Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yemenia Flight 448[edit]

Yemenia Flight 448 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable hijack. Plane didn't leave the ground. Hijacker stopped easily. The flight had notable passengers on board, which BTW the unreferenced article, but I think this is not noteworthy for an article WP:NOTNEWS—Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talkcontribs) 23:32, 2 May 2011

  • Comment - The US Ambassador is not notable? See paywalled news article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, according to the FAA's Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation, 2001, p. 28, the US ambassador to Yemen, the Yemeni ambassador to the US, and the US Deputy Chief of Mission to Yemen were all aboard. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could a plane that was hijacked while in the air "didn't leave the ground"? --Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - according to the Aviation Safety Network entry ([1]), the plane was actually hijacked in midair about 15 minutes into the flight. Unless this is another separate incident, on another Yemenia Flight 448 (which I seriously doubt), the Yemenia 448 page itself is wrong. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC) the nominator's rationale is wrong. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the nominator's rationale is wrong" - except for the unreferenced part, which has yet to be addressed in the article itself. - BilCat (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it has. Nominator claims plane never left the ground and the hijacker was "stopped easily." The article claims that the plane was in the air when the hijacking occurred, and that the flight crew managed to subdue the hijacker. The article's only wrong on the number of injuries. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The accident was fatal to humans; The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry


Yemenia Flight 448 doesn't fit any of the three. That the plane had noteworthy passengers on board(BTW I found an article that said General Tommy Franks was on board.)) isn't grounds for an article.- William 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not a policy. Also, you'll need to consider that the criteria is a bit different for hijackings, which do not always end in loss of aircraft or blood shed, but are notable otherwise. For whatever reason, the essay hasn't been updated to cover the notability of hijackings, but that's probably because it'll end up falling under the scope of WP:CRIME or WP:N/CA or WP:EVENT... or something. I'm not entirely sure. If we follow the standards set by WP:AIRCRASH, then pretty much every non-fatal hijacking incident that did not involve a hull loss or cause a change to security procedure would be up for deletion, which is plainly wrong. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, can you post the source that mentioned General Franks either on my talk page so I can incorporate it into the article, or do so yourself? Thanks. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 23:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now As written, the article has no sources, and asserts no real claims of notability. Mukkakukaku has shown that there are sources and claims of lasting notability, but we won't know if these will be able to meet the AIRCRASH, GNG, and EVENT guidelines until they are actually added into the article - adding them to the AFD page doesn't countIf these issues are properlay addressed in the article, I'll review my stand at that time. - BilCat (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Yemenia article. The hijacking is verified by ASN, but not the claims made in the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to Keep following improvements to the article via references which show that there were changes as a result of the incident. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like this could be sourced into a full fleshed out article. Found 29 news articles: [2], this one is particularly good for details: [3], additional 16 news articles here: [4]. Denaar (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of news coverage doesn't make the incident noteworthy. Take for instance WP:Articles_for_deletion/Air_France_Flight_7 where planes collided on the ground at JFK. On the other hand, a crash like Viasa Flight 742 where it is hard info about is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. It was the worst aviation accident in history at the time and had a very large amount of on the ground casualties.- William 13:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed WP:Event and WP:NOTNEWS and still feel this is a keep. It meets the general notability guideline and has significant, in depth coverage, not routine reports. It was reported Internationally so it has a wide geographical scope. It sparked a review of safety procedures for US Ambassadors [5]. It's been analyzed in a pre-9/11 context [6].Denaar (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agreeing with Denaar. The result of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Air_France_Flight_7 shouldnt be taken as a guideline or consensus for other Afds.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a sourced, competently written and notable-enough article per Denaar's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This debate comes up again whenever we have a notable political event that happens on an airplane. Although I agree with WP:AIRCRASH as an essay, I don't think the criteria in it should be applied to this type of article. The event is notable for its political aspects, not anything aviation related. The guideline that should be used is WP:EVENT.--Banana (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree that WP:EVENT is more applicable (as well as being more authoritative). Wickedjacob (talk) 15:31, 9 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) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Diamond and The Legend of the Sparks[edit]

Lucas Diamond and The Legend of the Sparks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this film exists or will exist: see "Lucas Diamond and the Legend of the Sparks". Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 23:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:Hoax, Lucus is a character in Pokemon Diamond, lots of Harry Potter references in the article, and no news articles or webpages about the subject. Denaar (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that the film exists. Article creator seems to already know the MPAA ratings for it and all of its sequels, which is dead give-away this is nothing more than WP:ONEDAY. Wickedjacob (talk) 15:40, 9 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. --Kinu t/c 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NuEnglish[edit]

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

Self-promotional page about a non-notable spelling-reform system; almost entirely written by the system's creators, no legitimate sources for the system, only "source" is a book published by the author by the American Book Publishing company, a vanity press known for its scams (see numerous articles on the web) Benwing (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with OP, self-promotional page. Denaar (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any sources independent from the creators. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree, no validity. Wickedjacob (talk) 15:49, 9 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Discworld characters by region[edit]

List of Discworld characters by region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the characters here seem pretty trivial to the Discworld series, with most characters that are actually important to the series being part of other pages (see the "See also" section) and the way this article is grouped ("by region") is an in-universe way of sorting the characters. Additionally, there are no sources which indicate that any of the characters, or the characters as a whole, are notable. While there is some leniency with lists, there still needs to be some indication that it passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the Discworld articles on this encyclopedia already have enough plot-summary lists of characters grouped according to various criteria. How many different ways are there to chew the same cud? Reyk YO! 21:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is there another "List of Discworld characters" page this could merge to, or is this the main list of Discworld characters? If there is another I'd say they could be merged, if this is the only one, I'd say it's worthy of keeping. Mathewignash (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The content of this list is already spread throughout other articles, but what intrigues me is that there are several articles about Discworld that contains few or NO references at all and they are all first-party related, it seems that all the contents created seems to be fancruft work. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but strongly encourage rethinking of this organizational strategy. This appears to be a list of Discworld characters who don't fall into one of the more specific lists linked by the "See also" section - despite claims above, I'm not seeing any redundancy with the other Discworld character lists (if there are any, clearly they should be removed). This does not mean they're all trivial characters (for example, from my admittedly limited reading in this series it seems characters such as Dibbler appear frequently throughout the series, and others such as Adora Belle Dearheart are primary characters in the books they appear in); the reason they're getting dumped here is because they're normal humans that aren't in the City Watch, and so perhaps a rename to the more general List of Discworld characters would be more appropriate (as the current title suggests this will group all Discworld characters by region, which appears not to be the true intention). Otherwise, this is the standard character list found for hundreds of other series on Wikipedia, and while some cleanup is certainly needed that's not a reason to outright delete. BryanG (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply All the information on characters who are notable in this list can probably be found here. The information is currently pulled out of this list, uncited. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 06:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discworld characters is currently a redirect, so no, it's not available somewhere else to somebody who doesn't know how to run through page history, i.e. most of our readers. BryanG (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is available if you want to remake the list. Currently, this one shows no notability, is sorted in-universe, and has mostly trivial characters (Btw, I don't think Adore is a primary character). It'd be easier to delete this list and restore the one that actually has the contribution's sorted. And again, this list still shows no notability, in its current state it still should be deleted (or maybe redirected somewhere, at the least). Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 3 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) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo de Pra[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Basically a resume of an unknown chef, probably Laviolachetiama (talk · contribs) himself. bender235 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are many policies that would get this article to speedy, but I'll state only two, per Wikipedia is not a blog and Wikipedia is not a personal web page, but he is a non notable person, whose activity is locally and limitedly known. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, most likely an autobiography, and a non-notable one at that. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I gave this a fair shot and looked for sources, and just found duplicates of what is on the page. There are two interviews, which are not in depth, the rest is all trivial coverage. Denaar (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:CREATIVE creative criterion 3 with multiple independent periodical articles or reviews :[8][9][10][11] etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the subject appears to be notable, the article is so poorly written and flagrantly violates secondary policies already mentioned that it has to go. Additionally, the article is clearly an advertisement for its subject and his restaurant, and according to what Wikipedia is not we are not here to promote or advertise someone's company. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 09:18, 6 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) Logan Talk Contributions 17:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debs and grads[edit]

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

The "article! is complete nonsense; no refs, no links, no anything. Sarah777 (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 20:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see a valid reason for deletion in this nomination. Yes, it's unreferenced, but references can be added, if they are available. It's not "complete nonsense" at all.--BelovedFreak 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It makes sense to me, and I rather think that the phrase is well-known in Ireland: here are four news items [12], [13], [14] and [15]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Incompleteness is not a reason for deletion — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is incomplete, and it does not have any reference to sustain its notability (the verifiability factor), however a preliminary research gives a good background to be either added or sourced to the article, thus it is notable and should be kept. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No references is at least one reference too short in my book, but the content is not that badly written, and my only concern is whether it is research. As for deletion, the casual way the term is used goes great ways to show how notable it is (at least for Ireland), which is to be expected as it refers to a life event that many citizens are unremarkably familiar with. Nowhere near WP:NEOLOGISM - frankieMR (talk) 22:53, 5 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 Bug river. — Scientizzle 14:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug river (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page is not needed for only two items. Hat note is at the top of both pages already Ajh1492 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is intertwined with a discussion on Western Bug vs Bug River page movement at the talk page - see there for details. If a user searches on Bug they will get redirected to the Bug (disambiguation) page which has a Geography section pointing them to either river-related article. In addition there are hatnotes on both river pages in keeping with WP policy on hatnotes vs. disambiguation pages.
My point is that there doesn't need to be a separate disambiguation page just for two entries. I'm just asking that this page is deleted. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In reality the names of the rivers in question are Bug River and Southern Buh River, so the disambiguation itself is questionable. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep To quote myself in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bug river below ....sounds like very much like WP:USELESS or at least WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which are not only invalid arguments in an AFD, but invalid reasons to nominate an article for deletion to begin with. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to Bug river (if that is kept as a disambiguation page) or keep it redirected to Bug#Geography (if Bug river ends up not being a disambiguation page).--BelovedFreak 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is a disambiguation page to a disambiguation page that does not provide content or background about its subject. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close this is a redirect, not an article, redirects are deleted at WP:RFD. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a disambig page (per the title), not a redirect. Subtle but important difference. If it redirects, then that is an error. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No. If a page without a specific disambiguation parenthetical serves are a disambiguation page, typically because there is no primary topic, a redirect from the form of the title with an explicit (disambiguation) is often created to help people typing in names in the search box or making links. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per 65.93.12.8 this page is not, and never had been, an article subject to deletion via AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:56, 9 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. --Kinu t/c 02:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Lojewski[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:CREATIVE is questionable. Main contributor Mounawhitecat5 (talk · contribs) seems to be in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:GNG which states "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Currently staying as WP:OR. Nimuaq (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The page is nothing but WP:POV and WP:OR. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most impertantly, the guy's name is pl:Michał Łojewski and although I can't vote for his notability (no my field), the change of name for the sake of the potential English readers smells to me too strongly of self-advertising.--Felis domestica (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Denaar (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like someone's curriculum vitae/résumé to me. TehGrauniad (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 3 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) Baseball Watcher 02:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug river[edit]

