partly based on Christopher Tolkien's books. The other sources would be sufficient even if these were discounted. I agree with Francis regarding History of Middle-earth. Any interpretation of the rules that says that a series of 12 lengthy books released by a major publisher over a 13-year period (and that have remained in print to the present day) do not count towards notability is wrong. I'd have some sympathy with an argument that you can't get a neutral perspective by only examining Christopher Tolkien's work (the article doesn't do this, btw), but that's not the point under discussion. 4u1e (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While Christopher Tolkien's works may be considered to have been written independently of the original works, I don't think we can consider them to be independent enough to prove notability. Second-party sources at best, maybe. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuanku Jaafar Power Station[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. not all power stations are notable. all it gets is 2gnews hits [7], which includes major Malaysian newspaper New Straits Times. for some strange reason, this article has a Norwegian language not Malay version. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable structure. Keb25 (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs references, for sure, but there are enough search results to satisfy notability criteria. It is also sometimes referred as Port Dickson Power Station. Just some random search hits [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Peña (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. No longer playing baseball professionally and only pitched a year (poorly) at Triple-A. References are WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Has not played at the highest level, so doesn't pass WP:NSPORTS and hasn't non-routine coverage, so doesn't pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WPBB/N which clearly states that a player must have played in the major league level. Does not meet WP:GNG, as it does not have significant coverage in multiple sources. There is only in-depth coverage in one source while the others are WP:ROUTINE coverage that only briefly mentions Peña. Overall, there is a lack of in-depth coverage in multiple sources to demonstrate notability of a WP:Run-of-the-mill minor league player. —Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4. Not identical but close enough. No need for the salt shaker yet but I'll keep an eye on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donny B. Lord[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage of subject in reliable sources since previous AfD concluded "delete". ^Bongo_matic 02:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt This is purely a self-promotional piece of puffery. MarnetteD | Talk 03:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons given above, and the reasons given in the previous AfD. Yes, salt please. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – recreation of previously deleted (AfD) material. ttonyb (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Although there is a significant acting role and at least one notable award, subject does not yet appear to meet the thresholds of WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Specifically, this person has not yet received significant coverage by independent sources that meet WP:RS. — Satori Son 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, more or less under criterion 1. The copyvio was axed by DGG, the page was moved to better target by TerriersFan, and tertiary educational institutions are notable. Everyone wins! Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern College, Santiago, Isabela, Philippines[edit]

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

The article's title is too long and people might get confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncnians (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete as copyright violation of [18]. The nom is not a good reason to delete; if there is a problem with the article's title, the title could be changed. But I take no position on that issue, because the copyright violation needs to be dealt with first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stubbified it to remove the copyvio. The title may need some reformulation, but all established colleges are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Comment Just curious, aren't we required to delete an article once copyvio has been established, possibly under speedy delete, then recreate if it is notable? Something to do with the fact that the copyright violation will remain in the article's history, and you can't delete the history without deleting the whole page, via the license Wikipedia is under? Keeping it is technically illegal. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators can hide or delete the offending revisions per WP:Revision deletion while keeping the article. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. As long as that issue is taken care of, keeping would be the logical choice since it is a real institution of higher education. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the stub per DGG. This school is notable. A page move can address the nominator's concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All tertiary-level institutions are notable. Move to new title without the address. Moray An Par (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all tertiary educational institutions are notable. I have moved the page. TerriersFan (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN (non admin closure). RadioFan (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lying down game[edit]

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

silly unremarkable fad. Any coverage has been in "news of the weird" or "bright" type news. Not the kid of significant coverage demanded by WP:GNG. Prod was contested with the entertaining but ridiculous claim that the fad is a "central pillar of Western Civilization.

Former arcticles:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lying Down Game
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Bullet (Lying Down Game) --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at Planking (fad) due to the media related to fatality. This is notable in the way that Pole sitting is, an eminently silly fad of similar nature. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Planking (fad) has multiple broadsheet RS due to a fatality overnight. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Fifelfoo, I think there is sufficient news coverage to keep a short objective article on the fad. --99of9 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with redirect) and keep. Now that it's been in the mainstream news, it's a notable silly fad. I'd tentatively suggest Planking as the target, since that's the term used in the apparent major notability but could also see Lying down game if that's a well-established original term for it. DMacks (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article). What, coverage in The Times, The Telegraph, The Atlantic, and France 24 is not enough? You want The Economist and Foreign Affairs? Give it a while and I can probably get you those. Notable entity which is reshaping our very definition of the important concept of "utterly pointless", and is perhaps no less than a stormcrow of the final collapse of the West. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge It may be silly but it is notable. Barrylb (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes it's received some coverage in reliable sources but let's use some WP:COMMONSENSE here. It's an article about kids laying on the ground and calling it a "thing". This is essentially something made up which is so ridiculous that it's getting some media coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADEUP says things that have "not yet been featured in reliable sources" shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. This has. Barrylb (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I just heard it reported on BBC News; coupled w/ the refs given, I think that's enogh to show notability. Chzz ► 04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sufficient RS coverage, WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination notwithstanding. No opposition to an editorial merge with Planking (fad), but I don't see any reason it should be mandated by this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Planking (fad). It has received significant coverage recently, and although it is a silly fad, it's a notable silly fad. StuartH (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge; I'm not sure whether it's distinct. Discuss on the talk page. This is one of the rare peculiar things for which I saw sources before I saw the Wikipedia article DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Planking. Plenty of coverage, especially here in Oz where some drunk just killed doing it; and the disambiguation seems unnecessary since there are no other articles called Planking. Jpatokal (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been in numerous reports lately. I agree it could go to Planking as it is the only topic with this title.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sufficient press coverage for notability. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Planking. I would have said 'delete' before the recent fatality, but now someone has died doing it (leading to commentary from the Australian Prime Minister, amongst others) it's undoubtedly become notable. Robofish (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Planking (fad), not directly because it has been found notable by the media, but because it is a sociological phenomenon with many references on the internet. Surely we do not need to wait for it to become the topic of theses or be mentioned in a bestseller in order for it to be deemed notable by Wikipedia. Collieuk (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although, I think there is a merge issue. Someone made a dulpicate page a few weeks ago.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silver_Bullet_(Lying_Down_Game). The latest Australian news probably makes this now a speedy keep candidate http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/planking-death-australian-prime-minister. It has had multiple long articles in different National newspapers that clearly pass GNG. I have to say though that it is not what I would call a game but an activity and a risks section might be needed.Tetron76 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawn pretty clear that there is strong support for keeping this in some merged form. I'm widrawing the nomination and will leave it to those supporting retention of this article to deal with the merge issues. Please keep in mind that this is a shallow topic with similarly shallow coverage. A good article will most likely be created around the social aspects of this topic rather than the topic itself. Also please be careful to keep WP:NOT#JOURNALISM in mind as this article continues to evolve.--RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martins Creek School[edit]

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

Elementary schools rarely meet notability guidelines for a dedicated article and this one doesn't appear to be much different. Claims to notability are ranking in state educational programs are interesting but dont really do much to establish notability here. Nearly every elementary school can claims sort of similar ranking. "Most improved" rankings in particular do not establish notability. Information on the solar farm is interesting but this can be adequately covered in the article on the school district. A dedicated article is not necessary Contested merge, bringing here for more editors to weigh in. RadioFan (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yup, most elementary schools are nn but I think that this one has just about enough to cross the notability threshold. The honourable mention in the House of Representatives is the first I've seen. Of course the information can be covered in the school district article but that can be said about many other schools that are notable and is not really the point. If the school is notable it merits its own page which will encourage expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most elementary schools don't meet notability guidelines because there is nothing particularly noteworthy about them, and as a result no third-party reliable sources ever publish substantial coverage about them. "Most" is not "all," and this school seems to be one of the minority where noteworthy things have happened, resulting in substantial coverage by third-party reliable sources, as cited in the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any reason why this cant be adequately covered in the school district article?--RadioFan (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets relevant criterion established at WP:ORG. AfD hero (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if it's not got the solar array then I'd say cover in the school district or locality. The array probably gives it real notability other than any notability that comes from having an affluent catchment area and/or able students. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linux XP[edit]

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

LinuxXP was discontinued in 2009, all three 'external links' are no longer in use. It's essentially a skinned Fedora install, and not notable outside of that. SudoGhost (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't temporary. [19] [20] [21] Adding to the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TechieMoe.com is a blog, and and tuxmachines.org entry is user-submitted, which falls under WP:SPS. Neither of which can establish notability. The linux.com review is the only source that can establish notability, just about everything I found online was blogs, nothing that establishes notability (with the exception of the one linux.com review). - SudoGhost (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The others are weaker, true, but not trivial even if they don't pass RS, but if you check Scholar, (takes some filtering) you see it is given more than a passing mention in benchmark comparisons. In an admittedly borderline case like this, I always ask myself "Which is better for Wikipedia, keeping or deleting?" (via WP:IAR and others). In this case, it was a real software package, is still being used, and was the subject of at least some study, one major review (The Linux.com article is pretty extensive) and even the "less reliable" sources are serious sources that aren't lined with row after row of Google ads. That it was only a "shell" on top of RedHat doesn't matter as to notability, as CentOS is technically even less, being RedHat with the logos stripped. Regardless, in borderline cases where there aren't issues of it being spam, BLP, NPOV, etc., I think keeping is a better solution as it improves Wikipedia more than deleting it does. And when all is said and done, the 'rules' were made with that singular purpose in mind. I will also say that this is a difficult term to search for ("Linux, xp" keeps cropping up, which is unrelated), so there may be more refs that are not so easy to find, yet exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 May 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) 00:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per linux.com review. Chester Markel (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discontinued is not a reason for deletion; rather, that we included things important in the past also is one of the things that makes us an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie Winston-Macauley[edit]