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

Disambiguation page is not needed for only two items. Hat note is at the top of both pages already. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is intertwined with a discussion on Western Bug vs Bug River page movement at the talk page - see there for details. If a user searches on Bug they will get redirected to the Bug (disambiguation) page which has a Geography section pointing them to either river-related article. In addition there are hatnotes on both river pages in keeping with WP policy on hatnotes vs. disambiguation pages.
My point is that there doesn't need to be a separate disambiguation page just for two entries. I'm just asking that this page NOT be a disambiguation page, but just a redirect page. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In reality the names of the rivers in question are Bug River and Southern Buh River, so the disambiguation itself is questionable. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Keep I'm confused. What exactly is the rationale for deletion? What criteria does it fail or fail to meet? I don't see the page as a problem, as a logical way to differentiate these two (and possibly others in the future that aren't listed yet), but before I !vote, just wanted to hear an actual criteria for the nomination to begin with. "Not needed" sounds like very much like WP:USELESS or at least WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which are not only invalid arguments in an AFD, but invalid reasons to nominate an article for deletion to begin with. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No need for this, it is a knee-jerk reaction to me catching those hundreds of AWB edits the user made, creating hundreds of redirects, and this is an attempt to rectify the mistake rather than undoing all of their work.
  • Keep - I don't completely understand the nomination. Would the nominator prefer that when a reader types "Bug river" into the search box, they are taken to a page of search results rather than this disambiguation page? From the disambiguation guidelines, "if an ambiguous term is considered to have no primary topic, then that term should lead to a disambiguation page". Is there a primary topic here? If so, it should be at Bug river, with a hatnote pointing to the other article. But if there is no primary topic, this is surely the most helpful way of navigating the two articles.--BelovedFreak 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the hatnotes are there, but what's the likelihood that someone looking for Western Bug is going to type in Southern Bug and get to the right place via a hatnote? Isn't it logical that they might look for "Bug river"? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even though this nomination sound like WP:IDONTLIKE or WP:USELESS as mentioned above I think this article does not meet the context it is supposed to give as the other Bug river is NOT known as Bug River, so lemme explain carefully, there are two rivers one named Pivdennyi Buh and the other named Zakhidnyy Buh, respectively Western Bug or Bug River and the other solely known as Southern Buh, the terminology is different from one to the other because one river passes many countries while the other is located within one and only country. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Bug disambiguation page. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two viable topics, neither primary. It probably should be moved to Bug River for caps, but that's not necessary for this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Bug River. Shannontalk contribs 03:31, 4 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. --Kinu t/c 02:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Reynolds[edit]

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

This is a biography of someone who appears to be a marketing executive, publicist and business man. I can't see anything in the article that indicates any particular notability. I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources either. I found a couple of tiny press release-type paragraphs - in Black Enterprise from 1980 and Jet from 1979. He obviously has worked with many notable individuals, but notability is not inherited. I realise that he has quite a common name so I may be missing something in search results and am quite happy to be proved wrong. BelovedFreak 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable third party references establishing notability turn up. Hairhorn (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't look notable to me. TehGrauniad (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While he seems to be a successful guy, I can't find the 3rd party RS coverage needed to keep the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:53, 2 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. 19:11, 4 May 2011 Ponyo (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Atmananda Swamiji" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.swamiatmanand.com/Atmanand.htm) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atmananda Swamiji[edit]

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

{{Tone}} and source issues are fundamental. If someone wants to make this article, it should be userfied--it's unacceptable in its present form. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 3 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. --Kinu t/c 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EJ Topping, Author[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. I authored this article and attempted to provide proper references. I appreciate all of the above comments and I understand the concerns. Although I may have been a spec premature in entering this article, since his press release went out this past Monday, EJ has been invited on several radio shows and is in discussion with several TV talk shows including a potential religious debate with Bill Maher.
Notability is a complex subject which explains the difficulty in setting hardfast guidelines and obviously requires a series of agreeing judgements in some cases in order to make a delete, don't delete decision.
This is not a self-serving article as I stand to gain nothing from it. It is not vanispamcruftisement. However, I first met this person as a child in Mensa and I have interviewed him several times over the decades because I want to be his biographer if he passes away before I do.
He is an introvert and very much has lead a dual life of "acting like an extrovert" and leading a relatively secret life as a philosopher and intellectual introvert. Witness his website www.universallightchurch.org where he remains absolutely anonomous.
What makes EJ Topping notable, is the content of his words. There have been many authors, philosophers and religious leaders who were not "notable" until long after their death.
I will be glad to send a copy of his book to you and let you be the judge... since in this instance, you truly are the judge.Mr Grease (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Mr Grease (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – Wikipedia notability is very simple to establish. In this case it is a matter of meeting the criteria in WP:BIO using reliable sources. Unfortunately, this article does not meet this criteria. ttonyb (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability may be a complex subject, but here at Wikipedia it has a very simple, precise, straightforward definition: Notability requires that the subject has received substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. It's not a judgment of the quality of the person's work; it's just a determination of whether the wider world has recognized the person as notable or not. It's not a prediction of whether the person will become notable later. No doubt this criterion means that we sometimes omit people whose work will stand the test of time, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; the person must be notable per Wikipedia's definition NOW if they are to have an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 8 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. --Kinu t/c 03:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Coppinger[edit]

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

Non notable local councillor in Ireland. Article appears to have been created on speculation that subject could have been a substitute Member of the European Parliament. This speculation was incorrect. She has not received national coverage, but only mentions in passing and mentions in local media. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:Politician. Snappy (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 17:43, 2 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 Sumsum2010·T·C 03:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Mamatas[edit]