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

Not notable; appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG badly. Yes, she gets a lot of GBooks and GNews hits, but those are by her, not about her, and thus do not satisfy the guidelines. Article claims she was nominated for an Emmy and a WGA Award for her writing, but this isn't true; she was a member of a large writing team that was nominated for a Daytime Emmy, and I can't find anything on the supposed WGA nomination. Article contains one reference, a marriage announcement, which is obviously routine and does not confer notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that, going by the username of the article creator, it was written as a promotional piece by the subject's son. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Here's a source about the book by Marnie Winston-Macauley “Yiddishe Mamas:” The Truth about the Jewish Mother by Shayna Sheinfeld, McGill University, Montreal. It was published in Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal. I am sure more sources could be found, and of course Marnie Winston-Macauley is notable enough to have her own article on Wikipedia. The article should be improved, not deleted.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More sources:

Interview with FOX5 news
Baltimore Sun
The Jewish Week
Some reviews of Mrs. Winston-Macauley books

The latter would not be significant even if it were independent, which it isn't - it's her employer announcing that she's been hired. The former is a fluff piece on "Valentine's Day Do's and Don'ts," not coverage of Winston-Macauley. The fact that these are the best sources you can find only confirms that she is not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're trying to show me with that last link. Also, would it kill you to thread your comments normally so people can actually follow the conversation? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course she is notable" is a claim, not an argument. You must find sources to prove notability, not just claim that notability is out there somewhere. Do you have any more sources? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this here because this conversation is fast becoming impossible to follow: Mbz1 has found two sources. Both are reviews of the same book, which appears to have been reviewed in no mainstream publications. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The "cite" to the New York Times in the article is simply a wedding announcement of a couple of lines, nothing more. She's written some chatty advice books, and had or has an advice column, but utterly fails WP:AUTHOR. Not notable; article is an obvious "tribute piece" by a relative, and should be deleted and salted. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:45, 10 May 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) 00:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most prominent claim to notability here is that the subject was allegedly nominated for a Daytime Emmy in 1993 as a member of the writing team for As the World Turns. However, the book The Emmys by Thomas O'Neil does not list her among the writing team for that show which was nominated in that year. Nor is she listed as such in the Internet Movie Database -- in fact, she doesn't even have an IMDb entry. For all I know, maybe she was nominated for a Daytime Emmy in some other year or some other category, but if this article is wrong about this significant point, I'm not sure we can rely on it to be accurate about other matters. The article is barely referenced at all anyway, thus making it difficult to confirm the information therein. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources proffered are highly misleading. There is no notability here, nothing to satisfy WP:BK or WP:AUTHOR or WP:CREATIVE, etc. Qworty (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dunham[edit]

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

I see nothing notable about this individual other than he wrote a couple of strategy guides and was an editor of IGN.com at some point. Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CREATIVE is the notability guideline for editors and authors. I'm fairly sure the subject doesn't meet the general notability guidelines, so I think his only shot is at #1 of CREATIVE. There are a handful of citations at Google Scholar (if I search with "IGN". I wish I could see the full text for "Thoughtless Play" - "Jeremy Dunham's (2004) review at IGN.com is seductive..." snip.) Marasmusine (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - His name also appears in a news search, mostly in articles that reference his reviews. —Ost (talk) 19:52, 12 May 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) 00:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is nothing more than a glorified webmaster. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, etc. Qworty (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bethel School District. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Valley Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school stub with no proper (independent/verifiable sources. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district as per standard procedure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That old way needs to be looked at again. There's no reason to be keeping/redirecting common, localized, non-notable subjects like elementary schools. I don't even know if it's standard procedure. Some school articles get deleted, others merged , and another 450+ are in Category:School articles to be merged. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That 'old way' has been standard practice set by precedent of thousands of redirected school articles for years. However, it's not set in stone so if you wish to change it please consider making an making a proposal at either WP:WPSCH, the WP:VP, WP:RfC, or any other appropriate venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 10 May 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) 00:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chester Markel (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice. Carrite (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice, with no merge needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GrayMatter[edit]

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

Possibly a non-notable company/organization. I will do this for now rather than having the article speedy deleted. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 04:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly? Anything is possibly non-notable. This nonprofit has raised several thousands of dollars and has a very respectable advisory board. It is an up and coming tool for students in need, especially those in New York City. visit its website graymatterfdn.org and you'll see it is notable indeed. 68.174.254.72 (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)68.174.254.72[reply]

See sockpuppet case and block, which appears to be Andsoad182. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. I nominated this for speedy deletion, as a worthy student organization with no objective reliable sources supporting notability. Wikipedia is not a service for posting 'up and coming' entities, nor is it a directory for good causes. 99.189.155.209 (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An objective source I found via google: http://stuyspectator.com/2011/02/15/with-graymatter-students-fund-student-matters/ I'm sure there are more Andsoad182 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)andsoad182[reply]

The !vote by Andsoad182 does not count until we verify he is not using 68.174.254.72 as a sockpuppet (to double !vote). Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Having once edited one, I note with regret that high school newspapers are not considered as reliable sources as are professional publications. Rather than claiming there are more, it's necessary to actually find them; the Google search links at the top of this page yield little. 99.189.155.209 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete the page... Andsoad182 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andsoad182[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) 00:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only discussed by SPS. The references to CNN and NYT articles don't mention the organization. Chester Markel (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Andsoad182 (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a Burning Body[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Previously deleted via AFD and recreated. G4 declined due to addition of a source about the band's denial of entry into Canada. Subject does not meet criteria for notability in accordance with WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Cind.amuse 08:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 May 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, Sandstein 05:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burn, sources aren't up to par. Chester Markel (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crappy Myspace type band.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "looks funny and lack of citations make it seem like a fabricated folklore" is not a reason to delete, editing can sort that out - and there are references provided even if they are not inline. With the exception of that comment, the arguments seem pretty much equal, and as such I am closing this as no consensus, but without prejudice against a future renomination PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venkanna H. Naik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like this is someone's personal interest, neither his educational qulifications nor his positions qualifie for wikipedia notability. There are out there so many Commissioners in India. He did not have the right qualifications such as IAS or ICS government degrees required for the commissioner's position. This page is there with no merits. Sorry we need to clean up many such pages. 0ukieu (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the 1st nomination: There are out there several thousands of people with such positions in India. The polulation is not critical to judge. Every State has at least on an avarage 200-400 disritcts in India. There are more than 20 States in India and there are more than 1 commissioners in each district. Indian villages are thickly populated. VH Naik as such has no publications. Yes, we have to respect his age and he is no more. But that should not be the criteria to judge. Someone in the family struggled to put up this page - Sorry. --0ukieu (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a typical indian civil servant from the Raj era. Fails our notability standards - negligible independent coverage. There are also concerns of COI editing by family members. (and BTW, at-par, indian states don't have 200-400 districts; the number is more like 30-40, even UP has only around 70. And this was in raj era and entire provinces had only 20 or so districts each then).--Sodabottle (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks funny and lack of citations make it seem like a fabricated folklore. Haribhagirath (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No matter how many provinces there are in India, the DC of every one of them is notable as the principal government official of the district, which is thea major political subdivision under the province. We're an encyclopedia and NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not fair at other similar/commissioners who were deleted. Which criteria are you referring to from Wikipedia notability? Not all commisioners are district heads. Some are officers in charge of some departments. Thanks.--0ukieu (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--0ukieu (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments in the first deletion discussion. The fact that India is a large country with many districts in no way diminishes the notability of district collectors, each of whom is/was responsible for the administration of a large population. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Passing IAS is much more superior than having this position you are taking about. Naik did not pass IAS at all. In fact, i doubt he was a commissioner or he was fit to become a commissioner. Wikipedia has deleted so many commissioners with a IAS. There is no consistence how wikpedia works. Read what Sodabottle wrote above. Please stick to the notability criteria establsihed and point to it your discussions. If we donot justifiy, Wikipedia may eventually become a folder holding huge number of junk stuff.--0ukieu (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to its article the Indian Administrative Service was established in 1946, 17 years after this subject's death, so how can its exams possibly have any relevance to his notability? I don't know when the title "district collector" was changed to "commissioner" in the article, but during the last AfD I added a reliable source to confirm that he was district collector and further confirmation can be found here, here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whether he was a commisioner or not is not the point. Why did wiki treat others differently who were more qualified than (having passed IAS) than VH Naik? They were removed without justification. Have a fair opinion - point to the wiki notability criteria that are set and point to it EXACTLY. Was ICS there then? Did he pass? Thanks.--0ukieu (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about Naik, not those others that you keep going on about who have had their articles deleted, and why don't you point EXACTLY to any notability guideline that says or implies that passing an examination has any connection whatsoever to notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment we are simply biased in our discussions, so is wikipedia. You check yourself WP:PROF, you have been an admin for wiki - It is simple, they do not qualify, so do Naik's page, period. Thanks.--0ukieu (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--0ukieu (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are putting forward totally irrelevant arguments. No claim of notability as an academic has been made, so why invoke WP:PROF? And if you must keep banging on about other articles that have been deleted could you please provide links to the deletion discussions? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I meant WP:BIO. You are talking as if you are in court e.g. I said that then... , I'll continue..--. I donot remeber the articles, but I was involved in them. I ask you to check them - you have all the tools available0ukieu (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)--0ukieu (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Staffordshire University. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgwood Halls[edit]