Nick Mamatas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment Putting your comment at the top is a poor substitute for making an argument with substance, Zonebridge. Also, WP:NPA. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC) 03:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely delete. This page is nothing more than an ego massage for a no talent hack. Nomination for most awards is a popularity contest (as Mr. Mamatas is so wont to point out at every turn). Mr. Mamatas is also very quick to point out that awards mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. That being said; why should criteria that he, himself, does not believe in be used as a basis for this page. There are more deserving authors, those that have won actual awards and whose talents exceed Mr. Mamatas's. These authors also do not feel the need to have a Wiki page, letting their work speak for them. It does seem suspect to this user that his reviews appear in venues where he has either worked or has friends who work(ed) there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonebridge (talk contribs) 17:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Zonebridge (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A lack of reliable third part sources necessary for WP:BLP. Also, publications don't seem notable and awards are regional, not enough to distinguish person as notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, lack of third party coverage confirming notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but agree this needs tighter focus, more information on national and international nominations and awards (2011 Hugo nomination as editor, frex), more 3rdP sourcing. Confusing a less-than-optimal article with the actual RL notability of the subject seems like an error, though. (Disclaimer: I also work in the US publishing industry.) IceCreamEmpress (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutely. The Stoker, the Hugo and World Fantasy are hardly regional awards and alone would indicate "notable" works. The article could use some reorganization, but should absolutely not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edonald (talkcontribs) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the awards are hardly regional or insignificant (and nominations for them makes the publications de facto notable). The article does need to be cleaned up. --Yendi (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The World Fantasy Award and the Hugo Award are hardly "regional" awards. They are the highest honors in the entire field of fantasy and science fiction, and even if you contend that they only apply to English works (which they don't by their own rules, although admittedly in practice mostly only English works get considered), that's still hardly "regional." Kevin Standlee (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The World Fantasy Award is not regional. It's right in the name! JoeNotCharles (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The awards may in fact be world-wide, but his work was nominated and did not win. Seep WP:BIO. In order to clear notability he would also need third party coverage to establish notability, as noted above. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BIO states WRT to notability and awards: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Mamatas has been nominated for the Bram Stoker award four times in four different categories (Long Fiction, First Novel, Short Fiction, Anthology) as noted in the entry. He qualifies as notable via WP:BIO—four certainly counts as "several," Incidentally, the fourth nomination is current—the Bram Stoker award winners for 2010 will be announced in June, so he may still win. Further, he now has, as of just over a week ago, a second Hugo nomination in a second category. Third party coverage already linked to in the entry includes a national NPR program ("On the Media") and a review essay by Laird Barron. This suggests that the call for deletion has little to do with notability guidelines and much to do with the occasional tendency by Wikipedia users to put up a lot of entries for deletion. There's really no debate to be had—the entry meets notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 67.164.93.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Drop the matter completely, as entire debate serves only to inflate article subject's already-massive ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.238.143 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 76.125.238.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The reasons for nominating this article are spurious, at best. What is with the ever-present cabal of Wikipedians who get all moist over deleting articles? Does Jim Wales send out an extra fruitcake at Christmas to people who nominate the most articles for a VfD? --Phrost (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the WP:BIO text you quotes, you glossed over "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." There are authors nominated for national awards dozens of times who are not notable. There are authors who are never nominated for any awards that are. The reasons for nominating this article are not spurious and it is worth noting the article has been previously tagged for regarding WP:COI. The bottom line, as the editor who suggested a delete noted, is a lack of reliable thrid party sources and the lack of the subject clearning notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Meeting one or more WP:BIO criterion does not guarantee inclusion, but it's rather silly to first argue that the awards are regional, and then when that is refuted argue that mere nominations don't count, and when that is refuted change your argument a third time without changing your opinion. Clearly, the reasons you put up for deletion originally simply aren't true-the awards are not regional, the publications are notable, and there are reliable third-party notes, including NPR. (It's also worth noting that the NPR material does not show Mamatas in a good light, which suggests that COI isn't a major issue with this entry either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 12.74.54.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. WP:AUTHOR explains that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Mamatas's creative work has been widely reviewed in Publishers Weekly, the Los Angeles Times, The Believer, and other periodicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per usual with too enthusiastic deletists, the nominator confuses an imperfect with an unnecessary article. Nick Manatas is an internationally published author with some standing in horror and science fiction, both for his own writing as well as his editorial work, as a five minute google search would find out. Deleting an article on a perhaps minor writer/editor does not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; improving it does. --Martin Wisse (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several of the "keep"ers are SPA's who have solely or largely edited this article. And, after all this discussion, no-one has yet come up with independent third party sources confirming notability--the article is still mainly sourced to blogs and Mamatas' own autobiographical writing. An NPR interview deals with his early experience writing other people's term papers for hire, which does not make him notable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jonathanwallace, so your argument above boils down to "people who are knowledgeable about Mr. Mamatas' notability are suspect because they are knowledgeable." Well done there. As for independent third party sources of information, Locus magazine, the trade magazine of the science fiction and fantasy publishing industry, keeps an extensive list of award nominees for the major awards in the genre, and you may find an extensive list of Mr. Mamatas' nominations within the genre, including his Hugo and Stoker nods.Scalzi (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that Scalzi is arguably capable of showing that Mamatas is notable all by his lonesome. Perhaps we will see a repeat of the spurious NIcoll AfDs from a couple of years back, and have even more SFF professionals show up. Ergative rlt (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The NPR appearance is actually about Mamatas's personal essay on his experience writing term papers for hire; surely publishing an essay that leads to national media appearances to discuss the topic is a sign of notability. Further, which "keep"ers specifically have solely or largely edited the article? (And if the edits improve the article by adding sources from third-party publications, what of it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Despite Jonathanwallace's concern that despite "all this discussion" (one day of seven) is leading to nothing, the entry is easy to update. Reviews from the Village Voice, Los Angeles Times' online edition, Publishers Weekly, and the Internet Review of Science Fiction have all been added, and it didn't even take the five minutes of Googling Martin Wisse suggested the deleters try. More like two minutes. Given WP:AUTHOR above, Mamatas clears notability by having multiple publications that have been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
    Comment. The intent of this AFD is to see if there is enough merit to keep this article or not. It really doesn't matter if more "keepers"--SPAs-- coincidentally create anon accounts and vote to keep it if they don't provide any merit to their arguments. So far, as Jonathan Wallace noted, no one has. The NPR as well as the first two sources deal directly with this guy writing term papers for others, not his fiction. And the LA times "review" is a dead link. So far there is one publisher's weekly review of a book that likely wouldn't make notability here on WP to begin with, a lot of links to his personal web site, blogs and other "references" such as the internet review of science fiction that are not what WP considers reliable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The AfD nom stated that the subject was non-notable, not that the article did not sufficiently establish notability through third-party sources. As for the suggestion that there is inappropriate ownership on the "keep" side, that seems unsupported. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Wallace was already asked to list which "keepers" are SPAs who solely or largely edited this entry. Now I ask you the same question. From my eye, Phrost, KevinStandlee, Martin Wisse, Scalzi, Yendi, etc. all have multiple interests, and the others who popped in haven't ever edited the entry. (I've edited the entry. I also never registered a "keep"—I've only ever offered comments.) You're just engaging in well-poisoning. It's also rather bizarre to claim that the NPR/paper writing sourcing is somehow invalid because it's not about Mamatas's fiction. Mamatas writes non-fiction, including his widely linked to, reported on, and reprinted essay on his experiences as a so-called "term paper artist." One of the categories this entry is filed under is "American essayists." Writing an essay that leads to media scrutiny is almost a textbook definition of notability. The LA Times doesn't have an exhaustive archive, but the link offered is hardly dead—it's a copy of the review from the reviewer—and Mamatas's work (both fiction and non-fiction) are widely reviewed and discussed in trade publications like PW, and in book pages for the Village Voice, American Book Review, Locus, etc. If trade publication reviews and daily paper reviews from major markets and alternative weekly reviews don't count as "periodical reviews" then virtually no author not named Snooki clears notability. It's also worth noting that there are in fact ZERO links to his "personal website"—there is one to a blog entry about getting a job, a job for which he has been nominated for the Hugo Award (link to that also provided). It's clear what happened: you glanced at the entry and put it up for deletion, and now this is a matter of ego for you to have it deleted, WP guidelines and the simple facts be damned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author handily meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO, while reasons given for deletion are based on a misreading of WP:BIO and ignorance of what the Hugo, Stoker, etc. are, plus side orders of goalpost shifting and well poisoning. Tasty! Ergative rlt (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are at least three SPA's posting on either side of this issue: 67.164.93.88, 76.125.238.143 and Zonebridge. I reiterate that a couple of mentions of Mamatas doing other people's homework don't make him notable. The article has been improved since the AFD began. Closing editor should concentrate on the following: Whether the Village Voice and Publisher's Weekly mentions which have been added are sufficient to establish notability. Contrary to the editor above, the latimes link is in fact broken. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. More goal-shifting: before the SPAs were "keepers" and the ones solely or largely editing the piece. (See your comment 3:50, 3 May 2011). Now they're just "posting on either side of this issue." Also, Zonebridge's first comment was from this morning; you made the SPA claim a day before he or she appeared. (76.125.238.143, like Zonebridge, is clearly just trolling anyway). AfDs discussions are supposed to be rational arguments about the merits of the piece, its notability, etc. The SPA stuff is a sideshow and a derail; not one ID you mentioned voted "keep." That's the exact opposite of your initial claim. The latimes link is not broken; there was a typo in it, now fixed. Finally, the term paper "mentions" are a) a published essay on the experience of writing term papers for money and b) a media appearance based on the essay. Writing essays that lead to NPR appearances about the topic of the essay are notable. If David Sedaris appears on a radio show and the topic of one of his essays--say, his old job at Macy's--is discussed, is that somehow not notable because lots of people work at Macy's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk)
  • Keep - I don't understand the mania for deletion amongst some of you lot. More than half the time, it's "I don't like the article" or "I don't like the subject." Nick Manatas is a globally-published author and editor at an award-winning imprint. C'mon, what. Solarbird (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His personality and whether commenters like his work is irrelevant. What is relevant are the multiple award nominations for major industry awards. The original deletion comment is misleading by saying these awards are 'regional'. The article does need some cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. Polenth (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Four Bram Stoker Award nominations, all in different categories, and the nomination for Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor (Long form) are quite enough to satisfy clause 1 of ANYBIO, even if one discounts the Clarkesworld Hugo Award and World Fantasy Award nominations as being for the magazine rather than for Mamatas as co-editor. If these awards are not significant, then I can only look forward to a purge of science fiction, fantasy and horror articles comparable to the Massacre of Verden. PWilkinson (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The closing editor will indeed focus on whether or not the mention in Village Voice, PW and LA times is sufficient, as Wallace says. The reviews are quite brief. The references for the awards help the article, but don't solve the question of notability. As the man from 12.71.54.226 comments, yes, the discussions are supposed to be about the merits of the piece. That being said, I don't know how accusing people of "goal'shifting" and well-poisoning" helps if this is the approach he wants. Moreover, SPAs are not a side show, particularly when accounts are created for only one purpose. Say, one that is created within a day of the AfD nomination. Honestly, I've never read this author, never heard of him until I read this article, and with all these fans (or friends) here I would expect some of these people who live on internet to dig up some good third party sources since the nomination establishing notabilitiy. But none has been had so far. We've got time, though, so I still post this in good faith. Lastly, if David Sedaris appears on a radio show, as he did for the essay you mentioned, it is notable. It has nothing to do with the fact as you say "lot's of people work at Macy's". It is because the radio show became a such a hit (discussed, I think, in the washington times)that it was not only included in his collection (published, it is worth noting, by Little, Brown and Company) it was also turned into a play (which was subsequently reviewed by reliable sources). That is an example of notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Little, Brown and Company is an imprint of Hachette, just the way Tor Books (which published Mamatas's Haunted Legends, the latest Stoker nominee) is an imprint of MacMillan. If "notability" means "publishing with a major press" as you seem to imply, then Mamatas has done that. There are a lot of small presses these days that are just vanity presses or lulu.com in disguise, but the ones Mamatas has published with—Night Shade Books, Prime Books, Soft Skull Press/Counterpoint, PM Press, Apex Publications, University of California—are all legitimate independent presses that sell tens of thousands of copies of their titles and who get their books into major bookstores. Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Interestingly enough Jimsteele, WP's definition of notability doesn't depend on whether or not you personally have heard of the subject of an entry. Wikipedia would be a barren place if that definition was used. Nor does it depend on whether or not you decided that the Hugos, World Fantasy Awards, etc. are "regional" awards based on...well, based on nothing at all. If you do not wish to see people accused of shifting the goalposts or poisoning the well, you should intervene when you see someone shifting the goalposts or poisoning the well. It's rather obvious that the claim that "keepers" are largely SPAs is not in evidence—you've been asked twice to identify the several SPAs that have voted to keep, and you have repeatedly refused to do so. (Wallace gave it a whirl; he came up with two trolls who voted to delete, and one person who hasn't made an account and thus didn't vote either way.) So retract the claim. It's that simple. When your claims are not correct, you must retract the claims and then reconsider your opinion. That is a major part of rational discussion. You also don't seem to know very much about reviews—most daily papers and trade journals do brief reviews and often review several books in a single column. (PW, a trade publication, does capsule reviews). Most books, however, are not reviewed at all. That an author has multiple books reviewed by multiple sources is notable. That the reviews aren't long enough based on your arbitrary reckoning hardly matters. Finally, the Sedaris radio show was notable even before it was collected in a book. Same too with Mamatas's "Term Paper Artist" essay, which was widely discussed when it was published, has been reprinted in textbooks, and also discussed on national radio. The repeated claim that the NPR source is just about term papers or homework, or that public discussion essays cannot count toward determining whether or not an essayist is notable because the essayist also writes fiction is preposterous. The delete claims for this entry involve either these bad arguments about SPAs or are from trolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this interview over at Dark Horse Comics where Mamatas and Brian Keene are interviewed? Hmmm http://www.darkhorse.com/Blog/260/damned-interviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.224.95 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Seriously? How many major genre award nominations and other credits does it take? Stoker, Stoker, International Horror Guild, Hugo, Locus, Village Voice, Publisher's Weekly, NPR, Viz. This should never have been AfD'd; and, having been so, should be snowball-closed into "Keep" posthaste. This is the sort of AfD that people point at and laugh, or at least shake their heads ruefully. This is why we can't have nice things. -- Ray Radlein (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* Many nominations for international awards, some wins, NPR piece about an essay he wrote. I don't understand why this is even up for discussion. Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator: This isn't about votes, guys. Repeat, it is great you guys are big fans of the author, that you have mentioned the awards are not regional and he has credits. I get it. Sorry WP can't include everybody you think should be included in an encyclopedia (for the record people you seem to generalize as "deletionist" include people who work hard to eliminate articles that don't belong, they nominate them, hopefully don't delete them right away, and there's typically some fruitful discussion around waht to do). I know some of you think it's all due to big egos or perhaps minions of Jimbo. Perhaps these paranoid people should get out more, spend less time on the internet. And perhaps that is why there are blogs. There, you can post whatever you like, and no one will debate what you think is notable or not. But posting things like this [16] is what I consider campaigning, perhaps canvassing and definately not appropriate to have a link directly to this discussion. Mr. Wisse I can only surmise how many of the keepers here were brought by such methods. It really doesn't help the process. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The determination of whether or not someone should be included depends on the notability requirements (among other things). People are not randomly voting to keep or trying to stuff a virtual ballot box—they are pointing out that Mamatas meets the notability requirements thanks his national and international award nominations (some "keepers" seem really only to care that the awards are recognized as important), thanks his real publishing and editorial credits, and thanks to major market reviews and national media discussions of that work. Your arguments of favor in deletion have been refuted, and all you are left with are explicitly evidence-free claims of campaigning and canvassing. You apparently want people to be silent and let the closing administrator make a decision, and that's a good idea. You should be silent as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator please note: some of the messages at the top of this discussion are out of order. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article needs to be reorganized to make his notability clearer, his numerous nominations for the Bram Stoker Award and the Hugo Award (the most prestigious award in the genre) suggest that he is notable. May I suggest that the discussion here become less personal, lose the attempts to categorize people as "keepers" or "deletionists", and focus instead on the merits of the subject. As far as I can tell, only three of the numerous !votes in this discussion are SPAs (one "delete", two "keep"s), and I have tagged them as such. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's note that it has largely been the original nominator who made this personal, by dismissing any objection out of hand and believing all these who objected are msiguided fans of Mamatas only coming to Wikipedia to vote in this debate. In fact the overwhelming majority of objectors have been, like me, on Wikipedia for years. The difference is that many of these people also know the context in which Mamatas writes and are hence able to judge his importance better. I'm sure the original nominator meant for the best when he proposed this article for deletion, but his conduct during the discussion is less than ideal. --Martin Wisse (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find myself highly disappointed with the attitude and multiple flagrant breaches of WP:AGF on the part of the original nominator. Contrary to his baseless assertions, no one suggested I come weigh in on this AfD (though if someone had, I would have gladly come to help prevent yet another embarrassing deletionist mistake); and, far from being a fan of Mr. Mamatas, I have never even read so much as one word of his work. What I have done, however, is heard of him, because I am reasonably knowledgeable about significant individuals in his areas of fiction; though not so knowledgeable, it may be noted, as Martin Wisse, Kevin Standlee, or John freakin Scalzi are. Those three guys really are the equivalent of pulling Marshall McLuhan out from behind the pillar; and disagreeing with their opinions about notability in the SF/Fantasy/Horror fields is the sort of mistake that no diligent editor would ever dare repeat (also, as Martin has pointed out, we are not all exactly inexperienced at this whole "Wikipedia" thing -- both he and I have been here much longer than the nominator, and I, at least, have more article namespace edits as well). What this appears to have boiled down to by now is one person, the original nominator, seeming dead-set on holding on to his "delete" in the face of overwhelming evidence of sufficient notability being documented by several actual experts in the field, complete with relevant cites at hand. Books from major publishers. Multiple nominations for major international awards. Articles, reviews, and interviews in major magazines and on the radio; all documented and linked. Only WP:AGF is keeping me from speculating on what sort of perverse agenda would declare that this overwhelming flood of evidence, any individual element of which would be singly sufficient to establish notabilty, is somehow incapable of proving the point in this specific case. -- --Ray Radlein (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I could repeat my request - let's stop the personalities and get back to discussing whether the article should be kept or not. As your mothers used to say, "I don't care who started it, just stop it!" (It's mother's day, so listen to your mother.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 8 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) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Negeri 5 Bandung[edit]