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

non-notable Echetus Xe 13:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Staffordshire University. University halls generally aren't notable in their own right, and whilst it's not impossible, you'll need more coverage than bog-standard university prospectus information. (Having said that, the article about the university is written like a prospectus too.) A Youtube video is far from enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a minimal amount , as usual. We almost never accept them as notable in their own right. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Versus Spy[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable Echetus Xe 13:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I'm listed as the author of the article, in truth I merely added it as a part of clearing the WP:AfC backlog and the requester was responsible for demonstrating notability. SteveBaker (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. This article is about a band. I would have expected this to be about Spy vs. Spy, the long running Mad magazine cartoon. If kept I'd suggest moving this to Spy Versus Spy (band) and adding this to the Spy vs. Spy (disambiguation). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would certainly support a rename. However, that issue does not relate to this AfD. SteveBaker (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not really; on the other hand, neither the title nor the nomination said what the subject of the article was. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whatever happens, this should redirect to Spy vs. Spy or Spy vs. Spy (disambiguation). If this is kept, it should be renamed. If this is deleted, a redirect should be created. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just to note that there is a very notable 80s band from Australia at Spy_vs_Spy_(Australian_band) that should prevent the use of any (band) qualifier without further disambiguation (ie (English band)) or similar.The-Pope (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For what I read I have this feeling that there might be something available offline from the time they first formed (1998-2003), but online the information is very scarce. One song is included at The Emo Diaries Chapter 4. The source is primary but it is reasonable to think that the reviews quoted on the bottom are legit. Still, even though Spy versus Spy are praised for their performance, the reviews are certainly concerned with the compilation instead, and other participating artists are given as much praise as well. Something to note is that the article's content is a carbon copy of this last.fm profile - frankieMR (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Bird[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced biography. In looking for references in secondary sources to add to it, it became aparrent that none appear to exist, despite the aparrently high profile career. The subject's own website, however, bears a striking similarity to the article. So this appears to fail WP:V and WP:N, plus there are real concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:COPYVIO. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced BLP and possible copyvio. Chester Markel (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks references and fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis S. Tarrants[edit]

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

Most of this information is fabrication. Much of the rest is unsourced. Even with the sources I ran down this article doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTE

I suspect this is an attempt at vandalism, self-promotion, or pranking. MTHarden (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is NOT vandalism, self promotion, or pranking, We are trying to add more reference, but instead of spending our time writing in the references we have to spend all our time defending ourselves in these "talk" rooms. How can you say most of this is fabrication? Do you know Travis Tarrants? Do you have the newspaper articles backing you up? Or the television interviews? We do have them, and will be listing them. The Pantheon Theatre has had a page on here for 2 years and no one has questioned if it worthy or notable enough to be on here, yet the person who has donated hundreds of thousands of his own money to save it from being torn down is being questioned? Does this make any since? Travis has also donated thousands to the Red Skelton Theatre and museum, Old Town Players Theatre, and the War of 1812 Commission! Last we checked wikipedia was a nonprofit that asks for donations, do you think he will give to you if he is not "GOOD" enough to be on here? You write most of the rest is unsourced, like we said if you give us time we will be add more information and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.209.19 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — 99.14.209.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll try to respond to your points in order. Firstly, this is not an attack, try to reframe yourself as a collaborator not a defender. The previous comments about problems on the article were presented in a genuine effort to help improve its quality. In fact the only efforts to improve the article have come from me. I say it is fabrication because Travis is not an international business magnate / millionaire. I don't know Travis personally but I am from Vincennes and I do know people who know him. I also don't know Tom Cruise but I understand why he is noteworthy. I don't know who Alison Stine is but I see why she isn't noteworthy. I don't think that local media coverage in Vincennes is enough to establish notability (see WP:NOTE) because if it were then there would be many more noteworthy people in Vincennes; it is a small town and small news makes the paper. The Pantheon is noteworthy and rightfully has an article, but every person who donates to noteworthy causes (even in a major way) doesn't necessarily merit their own entry. It has nothing to do with being "good" enough, I'm sure he's fine. I think the most appropriate place for information about Travis might be as a section on the Pantheon article. --MTHarden (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Travis Tarrants. I was told someone made a page about me and that now there is arguement about the information on the page. I have read the page and all the information that is currently on it as I write this is correct. It is interesting what people write. First they said Im NOT an international business man/ millionaire, then in the very next sentence say they dont know me. They "know" this because they are from Vinncennes and know someone who "knows" me. Well Im NOT from Vincennes and spend little time there. NO one there knows my business there because I DO NOT spend time with or share my personal business or financial information with anyone from Vincennes. So if anyone from Vincennes says they "know" me as in know how much money Im worth or what all I do in business they are wrong! I already do business with China, India, Tiwain, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Italy and many other countries. I am currently buying a business near New Albany for 3 Million dollars. This company already does business with the above countries and I plan to expand it. Also I have been in alot more than Vincennes small town news as the above writer puts it. I have been in 2 national PBS specials. I have been interviewed by NBC, ABC, CBS, and, FOX television stations. I have also been on numerous radio programs over the years in other cities. There is currently a reporter coming from France do to a story about the Pantheon since Vincennes was founded by the French plus the two men who built the Pantheon had just came back from fighting in 1919 France in WW1 and where inspired by a theatre they saw there. Plus the New York Times is sending 2 men to take photos of the Pantheon and do a story about the Old theatres in America. The 2 men are also writing a book and want the Pantheon to be in it. So as you can see I have been in more than Vincennes media. If anyone has any more questions about me they can email me at [email protected] Thank you Tstarrants (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — Tstarrants (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again, not an attack no need to get defensive. It is not important to know your personally, in fact it is preferable to not know you (to remain unbiased and objective - I'm sure you're a cool dude). Mr. Tarrants is hardly an unbiased objective source for information about himself. If there has been national media coverage then those unbiased and independent sources should be easy to produce and maybe that'll satisfy WP:NOTE. So far though I just found the Pantheon webpage (and articles about the Pantheon) reports in the sun-commercial (or linked back to the sun-commercial), the 1998 obituary of his step-dad, and a you-tube video of Mr. Tarrants speaking at a wedding of a guy who used to (and maybe still does) own a gaming store. Well those and several sites that link back to his wikipedia article. People regularly vandalize the Vincennes page and notable persons list, I'd like to take the article as a good-faith attempt, it would certainly help to have some verifiable, reliable third-party sources to back up the claims in the article. You might check out WP:BLPSOURCES for more information on what kind of sources are good. --MTHarden (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that this person is indeed involved in various civic and cultural activities, but the claim that he is a "multi-millionaire business magnate, investor, industrialist, [and] real-estate developer" is unsourced. If this article is re-written to have all the facts in it cited to reliable independent sources, I may reconsider this recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has been in newspapers, television and radio shows. We are still finding more ahows he has been on. The person above wrote that the claim Travis is a business magnate, investor,etc is not sourced BUT if you go to Bill Gates, Ted Turners, Warren Buffetts, Donald Trumps page the first line in ALL their page is just like this and not sourced. So are we going to delete them as well? This page should be kept and givin time to be improved! 99.14.209.19 (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To re-iterate my above comments succinctly, it seems like his notability hinges on his connection to the certainly notable Pantheon Theatre, and the information about him there seems sufficient. Otherwise he doesn't seem any more notable than these other business people up for deletion: William Douglass, or Kumar Parakala. But ultimately as long as a good faith effort is made to present accurate NPOV facts, I guess it doesn't really hurt anything to include local business people. --MTHarden (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I know for a fact Travis is more than a local business person. I do busisness with him from China, Japan, and Mexico. All the information on his page is accurate. 