SMP Negeri 5 Bandung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not prove notability and is unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMPK 4 Jakarta, middle schools are not inherently notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable high school. Keb25 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Junior high school. Senior high schools are considered inherently notable by consensus, junior high schools / middle schools and elementary schools... not so much. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 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, Baseball Watcher 12:45, 2 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. If this player becomes notable in the future I will be happy to provide the deleted article.   -- Lear's Fool 13:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Hewitt[edit]

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

Orignally PRODed, reasons being; Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. However this was contested by a user stating;

Clearly fails the "not fit for purpose" WP:NFOOTBALL, however it is not so clear if Troy Hewit passes the WP:GNG, most of the coverage is local in nature, however this BBC coverage and this au.sports.yahoo.com could be classed as significant. On balance this should not be deleted with out wider debate.

These sources are fairly routine news items about a footballer that fail WP:NOTNEWS. --Jimbo[online] 11:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo[online] 11:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NFOOTBALL is "fit for purpose", hence why it remains a Wikipedia notability guideline. This article fails that, as well as WP:GNG - the coverage is by no means "signigicant", it merely consists of run-of-the-mill transfer reports, which fail WP:NTEMP. GiantSnowman 14:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly "not fit for purpose" as it does not reliably indicate if someone will meet the WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject-specific notability criteria aren't expected to "reliably indicate if someone will meet the WP:GNG". They are expected to indicate that topics meeting those criteria are presumed notable. As clearly stated at WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". This is the case for all subject-specific criteria, not just WP:NSPORT. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem with that position is it is contradicted by the VERY FIRST LINE of the guide which says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. " - that could not be any clearer as to it's intention. Mtking (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"help evaluate" ≠ "reliably indicate". The next two sentences say (unless someone's changed them again in the last few minutes): "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability or sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 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.   -- Lear's Fool 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responder apathy syndrome[edit]

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

Per my 3O here. The article relates to a theory which does not appear to be discussed in third party reliable sources. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Zero hits on Google Books, Scholar, News suggests that, if this exists at all, it is far from notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No hits, no where, not even strong enough to be a non-notable WP:NEO. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero hits, no indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 07:14, 6 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. Consensus certainly favors retention of the content, with a slightly more vocal argument for keeping it at its current location and to allow for expansion. Nonetheless, regardless of whether such expansion occurs, I see no reason that the merge issue cannot be revisited by interested editors in the future. --Kinu t/c 03:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of Thomas Jefferson[edit]

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

Prod was denied--bulk of article is simply a collapsible table. Anything useful can simply be incorporated into the main article. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this is useful information not otherwise available. It is too long and detailed for the Jefferson article which is too long and had to be shortened. Many historians, genealogists and archivists have worked on the topic over the years and all the major biographies of Jefferson make mention of the material. The fact that it now formatted as a collapsible seems to bother some people for reasons unknown--but that does not affect the contents. It includes an introductory text, discussion of the DNA issue, references to major scholarly books and scientific article, and a link to a useful external website. This is not the family history of a character on a tv show-- it deals in serious, uncontroversial fashion with one of the most famous people in world history. Eventually other editors will add links to the specific individuals included here. Rjensen (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jensen Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Merge/redirect If Thomas Jefferson needs to be shortened, there are better ways to do it. Someone needs to do the hard work of tightening up the prose by making the summaries more concise. There are plenty of subsidiary articles that are the proper places to get into the details. This article has very little real information other than a table that is collapsible. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it appears no one wants the Ancestry article deleted--they only want it moved back to the Jefferson article which is too long already. This Ancestry article will grow in length --for examples the numerous studies of DNA refer to TJ's relatives (not to TJ himself). When expanded it will be less and less a fit for the TJ article. Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Rjensen. Worthwhile content, main article too long.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the table is worthwhile and should be incorporated in the main article but does not add enough text to justify its own page. Avoid unnecessary splits. Neutralitytalk 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The article is little more than a stub. This topic is biographical to Jefferson. Merge it with the Thomas Jefferson/Family section, which is only a half page long also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rjensen, Arxiloxos, et al. This is a worthy article, that would be of obvious interest to our core readership - students. It meets WP:GNG by being well-sourced and about a notable topic, and is likely to be expanded in the near future. It's odd, but we have lots of odd articles. I do not see any reason given as to why this should be deleted, other than its unusual nature. Many genealogy articles are little more than charts. I think the main article is too large for a merger, but I leave that up to the closing admin to decide. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The main article is too long and this one contains very useful and worthwhile informations. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly encyclopedic material that is well sourced. Whether to put it in the main Thomas Jefferson article or somewhere else is a purely editorial decision but it is not obviously inappropriate as a separate article nor should it be drastically pruned (e.g. to just the table). Eluchil404 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rjensen and Bearian. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:01, 9 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) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Stalking Lawsuit[edit]

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

Notability not proven; appears to be one single court case, only a link to a listing of thousands of court cases (coverage on Pacer does not itself connote importance), and then a bunch of links to advocacy sites supporting one side of the "it's a real problem" vs. "it's a psychosis" side of the gangstalking debate. This appears to be a WP:Coatrack issue, something the gangstalking community has been very clearly pursuing on Wikipedia and advocating on their discussion sites despite a general lack of substantive coverage in reliable media for their cause. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Center for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C., the largest publicly funded victims' froup in the United States, is receiving thousands of calls every monthcomplaining of gang stalking from every state in the nation. Anyone can confirm this by calling 800-394-2255. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.223.132 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 72.89.223.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as yet another attempt in the long-running campaign to get an unnotable conspiracy theory into Wikipedia. This has gone on over several articles but much of the background can be found at Talk:Stalking, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause stalking. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The importance of this lawsuit is not demonstrated, and nothing can be found about it in a search. Most of the article attempts, unsuccessfully, to establish the existence of "gang stalking" or "gangstalking", but the term is not supported by Reliable Sources and is not used by most of the references in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 8 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) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving memory[edit]

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

Wikipedia does not include original reearch or essays/theses made by students for their doctorate degree. See for example, WP:SYN, wp:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTESSAY Timeswantedred (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Timeswantedred (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep The article is a spinoff from our article memory which links to it as the main article for that section. The nomination offers no evidence or argument - just a list of WPs contrary to WP:VAGUEWAVE. The topic has great notability as ways of improving memory have been written about for thousands of years. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now it's not WP:VAGUEWAVE for the dear Colonel Timeswantedred (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rewrite to deal with WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTESSAY. It is extremely well sourced and a notable topic. Although it shouldn't be written as a how-to guide, it could conceivably show different ways of doing things. For example, instead of You can memorize pi (not in the article, just used as an example) we could write Among common ways to improve memory are memorization of large numbers... so long as a source is available. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Crisco 1492. There is no question that the topic is notable and a proper area of study. --AJHingston (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly renaming. Let me point out that the article was created by a group of students working as a class project, a type of activity that Wikipedia wants to encourage, and it must be very discouraging when such things get deleted. This article could certainly use improvement, but the topic is legitimate and the contents are far from hopelessly broken. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crisco 1492. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's an educational project: the students' first attempt won't necessary be in a Wikipedia style, but we should feed back to them and show them how to improve it, not delete their work. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:37, 6 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) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin and Mouse (film)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable film, no news hits, no reviews that I could find. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original title: :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tactician[edit]

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

Non-notable person; unreferenced biography of a living person; does not meet the requirements for notability; see WP:BIO WP:BAND WP:BLP. Can't find any significant coverage. Contested PROD.  Chzz  ►  03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use all-capitals; it sounds like you're shouting. Please provide us with independent, reliable sources to show why this individual meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to military tactics. Although the artist himself is not notable, tactician is quite a likely search term; it used to redirect to tactics before Yosephbasha changed it, but I usually hear tactician used in a military sense. For what it's worth, Yosephbasha's only edits were to the article being considered for deletion, his talk page, and here and various Wikiproject pages about this article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If you want to create a redirect after that, fine, but delete first. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect to military tactics. The links provided in the articles does not justify notability of the artist. The redirect to military tactics is reasonable per Crisco 1492's comments.--Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the proposed redirection does seem appropriate, however I do suggest deletion prior to making a redirect (per Lenticel).  Chzz  ►  11:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 3 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) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Dyatmika[edit]

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

Barely cited article that does not prove the notability of the school. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Includes a high school, per its website.[18] One independent source also supplied in the existing article and Google News reveals more.[19] Per the usual consensus on high schools (see e.g., Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Schools) this is a keep.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of strong community consensus about the per se notability of secondary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I cannot open the site linked above, but if the article is about the foundation itself and not the individual school, would it still be considered to automatically pass Wikipedia:Notability? Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 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, Baseball Watcher 02:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to include a secondary school. I added a stub tag to it. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:08, 9 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) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Knowles[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. written at best 2 non notable books. gnews merely confirms she wrote these books but nothing more about her as a person. [23]. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author of the 1989 Australian Childrens Book of the Year[24] National award. Gnangarra 03:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - won national award of merit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Cas and Gnang - and gnews is hardly the criteria to judge an australian author - SatuSuro 12:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is one award that is not well known "significant critical attention"? Was this well reported in media? It would advance notability if this was true or the books she wrote were notable. LibStar (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was in 1989. Finding Australian online newspaper archives from that time is nigh on impossible. Jenks24 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
really? google news have Australian major newspaper Sydney Morning Herald back to at least 1918. [25]. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is interesting to note that it is far easier to find references in Australian newspapers pre-1950/60. Although some (very few) Fairfax Media (by that I mean The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald) articles can be found via google news archive from the '80s, it can hardly be considered comprehensive. Also, many other main Australian newspapers are not covered at all by gnews in that time period. See, for example, News Corporation#Newspapers, of which I'm fairly sure none of their 1980s articles can be accessed via google news archive. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep - if she actually won the award, then a strong keep, but it was only shortlisted for the award, not the winner. The 2nd book seems to be part of a school curriculum, so is that enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR? Not sure. Agree with Jenks24 that online coverage of the 80s in Australia is extremely poor - the National Library has digitised newspapers up to the 1950s, but there is a black hole with sporadic coverage by google news in the 60s-90s before the 2000s are reasonable well covered by the current paper archives... but whole states and areas are still missing, so Ghits are not the only requirement.The-Pope (talk) 02:36, 7 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) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bagels and Brownies[edit]

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

Company lacks the depth of coverage required by WP:CORP to indicate notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article is an almost-worthless stub, but the company has gotten some substantial coverage, like this in the Business Standard, this in the Calcutta Telegraph, and this from the Times of India (or possibly a Times blog). --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 24 April 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, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that based on the additional sources noted by MelanieN, this is well within the notability requirements. The article itself needs a lot of work, but should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBHans13 (talkcontribs) 17:50, 26 April 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, Baseball Watcher 02:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has improved. Given Nom's comment above, I would suggest he withdraw nomination in order to move things along. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:27, 9 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) Baseball Watcher 01:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genta Ismajli[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:NMG is questionable. bender235 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. She may be a legitimate star in Kosovo/Albania: reliable sources are elusive to say the least, but for example she shows up on a number of magazine covers. It appears that at times she's identified as "Gentiana Ismajli" and sometimes simply as "Genta", which is even harder to search, of course. I have found only a smidgen of English-language coverage, for example this story which is mostly behind a pay wall but does call her a "Kosovo pop star" [26]. IMDB (which is usually deemed reliable for credits, if nothing else) backs up the statement that she appeared in the Euro Video Grand Prix 2006 [27]; I'm not sure how much notability that conveys. According to the article Kënga Magjike 07 she won this Albanian music contest, and Kënga Magjike 08 says she was on the jury the next year; the sources, such as they are, in Albanian and somewhat impenetrable for me. She has articles in seven other Wikipedias (here's a link to the Albanian one[28]) but none of them seem to cite any reliable sources either. Unless someone can come up with more compelling evidence, I'm afraid this looks like a case where our concerns about combating systemic bias, not to mention WP:HOTTIE, will be overridden by WP:BLP. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough --Vinie007 12:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 16 April 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  09:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Arxiloxos. Lots of Google hits and photographs but cannot see any reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Someone needs to look up the specialised language webspace.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 16:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but maybe stub it. Notwithstanding my expressed concerns above, and my hopes that someone else would add more sources, after thinking about this for a while, I'm not very happy about the prospect of deleting this. There does seem to be some stuff out there in Albanian, and we do have the one English-language newspaper article as well as the evidence of her win at Kënga Magjike 07 and her participation in Dancing with the Stars (Albania). With due regard for WP:systemic bias, I'd prefer to see this article (and its multiple interwiki links) kept even if we have to cut it down.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Arxiloxos.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:14, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 01:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. We cannot and should not be attributing facebook.com for sources in BLP articles. No way. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 00:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting that her Facebook page is proof of notability. Doesn't WP:ABOUTSELF specifically permit the use of a subject's official Facebook page as a source of information about the subject herself?--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only source? Nope. We can confirm information - "Her birthdate is X, as per her website" for example - but even then, it's in the context of what the subject says, rather than what is verifiably true. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, it's not the only source. As noted above, there's at least one reliable source in English (behind a pay wall) and some in other languages, although they're not easy to pin down on line (here's another one, in Turkish, that popped up in today's GNews search[29])--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Joliet Herald-News, source. Passes WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She has proven national notability in Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia as a model and singer. Interviewed by the Voice of America as well. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 02:52, 6 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 Contemporary circus. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Circus[edit]

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

Not yet notable term or phrase, recently coined (feb 2010) not yet notable. @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 11:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I can't find the mentioned Brimbank weekly article, or any other related news. The other problem is "Extreme" can be used in so many contexts, "this looks like an extreme circus, awesome", "dude look at those extreme circus tricks" etc. @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 12:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expected to do some searching and quickly conclude delete, but it wasn't so easy. It is a harder term to search because the phrase 'extreme circus' is used incidently in a lot of articles. A little more work gave me [30] and others. The term is used extensively in news reports to describe a type of circus, so it appears to be a very valid and accepted term (whodathough). The question remains, however, if it is more than a WP:DICDEF, as I didn't find a lot on the concept of 'extreme circus', just a lot of valid usage and a couple of circuses that use that as part of their name (there is much I didn't search, so it may still exist). The current article, however, is wrong and the term wouldn't be credited in 2010, as it was in use before that. In it's current form, there really isn't anything of value (no sourcing, inaccurate info), so transwiki to wiktionary isn't really a choice. This might be a good candidate for a rescue, as the subject matter *might* be notable on its own, but would require a complete rewrite. Withholding !vote for now. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little but it is a difficult subject to research. Hoping the rescue tag will attract an editor or two with more experience with these types of articles. I'm still bordering on keep, but reserving my notvote until I see more input on the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is used in many places to describe something more than just a regular circus. Austin Chronicle Dream Focus 15:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sydney Morning Herald says "Its genre, known as extreme circus, is a fusion of free-form acrobatics, hip-hop, virtuosic percussion and beat-boxing, a type of rapping." See? Its a genre, a major newspaper defines it. Dream Focus 17:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except there's little indication that Cirque du Soleil, the most prominent practitioners of this "genre", meets the musical component of this 'definition' -- which seems to be speaking of the 'Tom Tom Club' act, rather than the genre as a whole. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you bother to read that article, it says "They draw the audience into the performance through continuous live music". Dream Focus 12:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. If you read the article you would notice that it gives no indication that Cirque du Soleil's musical repertoire is based around "hip-hop, virtuosic percussion and beat-boxing, a type of rapping." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Austin Chronicles says "stunning sets, outrageous costumes, modern music, and an attention to art in every aspect of the production" [31]. Exactly what type of music they use, isn't really relevant. No animals, just a lot of stunts and constant music, etc. Dream Focus 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (i) "Exactly what type of music" is very relevant, because the SMH article specifies "exactly what type of music" in its definition -- a type that does not appear to match Cirque du Soleil's music. (ii) No mention is made of "constant music" in either cited source, as far as I can ascertain. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the Austin Chronicle is describing Cirque du Soleil specifically, not 'extreme circus' generally (in fact it barely mentions the latter, in a passing reference, in discussing "most obvious differences between the original and the assortment of 'extreme circus' imitations" late in the article). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It mentions other "extreme circuses" exist, calling itself the original and the rest just imitations. That proves that extreme circuses do exist. There is music. Dream Focus 16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITEXISTS! Big fragging deal! And the source spends one whole sentence on this existence. T_R_I_V_I_A_L mention. Notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (see comments above) per new citations found and added that demonstrate the word is in common usage and a separate genre. Thanks to Dream Focus for digging up the refs. At this point, needs some tags as stub, but passes wp:n. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge (to Circus, per Dthomsen8 below [or to Contemporary circus ]) the Austin Chronicle article is on Cirque du Soleil, not 'extreme circus' generally, and the SMH article is (i) rather short & (ii) on the topic of a (second, if less well-known) specific act, rather than 'extreme circus' generally. This does not appear to be "significant coverage" on this topic (to which both sources are tangential). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge with Circus and create a redirect to the section. There are only 55 prose words in this article--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge may be the best option. It is just hard to find anything with reliable sources, with several trying. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:22, 18 April 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, 24 April 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, Baseball Watcher 01:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Contemporary circus which seems the best place to document various modern developments of the traditional format. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Contemporary circus per above arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If its the same thing, merge it. This is a real thing, a notable genre, and there should be an article for it. Doesn't matter what its called, as long as the article exist. Dream Focus 17:37, 9 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Mitchell[edit]