159.218.200.150 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to improve this page several times but it keeps changing all the [[ to ## I am not sure why it does this and I am not doing it on purpose. So please give me time to improve this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.218.200.150 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have tried several times to improve this page but everytime I try it changes all my [[ to##. I am not doing this on purpose and need more time to add to this page. 159.218.200.150 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that User:159.218.200.150 already recommended "KEEP" above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe should keep this page it is continuing to improve. 165.138.37.20 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC) {{spa|165.138.37.20}][reply]
Delete. As it was mentioned, there are remarkable claims being made in the article that need to be verified through reliable sources since otherwise they would most certainly fail WP:NPOV and qualify as WP:SPAM. As for being notable the sources already included are only listings were Mr Tarrants is included or they are about the work done to the Pantheon Theatre (which is already properly covered at that article), but nothing that serves to establish notability of Mr Tarrants himself. An online search produced a handful of hits but mostly from primary sources, while Gnews came out dry and Gbooks returned just one hit (again, about the theatre's restoration), and removing the middle name initial did nothing to improve the results. While the usual caveats applies, at this point notability is not met - frankieMR (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone seems to agree that the Pantheon Theatre is notable enough to have a page. Yet everyone seems to forget that the Pantheon would have been torn down without Mr. Tarrants. There would be no Pantheon without him! So the thing a person saves is notable but not the person who saved it? This makes no since. Also many who want to delete this page say they cant find much online. Here is a news flash, not everything is online. Many books, newspapers and radio interviews are not online. If you read the intire page Mr. Tarrants has done more than save the Pantheon. More information and references are being added to this page. This info and refs must be looked up at librarys and that takes time. We all cant be lazy and just type his name into our computers and expect everything about a persons life to come up. Someone has to actually spend the time and effort to do a real search to find good info about someone not just the little bit that come up from an internet search. Shane1776 (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC) — Shane1776 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Everything on this page is now sourced except if he majored in history or not. Mr. Tarrants has been on National radio shows, television and newspapers. He is notable enough to be asked by the National parks service to speak at a National park because of his expertise in history. When someone is being asked by the Federal Government to speak at a Federal site for an event sponsored by the Federal Government then he is notable enough. Plus he has been asked to speak on a national radio show. So he is notable enough for wikipedia. Bbcrane (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC) — Bbcrane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I wouldn't say that everything on the page is sourced other than the subject's college major. The lead, which states, "Travis S. Tarrants is an American muti-millionaire business magnate, investor, industrialist, real-estate developer and philanthropist. He is one of the youngest self-made millionaire entrepreneurs in the country.", is cited not to a particular article, but to a search page on a newspaper web site. The only article found in the search result is a broken link (and even if it were available, the link would probably expire within a few weeks), and it appears to be a list of people who have qualified for a bowling tournament. What that has to do with the subject being a multi-millionaire business magnate is unclear. By the same token, "Interviewed by Bob Crane for 'History of the Tarrants Family'" is not a proper citation of a source because there is no indication of where or in what medium "History of the Tarrants Family" is published or distributed. Is this a book or a television show or an article or what? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found what I believe to be the article in the broken link mentioned above. This article is indeed a list of people who have qualified for a bowling tournament. It mentions a "Travis Pitchford" and a "Mike Tarrant" with no reference to Travis Tarrants. I will assume good faith that the editor who added this link had something else in mind (say, if a different, more relevant article had previously appeared in the search results which they linked), but nevertheless the current citation for the lead is not a relevant citation, and it needs to be replaced with a proper citation to a relevant article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am responding to the comments above by Metropiltan90. The reference was done in good faith but I now realize it is the wrong link I will keep looking for the proper link. I know the Chicago Sun-times did and article because I read it myself. I know the Indianapolis star did a story as well because I have the article in front of me but it was cut out of the newspaper so I dont have a date. When I go to the Stars website and do a search there is nothing about him, but I know they did the story because its right here in front of me! So I have some questions for everyone on here PLEASE HELP! 1ST I have this article about Mr. Tarrants from the Indy Star in front of me but I dont have a date and cant find it on their website so how do I source it? 2nd I know the Chicago sun times did a story because I read it but what if I cant find it on thier website? How do I source that? 3rd Plus the History of the Tarrants Family is a book I know because I have read part of it, Again how should it be referenced? 4th I also know he went to V.U. and I.U. and majored in history but how do you reference that? I have been to several other business mens page and there college and major is NOT referenced Plus the bloominton herald has also done stories but you have to pay on there website to get it! I also read a magazine article about him and am looking fo it as well. So again Im just trying to improve this page and need some help and advice. Bbcrane (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable career, at least not yet, and there is no evidence otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Branislav Anđelović[edit]

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

Musician; notability per WP:BAND not established. The third party coverage in the article relates to a lawsuit against another musician, which is not enough for notability. To find sufficient sources we would need somebody who can read Serbian or Croatian. Until then I'd say redirect to his band, Rokeri s Moravu, but the redirect was overwritten with the current version of the article, hence the AfD. Sandstein 15:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Selling 20million records is notable, but since it is not referenced there is no telling if it is true. If no references can be provided then it must be deleted.-- CrossTempleJay talk 19:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chester Markel (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Lorien[edit]

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

Fails both WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG guidelines. Creator declined PROD but never addressed the concerns [22] -- therefore, this deletion discussion. There is no significant coverage by any independent reliable source and none was found on search. References are mentions of minor parts in cast lists. And dropping names of the starring actors does not transfer notability. This appears to be a typical actress with some minor roles at the start of her career -- an article is premature until there is significant coverage to support an encyclopedic WP:BLP. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chester Markel (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ross[edit]

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

No references. Does not meet general notability standard. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He would appear to meetWP:NMotorsport as having competed in the Indy 500 twice which can be confirmed. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whpq. Chester Markel (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club Life, Vol. 1 — Las Vegas[edit]

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

Declined Prod by author. Prod reason was "Unreferenced Non-Notable Album as per WP:NALBUMS". Author did reference this, however it still consists of very little more than a track listing. Per WP:NALBUMS this should be Merge/Directed to Tiësto discography Hasteur (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wrote information about the album from the references given so it doesn't stay just as a mere track listing page. Stratogustav (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb you put on the page doesn't qualify the page for a keep. Hasteur (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Better sourced than most album articles on Wikipedia, and it appears to meet the notability guideline. It seems to me a merge would be unnecessarily messy in this case. VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:NALBUMS as this album hasn't charted yet. Please also review WP:OTHERSTUFF. The article is a small blurb about the album (which doesn't demonstrate it's notability) and a track listing. This is a prime candidate for Merge/Redirect per WP:NALBUMS. The extent of the references coverage is "The artist is popular" and "New Album". A Merge/Redirect doesn't bar the way for a future expansion once there are verifiable reliable sources to back up the notability of this article. This article fails the WP:TOOSOON sub-reasoning as the album was released under a week ago and hasn't had time to either have a pre-launch buzz or a significant post-launch review/charting. Hasteur (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, NALBUMS talks about coverage in secondary sources, not chart positions. Still a keep from me, particularly since "the article is too short" is a not a reason for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this album is notable, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote, charted. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the sources in the article provide at least an indication that the article might be notable? Is the issue for you that the sources are not independent, or that they are not reliable? VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources verify that this album exists. There is not any non trivial coverage of the album in these sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the MTV article is about the album, what would constitute non trivial coverage? VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MTV article is not about the album. It just says it exists.duffbeerforme (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Billboard and MTV articles about the album satisfy WP:GNG for me. Robman94 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They would if this were an article about the artist. However one article is "There's a new album" the other talks about the artist and how he's changing his style. Not substantial coverage for this album. Ergo, Redirect to the discography. Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MTV article is significantly more than a mere confirmation of existence, though I agree we should continue to improve the sourcing of the article. VQuakr (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-check both articles and they are both about the album. They talk about how his style has changed from his previous album, etc, so they both count. Add in the fact (per VQuakr) that the album has charted and it's still a keep for me. Robman94 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The album has charted in the UK. I added the chart position with a reference. VQuakr (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And peaked at #3 in the US, also added to the article with a reference. VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Borowski[edit]

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

His claim to fame is that he inspired some lines in a Dire Straits song. There is a reference to a story in Q magazine but I don't think it is enough to establish notability. If its not delete perhaps it could be redirected but I'm not sure where to. Szzuk (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The Q magazine article is substantial, but that's the only coverage. And the coverage is really about (t)he hitherto unacknowledged people, products and "things" that have helped shape rock 'n' roll according to the article title. Which essentially says "this is something we're writing about that hasn't really been noted". The article describes an interesting life in rock, but not one that meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article hinges on one source. Fails WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The guy does have a certain claim to fame but not enough for his own encyclopedia article. His connection to "Sultans of Swing" could be mentioned briefly in that article (with source). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With respect to being the guy who is "Guitar George" in "The Sultans of Swing", that claim is made by him, and is not substantiated by other references aside form this article that interviews Borowski. So it may be mentioned as you say, with sources, but the only source we have is not one that I would say is strong enough to place it. To my knowledge, Mark Knopfler has never identified who Guitar George was. Interstingly, this book includes some material that speculates that it was George Young of Vanda & Young. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The R3-30 number-one hits of 2006[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic listing of songs that reached number one on a single Canadian radio station/podcast, as opposed to official national charts with independently measured criteria. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - There is no indication that this particular chart has received the attention that would justify a list of the chart topppers. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. This would be the closest thing that Canada has to something like List of number-one indie hits of 2011 (UK), even if they're not completely equivalent. There is some indication of media attention for this chart: this in The Georgia Straight, this in Chart, and this in Eye Weekly. Another measure of some impact is that musical artists start to advertise in press releases that they have had success on this chart—for example, Coeur de Pirate "reached number one on CBC Radio 3's R3-30 charts"—something they wouldn't do for local radio station charts. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik. Chester Markel (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really don't listen as I find the hosts annoying. However, per Paul Erik above that's all we got. The indie lists per !Earshot [23] as published montly in Exclaim! are not allowed per WP:BAND. Argolin (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.mondokeienmeeting.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152&Itemid=268&lang=en

[1] ttp://www.mondokeienmeeting.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152&Itemid=268&lang=en

[1]