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

Content of this article seem to be entirely school age vandalism/gossip. Falcadore (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This article appears to have a long history of vandalism and unconstructive edits. I deleted some seemingly irrelevant personal stuff, which leaves only a few of her credits. IMDb says she's had roles in four different Australian TV series, so it's possible she's a legitimate TV star down there, but I couldn't find any independent sources to back this up. Will be happy to !vote keep if some such sources can be identified.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially unsourced BLP of a non-notable actress. Carrite (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of policing of such vandalism would suggest that notability is relatively low. There does not seem to be much attempt to expand the article to cover these performances. --Falcadore (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While there have been some minor instances of true vandalism, such minimal vandalism has been quickly dealt with and reverted... so there is no more "lack of policing" than there is for any other article. And in reviewing the history, it seems that the majority of the edits seem more to be more in the line of inexperienced editors trying to improve the article and is thus indicative that there is interest in the subject. That this one has not yet been expanded by experienced editors simply means it has not yet been expanded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment - There is a point about this, while Mitchell lacks some degree of guest roles on other Australian television series, aside from her contract roles in three series; Mitchell's role as a series regular on three different series within the succession of five years would place some degree of notability, any vandalism of the article should not determine whether it is notable or not. My suggestion is that it should be expanded to feature a section with some minor information on her early life and more detailed resume information, similar to other actor biographies, and time should be allowed for users to find sources to back up the factual statements. TVtonightOKC (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not everything is posted online - ghits isn't everything - major roles in multiple significant children's series is sufficient. Suggest semi-protection or pending edit protection if vandalism is a problem, not deletion. The-Pope (talk) 16:20, 21 April 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) 00:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regular/recurring roles in multiple national TV series satisfies WP:ENT, an SNG enjoying broad consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:57, 24 April 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, Baseball Watcher 01:19, 2 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) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gyokko-ryū[edit]

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

This article has no reliable sources and is about a non-notable martial art. It might even be a non-existent martial art since even the article says "there is no historical evidence that this martial art ever existed." My search found nothing that supports notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Papaursa[reply]
  • Delete I found no reliable sources that show this martial art is notable (if it even exists). Astudent0 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 06:11, 7 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.   -- Lear's Fool 13:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Chomp[edit]

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

merge and redirect This article takes a semi-notable fan motion made by fans of the University of Florida's sports teams and uses WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and friends-over-beers fan folklore to try to extend it into something more. The "curse" section is the worst, as it tries to "prove" that opponents performing the motion during games usually causes their eventual downfall.

Note that this isn't a rival fan starting trouble. I'm a life-long Gator fan, a UF alum, and a former Gator bone, meaning that I personally played the accompanying "Jaws" theme hundreds of times. However, this is Wikipedia, not a fan page, and the article clearly doesn't belong. Yes, it seems to be well sourced. If you look at them more closely, though, you'll see that many of them refer to game results that seek to "prove" the existence of a "curse" but do not actually mention the Chomp (or the curse) at all.

My proposed fix is to add a section in Florida Gators (and perhaps Florida Gators football as well) about the Chomp and redirect this article name there. Zeng8r (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has recently been put through the AfD meatgrinder and was kept. The reason that it was kept is that the Gator Chomp by itself meets WP:GNG by a comfortable country-mile. There is no reason to merge Gator Chomp in to any other article because it is one of the most famous American football gestures, made by supporters, that there is. Moreover, the gesture has been demonstrated by celebrities on American television. There is no reason why a section called Gator Chomp within the Florida Gators article does not summarise the content of the separate Gator Chomp article and then link to it as a "main".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment As was pointed out to you many times in the article's talk page, there is not "significant coverage" of the Chomp that says anything more than it exists and is very popular among Gator fans. That's not enough to meet notability for a separate article. Also, many of the current sources are fan blogs, which are not reliable sources in any case. And there is no way to justify the "curse" section. It's just silly. Zeng8r (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erin Andrews performed the Gator Chomp, with Emmitt Smith, on television in "Dancing with the Stars".[1] Michelle Obama performed the Gator Chomp during a campaign visit to Gainesville.[2] There is no reason not to have a section within Florida Gators as well as a separate article on Gator Chomp. Where exactly are you going to squeeze in the Gator Chomp section within the article itself. I had a good look at the Florida Gators article and there is no obvious place because there is already a lot of content there and it is unlikely that you will cut and paste half the information in the existing Gator Chomp article to the Florida Gators article because it would not look balanced.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is an unusable WP:BLOG. The second contains only exactly one sentence mentioning the Gator Chomp.--Cúchullain t/c 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep on procedural grounds alone. I'm sorry the discussion didn't go your way on the last AFD nomination, but that is not a valid reason to re-nominate less than two months later. As stated by the closing admin, the discussion should have been on the talk page. You made almost no effort to start a discussion and, instead, went to immediately to deletion "to get more feedback". This whole process should have been on the talk page first. If you want more feedback, go to boards and ask for it, not nominate for deletion. — BQZip01 — talk 04:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's simply not correct. Zeng8r did in fact initiate and participate in discussion at the article after the last AfD, it just didn't get anywhere, with Nipsonanomhmata being the sole voice for keeping the article in its current state. This isn't a tenable position, as the majority of the sources are unreliable blogs and the like, and the reliable sources mention the subject only in passing, which doesn't establish notability.--Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify, I didn't initiate the first AfD on this. Just look at the discussion; it was User:Canterbury Tail. I didn't even know that the article existed until following a wikilink from another Gator-related article. My first impression was that it was very weak, so when an AfD nomination was initiated (by somebody else), I shared my opinion. Zeng8r (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of articles NOT from blogs and the like and plenty of reliable sources. Why is there any harm in having this article? It seems to meet all criteria, even if a few sentences can be trimmed. Zeng8r, my apoligies. Those comments WERE directed in your direction, but shouldn't have been. I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that the person who nominated it also made a comment to justify it, but that was still my mistake. Thanks for not taking offense. — BQZip01 — talk 01:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; it happens. Again, my issue wasn't with the number of citations to seemingly reliable sources. It's that those cited sources often had nothing at all to do with the statement that they're supposed to verify. Anyway, I've cleaned it up quite a bit just now (see below). What do you think? Zeng8r (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Nothing here establishes notability. The majority of sources are unusable blogs and personal webpages, and even these contain little by way of significant coverage. There are a few reliable sources here, but they contain nothing beyond trivial mentions of the Gator Chomp.--Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see how this helps the encyclopedia's coverage of Florida athletics. It's an extremely well-known sports gesture, and there are mountains of references to it in the media.[32] Problems with the "curse" section (and there are some) don't make the subject non-notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment The "curse" section is clearly a college sports version of wp:fancruft / wp:synth and should go. If a buddy sitting next to me in the stands at The Swamp points out an opposing player doing an "unauthorized Gator chomp" and says that the poor fool has just sealed his fate, I'd laugh and hope he's right. If I see it in a Wikipedia article presenting that cause/effect relationship as repeated historical fact, I'll delete it an inappropriate for the project. Everything has its place.
Anyway, I figured that once that section is gone, there wouldn't be enough information left for the article to ever grow into anything longer than a stub. If some people think that's good enough, then fine. I'm of the opinion that a merge and redirect is the way to go here. Zeng8r (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?[edit]

Ok, so I went ahead and cleaned up the problem section and references. With all the discussion about the text, I hadn't noticed that there were 4 blatant wp:linkspam problems down in the external links section. They have also been removed. Some of the remaining references don't really talk about the chomp much, but at least they refer to newspapers and other reliable sources, so I left a few that could probably be trimmed if somebody wants to pick some more weeds.

If consensus exists that what remains of the article is notable and valuable on its own, then I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw the AfD nomination. (I have a feeling that a close eye should be kept on the article if it survives, however, to prevent ad links from reappearing later.) Zeng8r (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


So, if the current stub-length version of the article is deemed notable enough to keep, I guess we can close this discussion and move on? Zeng8r (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it were butchered down to one sentence it would still meet WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite and Nipsonanomhmata, and after the cleanup the article is in very good shape in my opinion, no matter how long. Motion to close since it seems an agreement has been reached - frankieMR (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded — BQZip01 — talk 22:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 07:25, 6 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. Owen× 09:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Generation (poem)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, as there is no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Poem won second place in a content that itself is non-notable. Several blog hits can be found, but all are of the form of "I like this poem." PROD removed without comment. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was also used as inspiration/parody by a Microsoft advert Searching youtube returns an pages of videos and google returns endless results.. skipping 30+ pages in still returning topical results on searches like 'Lost Generation Palindrome' or 'Lost Generation Reed' --KHobbits (T|C) 01:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 01:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This poem generated enough of a viral splash that there must be enough references out there to constitute notability. I'm not going looking for them but I'm sure they are there to be found Tesspub (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love this poem, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of discovered knowledge, not a discoverer. At the moment, secondary coverage is lacking, especially in-depth coverage from reliable sources (a million people praising it on youtube doesn't count). If it is notable, it will be covered. Wikipedia can catalog it then, but an ecyclopedia should not be predicting if a poem will have lasting notability. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:22, 9 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. Strong arguments on both sides, but no clear consensus. Owen× 09:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Toretto (Character)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a minor character in film series, no evidence of notabilty, a redirect by another editor has been reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The character is not particularly notable and there's not enough material to warrant an individual article. Merge back into the list of characters article for the franchise. Millahnna (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline. All sources that I found with a search engine test, are from unreliable sources or plot description of the series, but none cover the character with real world perspective or with critical commentary about the character to warrant an article about it. The article itself is a plot-only description of a fictional work without real-world context that lacks references independent of the subject from reliable third-party sources to presume notability. Jfgslo (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The character is the major lead in on-going film series. The newest film is just set for release this week, and so more details about the character will come to light, and so may be added to by contributors. The character is also set to appear in the 6th film in the series. These two new appearances may lead to more discussions of the character in other media, and the reasons for his popularity / influence. I suggest keeping this article, marking it as a stub, and see what will happen over the next few months. The Yeti (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is at issue here is whether the article meets the notability guidelines. The subject has been a character in a number of films and apparently there are more to come, but articles are not kept because thee may be indications of notability in the future. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is barely a month old, and as I said, the film franchise has its newest release just this very week. Give people a chance to add things. What's the goddam hurry to delete ? The Yeti (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether there is any evidence of notability for the subject, so far with four films released there is none, so i suggest at the very least a merge with The Fast and the Furious (film series) as there may be some material, which if referenced to reliable sources may be useful. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

( I place some weight on the fact that this article has been in substantial form for over two years (April 20, 2009), and contributed by over a dozen named (and over a dozen unnamed) Wikipedia editors. I take that as strong evidence that the Wikipedia community feels there should be an article. )

The notability criteria is:

   "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources
   that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the
   inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

I searched for sources prior to 2011, since the Web is a bit flooded with marketing for the current movie.

These pages have Dominic Toretto as the main topic:

More than trivial mention, but not the main topic:

Macchess (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three pages are all user edited and likely wouldn't be considered reliable sources (I know we can sometimes use a awikia if it has a long history of being stable like Memory Alpha). It looks like the next two sources in your list are going to have the same problem. I'm unfamiliar with (and therefore unsure of) the Craig's Corner and DNA India sites. The PDF is actually pretty interesting but I don't know what we could use it for beyond what it actually is: a debunking of a the action sequences based on science. Millahnna (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Response:
Definition of Secondary Sources I'm new to deletion discussions - just so I'm clear on the rules of engagement here - my understanding is that for information on this character, the primary sources are the movies the character has occurred in, plus any marketing material he appears in (dolls, posters, video games, etc.). It isn't kosher for a Wikipedia editor to add content to this article based on their direct viewing of that material (no original research). Reviews of the movie, however, are secondary sources, and if the reviewer can be shown to be reliable, reliable secondary sources.
Reliability of Secondary Sources While two of the examples of secondary sources I provide are from wikis, it seems that wiki material can be regarded as reliable if the page is stable (longevity) and is the result of multiple editors (the Delphi Method approach). ( While the Delphi Method assumes the result to be the consensus of multiple experts, when the topic in question is a fictional character in a movie, I submit that anyone who watched the movie at least qualifies as a direct witness.)
Summary: While the page Dominic_Toretto_(Character) in its current form has issues, it seems to me that it meets the Wikipedia:Notability editorial guidelines, which say that, a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article unless it falls under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Speaking for myself as a user of Wikipedia (rather than an editor) I blundered into this discussion because I'd seen the latest movie, and I wanted to understand the background of the character without having to see the previous films. I found the article useful as a user, and was distressed to see it proposed for deletion. My vote is that the page be allowed to stand, but that we put some effort into providing the references, and fixing other issues such as Wikipedia:PLOT#PLOT Macchess (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Character has minimal third-party sources discussing any impact on popular culture or other real-world impact. While we're at it, the List of The Fast and the Furious characters and the other character pages may be worthy of deletion as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree he is notable in that he has appeared across several films but all of the information here is just plot regurgitation which itself is spread across each film's individual article and THEN on the franchise page itself. Unless external sources can be identified, i.e. character conception and/or reception, I don't think this should stay. The same can be said for Brian O'Conner which has 4 sources, three of them IMDB, Mia Toretto, 1 source, IMDB and Leticia Ortiz, three sources, one IMDB. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:39, 1 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, King of ♠ 00:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The character has been played by Vin Diesel. Google claims a million hits for Dominic Toretto. How does this not meet WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google claims half a million and a quick glance at the first 6 pages has the links showing either articles here, Fast and the Furious Wikia, reviews of the cars, youtube video clips of the film, facebook profiles and news on the film. No notable, independent information on the character that warrants him an article rather than an entry on the List of Fast and Furious characters. Checking the next 4 pages you've got IMDB links, personal angel fire sites and still nothing of use. I can probably find more information on Randy Meeks and he's been in less films. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The significant coverage in the reliable sources listed below shows that "Dominic Toretto (Character) " satifies WP:GNG, hence should not be deleted.
I believe that the sources listed below meet WP:RS, and are suffice to show that this character meets the WP:GNG requirement. Therefore, I argue that this article should not be deleted, and if deleted, should be replaced, since: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." (WP:NOTE)
Please note that I am not asserting that the article in its current form meets all Wikipedia's standards, but that is not the question here. We are discussing whether the very existence of this article is acceptable and the criteria for that is WP:GNG. "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation."WP:NRVE. Also, for those concerned that it may be difficult to find enough reliable, independent, secondary source material to validate every fact in a thorough article, note that "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article WP:N#NCONTENT. Once notability has been established, WP: Manual of Style (writing about fiction) permits referencing the primary sources themselves (the films) for factual details if necessary, and under Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves, sources that are not clearly independent, such as the book: "The Fast and the Furious: The Official Car Guide", by Chris Palmer, 2006, published by MotorBooks International ISBN 9780760325681 (I didn't list this for notability, since the "Official" imprimatur implied some dependence, but there's a lot of Dominic Toretto in it.)
The 1,000,000+ hits in Google I get when I search for the quoted string: "Dominic Toretto" suggests notability (fame, popularity), but is not sufficient evidence by itself. "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."WP:NOTE
The essential WP:GNG test is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS) that are independent of the subject. The vast majority of the 1,000,000 hits above are not reliable sources in the WP:RS sense.
The minimum number of WP:RS to meet the WP:GNG threshold is only the number to verify enough content for a non-stub article, but at least two are expected:
(1) WP:GNG: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected."
(2) Reinforced here: Third Party Sources: How To Meet the Requirement
-"At least two third-party sources should cover the subject"
-"These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance."
I've grouped the information from any single author or organization to count as a single source, since: "[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." (WP:GNG)
Source #1: Roger Ebert's Movie Reviews
Roger Ebert is a well-known American film critic who was the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. His reviews of "The Fast and the Furious" and "Fast & Furious", contain enough information on Dominic Toretto to make a good start to an article, and were republished over time. His 2001 Review of "The Fast and the Furious" in the Chicago Sun-Times also provides evidence of long term interest, since it appears in three of his annual "Robert Ebert's Movie Yearbook"s: [2002 REMVYB], 2003 REMVYB, [2004 REMYB]. His 2009 Review of "Fast & Furious" in the Chicago Sun-Times also appears in his Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2010
Source #2: Discussion of Dominic Toretto in the book Manhood in Hollywood from Bush to Bush, by David Greven, University of Texas Press, 2009, ISBN 9780292719873
The coverage here is not lengthy (about 7 lines) but is a respectable scholarly WP:RS that appeared eight years after the movie (indicating long term interest), and provides a reference for many things about Toretto that are not covered by Ebert above.
Source #3: Pages 71-78 of "Vin Diesel: Fueled for Success" by Nancy Krulik, Simon and Schuster, 2002 ISBN 9780689859823
These eight pages from Nancy Kruliks' biography of Vin Diesel have pages of information on the Dominic Toretto character, as well as: Vin Diesel's take on the character ("A character who is strong, who is a caretaker."), the take of Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times ("surprising in the complexity of its key characters"), and the effect of portraying this character on Vin Diesel's career, including getting him (and Paul Walker) the 2002 MTV award for "Best On-Screen Team" (over the cast of "Ocean's Eleven"). (Note: even though Vin's thoughts, in themselves, might not be "independent", since the secondary source (Nancy) chose which ones to include, I think they count, and in any event, they are a small fraction of the material here.
Source #4: pp. 52-53 of: The American South in a global world by J.L. Peacock, H.L. Watson, C.R. Matthews, UNC Press Books, 2005, ISBN 9780807855898
In this section, Lucila Vargas describes how she uses the characters from "The Fast and the Furious", and in particular Dominic Toretto, of whom she says: "Toretto is a bit more complex as a character, and his race is ambiguous." to probe her students on their perceptions of Hollywood cinema. This source focuses on Toretto's relationships, and the fact it was published four years after the movie shows long term notability of Toretto, as does the republishing of this Toretto material in Latina teens, migration, and popular culture by Lucila Vargas, Peter Lang, publisher, 2009 ISBN 9780820488455.
Film reviews in newspapers by professional critics are WP:RS, even if online rather than print
(for example: "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." WP:NEWSBLOG).
Source #5: Film Reviews in Britain at The Daily Telegraph by Nick Cowen and Hari Patience
The Daily Telegraph is a 150+ year old Conservative newspaper and the highest selling newspaper in Britain. The 2008 review of The Fast and The Furious and the 2009 review of Fast & Furious:
"Wheels On Film: The Fast & The Furious" By Nick Cowen and Hari Patience 22 Mar 2008
"Wheels On Film: Fast & Furious" By Nick Cowen and Hari Patience 09 Apr 2009
confirm details about Dominic Toretto from the prior sources, add new tidbits, provide a different perspective from Roger Ebert's reviews (they found a Dominic Toretto quote that Ebert praised "silly"), and show that Dominic Toretto's notability is not confined to the United States.
Source #6: Film Reviews in India at DNAIndia
Daily News and Analysis (DNA) is a Mumbai-based Liberal Indian daily newspaper launched in 2005, targeted at young readers. Their 2009 review of Fast & Furious and 2011 review of Fast Five:
"Fast and Furious 4 is faster and more furious" Apr 2, 2009 By Lhendup Gyatso Bhutia | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
"Fast Five is more than mindless entertainment" May 5, 2011, 17:56 ISTvBy Mihir Fadnavis | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
provide a lot of material on Dominic Toretto beyond the above (for example, this is the first source I've listed that covers "Fast Five"), and show that Dominic Toretto's notability is not confined to the Western Hemisphere.
Source #7: Film Reviews at CNN
Cable News Network (CNN) is a U.S. cable news channel founded in 1980 by Ted Turner. Their 2001 review of The Fast and the Furious and their 2011 review of Fast Five:
Review: 'Fast and Furious' runs on empty By Paul Clinton CNN Reviewer
'Fast Five' is a thrill ride, so just go with it By Tom Charity, Special to CNN
are independent reliable secondary sources that fill in more plot details and interpretations of the Dominic Toretto character.
Source #8: Film Review of "Fast & Furious" at Toronto_Sun by Jim_Slotek
Smash, bang, zoom! By Jim Slotek ,QMI Agency, April 3, 2009
Source #9: MTV coverage of "Fast Five": Significance of Dom Toretto, Film Review
Why 'Fast Five' Dominates Box Office A Decade After Franchise Debut By Eric Ditzian By Eric Ditzian
Gives much of the credit for Universal's biggest opening since 1997 to Vin Diesel's embodiment of Dom Toretto. " 'Simply put, in the pantheon of action studs, Diesel is now immortalized as Dom.' (Jeff Bock, box-office analyst for Exhibitor Relations)"
Fast Five Movie Details (Full Summary) Mark Deming, Rovi
Source #10: Slate Magazine film review of "Fast Five"
This reviewer sympathizes with the efforts to portray Dominic Toretto's family, protective side.
"Fast Five A tenderhearted family drama starring Vin Diesel". By Dana Stevens, April 29, 2011
Source #11: Ventura County Reporter film review of "Fast Five"
This reviewer focuses on the sex appeal Vin Diesel brings to Dominic Toretto's character.
"Fill 'er up with Diesel" by Tim Pompey 05/05/2011
Summary: The significant coverage in the reliable sources listed above shows that "Dominic Toretto" satifies WP:GNG, hence should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macchess (talkcontribs) 06:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Macchess appears to be confusing reviews of the actor's portrayal of this character with substantive in depth coverage of the character. So the argument above is spurious. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:50, 9 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) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanscale[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability criteria (including WP:ORG). The references are either not independent, or not significant coverage - for example, the New York Times reference is an interview with the inventor, and mentions chairs, but the company is not named in it. The other references do not provide significant coverage, and I could not find other reliable independent sources. I had deleted this following a Speedy Deletion tag, but restored it following a discussion, and concluded that it was not quite promotional-enough to justify the deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wired and Metropolis reference cited are independent and provide significant coverage. There are other references available, such as Forbes. Note that the article should survive if either the company or any of its products is notable—perhaps it should be renamed if a thoughtful analysis determines that the products are notable but the company is not. Bongomatic 22:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this be disambiguated? "humanscale" is the scale of a human, which is the common usage of the term. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Humanscale (furniture maker). This business makes unique consumer products sold under its own brand, and as such those products have received independent attention from reliable sources. Human scale should also be disambiguated here; it should be about the concept of keeping things useful to human abilities, needs, and attention span, with particular attention to the defects of the metric system. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguating is not a bad idea, but no need to move, as "humanscale" is not a word, and certainly has no entry. Bongomatic 15:20, 28 April 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, King of ♠ 00:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage in Forbes and Wired seems to indicate notability enough to pass WP:ORG. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:55, 8 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) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Estates[edit]

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

Neighborhood with no evidence of notability. Appears to fall under the scope of WP:LOCAL. Kinu t/c 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All I can find are passing newspaper mentions and real estate sales listings for homes in the neighborhood. I was unable to find any in depth coverage in reliable sources that discuss this neighborhood as a specific topic. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non notable neighbourhood. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems too small unless there's anything notable at all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Blue Square Thing Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 3 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) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flyswatter (Demo)[edit]

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

Demo albums are generally non-notable per notability criteria for albums and no source contradicts this. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 April 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) 00:47, 25 April 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, King of ♠ 00:14, 2 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 Age of Worms#Summary. Notable content, if any, can be added to the target page. Owen× 13:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Worms Timeline[edit]

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

Contested prod. A WP:CONTENTFORK of Age of Worms that is basically a plot recap, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTJUSTPLOT and needs coverage of reception and significance. There may be some reception and significance about the Age of Worms campaign, but not the timeline separately. Entirely redundant to Age of Worms#Summary but packed with much more original research. Nothing that can be kept according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge to Age of Worms. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - note that the page was redirected, essentially a contested PROD, but the nominator restored with the PROD on it; as that is a violation of the PROD procedure, at worst, this page should be restored to its state as a redirect. BOZ (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When the page was redirected, I reverted it because I thought it warranted a 7 day wait period as per usual prod procedure. It wasn't until afterward that I realized the redirect-er was contesting the prod. AFD is the best way to settle this type of discussion about what's best: deletion, redirect, or otherwise. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wait a tic - why isn't a merge acceptable? Seems that that was proposed, and it came here for deletion instead. But I may be missing something. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and Merge - There's a lot of nice info there, but it seems non-encyclopedic and/or original research. Very little of it is of direct impact to the storyline; a few of the more relevant events could be pulled out of it and merged into the Age of Worms article. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:44, 21 April 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) 00:22, 25 April 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, King of ♠ 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you basing your WP:NOR claim on? All of it appears to be from primary resources, but that's not the same thing. I'm not seeing any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources". Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be used if you aren't making any analyses. I think WP:PLOT is the operating principle here, as the whole article is "just plot". However, the information can be summarized and included in the main Age of Worms article. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - WP:NOR does not apply here, as all of this information is perfectly verifiable within the printed adventures. The dates are given in each case, and the adventure path was designed to be internally consistent, so it is easy enough to follow. A significant trim and a merge makes the most sense. BOZ (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR applies to the unreferenced (even with primary sources) 553 CY, 564 CY, 569 CY, 577 CY, 583 CY, 586 CY, 592 CY, parts of 575 CY, 576 CY and 593 CY and particularly c 573 CY, c 580 CY and c 586 CY, which by adding the circa means that it's a guess by the person that added that text. Jfgslo (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably correct in that. That said, I would argue that in a merge, a summary should really exclude the exact dates anyway. They seem a bit too trivial to include in a summary that would be appropriate for inclusion in the Age of Worms article. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, or maybe the circa was included in the original story, that is to say "somewhere around this year, this happened". I couldn't say without checking the acutal source. BOZ (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that is speculation and that material is not referenced anyway. In any case, to quote another similar AfD, the timeline itself is merely a non-concise plot summary of various works presented in a non-encyclopedic format, using the fictional timeline rather than real chronology as a framework, so it has no place in Wikipedia.
Also, note that no reliable source has an Age of Worms Timeline, not even a primary source. That means that the timeline itself is original research by synthesis since it has not been published by any reliable source outside of this article and the timeline here is created by piecing together information from primary sources. In fact, checking directly Dungeon #124, one of the most used references within the article, I have confirmed that there is no direct mention of the dates used in the article at all. For example, quoting from page #62, "Gansworth lives in the heart of Diamond Lake, at the end of a cul-de-sac marked by a memorial obelisk dedicated to the memory of a mine collapse 70 years ago that killed more than 300 miners", this was "translated" into "525 CY - A mine collapses near Diamond Lake. Over 300 miners die in the disaster" within the article. Seeing how this same situation applies with all the content referenced with Dungeon #124, I do not see how any part of the article could be of value for the article Age of Worms. Jfgslo (talk) 21:30, 9 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) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Summer (Zombie Computer album)[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. preemptive to create WP article 5 months before release by a single purpose editor with no significant coverage. [34]. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 21 April 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, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If it was keepable for three months without going to AfD and it's coming out in two, seems pointless to recreate it in two months. The only question is whether Zombie Computer is notable. That may be the determinant here. CycloneGU (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
because it hasn't gone to AfD before is a very lame reason for keeping. As per WP:CRYSTAL we cannot guess future notability. It may never reach WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, you got me on that one, thanks for the catch. However, it's been sitting three months and the album is about to be released. I'm not using a crystal ball in any fashion, but more than half the time has elapsed to album release. Two months before release seems reasonable. But you have raised my only doubt; the album very well may never chart. I say it depends on the artist's notability; if they have notability, it's a definite keep. But I haven't researched the group fully, so I have no idea. CycloneGU (talk) 04:22, 25 April 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, King of ♠ 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Even Zombie Computer themselves are not notable. They haven't released any recordings, and the WP article on them reads like something written by their promoter. An as-yet unreleased album by an unknown band is certainly not notable enough to keep.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Album does not and possibly never will meet WP:ALBUMS. I would also strongly encourage someone to seriously look at whether their record company Psychonavigation Records or their band are worthy of articles. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:39, 9 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 Eisenhower_Middle_School. (non-admin closure) Monty845 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School[edit]

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

Middle school with no evidence of standalone notability. Could be redirected to North East Independent School District; alternatively could be replaced by a disambiguation page with links to districts, as there appear to be several schools named such. Brought here for consensus. Kinu t/c 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate and redirect per Kinu. By consensus, middle schools should be mentioned in articles about their school districts, rather than having stand-alone articles. The rare counterexample would be a school of unusual historic or architectural notability. This one doesn't qualify. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Doesn't need to be redirected, lots of words, sentences, and other things about School. doesn't need to be redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickulus (talkcontribs) 13:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. Words and sentences are fun, but to have an article here the subject needs to be notable. I'm not seeing that, nor do I see sources that would indicate that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge anything helpful as usual. It'll go in a sentence in the main article probably. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, redirect, and move along. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It turns out a similar disambiguation page exists at Eisenhower Middle School, to which this could simply redirect if consensus is such. (That redlink farm there needs to be properly disambiguated, of course, but it's a start.) --Kinu t/c 00:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the DAB page found by Kinu, Eisenhower Middle School. It should not be redirected to a particular school district since there are many schools in many different districts sharing the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 8 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) 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koba Tirkia[edit]

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

No significant third party coverage by reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. Muhandes (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 April 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) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources provided indicate that the subject is an IT director for various entities, but not that he is a celebrity as this article claims he is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 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, King of ♠ 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not indicate what the subject's claim of notability is, not is any such claim supported by WP:RS. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 04:12, 10 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) 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deerfield, San Antonio, Texas[edit]

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

Neighborhood with no evidence of notability. Appears to fall under the scope of WP:LOCAL. Kinu t/c 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 3 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. J04n(talk page) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susheel Jangira[edit]

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

Contested PROD on an unreferenced BLP. The subject appears to be non-notable, since "most ravishing anchor" does not seem to be a notable award. StAnselm (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - model of minimal independent note. My search revealed nothing in WP:RS of true note to add to a bio of her.Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page, non-notable bio. Keb25 (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is poorly formatted for a good quality Wikipedia article, but the references in the article (including multiple articles from 'The Times of India') show that she is notable (GNG) so the article should be improved, not deleted. Ougro (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO. the times of india references are passing mentions, as with the 4 gnews hits. the excessive bolding indicates vanity page. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 6 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) 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hot Club of Detroit[edit]

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

Non-notable band completely unknown outside of Detroit, and even there only in very limited circles. Incarnatus (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 April 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, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weak presence in WP:RS, with that restricted to very limited local coverage, thus failing WP:GNG. Fails WP:MUSIC, as only awards appears to be local in scope. --Kinu t/c 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there's the Boston Globe, the Plain Dealer (from Ohio), the Erie Times-News, the New York Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and of course the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News. Also I think that group played at Orchestra Hall the very same day this deletion nomination was brought forward. Make what you will of these facts. This doesn't count as me taking the holy deletion debate sacrament. James470 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm finding nothing in the New York Times other than a very trivial mention ([37]). The same goes for the Post-Gazette ([38]). I only see similar such passing mentions in other sources. Not exactly in-depth coverage to help satisfy notability requirements. --Kinu t/c 01:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know any fancy WP acronyms, but I'm thinking that any ensemble good enough to play at Orchestra Hall should be notable for Wikipedia. Come on: Dee Dee Bridgewater, the Vienna Boys Choir, Canadian Brass, not to mention the Detroit Symphony! Detroit Joe (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited from playing at a venue that is itself notable or at which other notable performers may have played. There needs to be actual coverage about this group itself. --Kinu t/c 01:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic, I can get myself booked at Orchestra Hall. Only a few people at my church know that I'm a phenomenal gospel singer, but whoever does the booking for Orchestra Hall will be impressed. Detroit Joe (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This way, the band's manager doesn't have to worry about this article being used to spread lies about the Hot Club of Detroit. Because we all know that here at Wikipedia we care much more about enforcing our silly notability rules than we care about ensuring the truthfulness and accuracy of the content that gets to stay. James470 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable regardless of above. I was in a band played Glasgow School of Art on the same bill as Aphex Twin. Neither of those things make us notable enough for me to make an article about it. Chart, or kill somebody famous. Then you're notable. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it's the way notability works here... Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 15:51, 9 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.
  1. ^ Erin Andrews drops a Gator Chomp on DWTS OnlyGators.com, 31 March 2010.
  2. ^ Michelle Obama's Visit: Minute by Minute The Gainesville Sun, 22 October 2008.