Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 26

< 25 May	27 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 00:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming transmission[edit]

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

Non-notable software. No citations to reliable sources provided, and none to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. It is a variant BiTornado that somebody has modified to get around some restrictions imposed by a specific ISP. There's some web forum posts about it, and that appears to be the extent of any coverage, reliable or unreliable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could be merged into BitTorrent but seems defunct so what is the point? W Nowicki (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable source coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:00, 31 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. Neutrality^talk 00:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choctaw Nation Mississippi River Clan[edit]

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

No sources available, WP:NOTSOAPBOX TransporterMan (TALK) 23:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have found no reliable sources verifying the existence, let alone the notability of this group. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note per Wikipedia:CANVAS#Appropriate_notification, I am giving notice that I have invited Heiro, Uyvsdi, and User:67.235.129.179 to participate in this discussion in light of their substantial participation in the Choctaw Nation of Florida discussion. I would have also invited the main "keep" participant in that discussion but he, GregJackP, has been indefinitely blocked. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable group with no sourcing to back up claims, article consists completely of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. He iro 13:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a little more digging over the article and some G searches. How has this article not been deleted sooner? Even if they could be proven to exist, which I've found nothing but our article and mirrors, they would still fail WP:GNG. He iro 13:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author has a conflict of interest, the article is clearly self-promotional, organization has not established notability, and reliable, secondary sources cannot be found. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Delete w/o prj — if this is genuine, can be recreated once verified. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:55, 27 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Capua[edit]

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

Appears to be generally non-notable. To the extent that her track in an indy film is notable, and that is all that is notable, it should be mentioned in the main article and redirect to that article per WP:MUSIC (and WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E). Tagged for notability since 2009.Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The only reference is to a site run by an indie music events and promotion company, so not exactly an independent source for notability. As for the one track in an indpendent film, there is no indication that this was an important element of the movie so I see no good reason to merge this to the movie's article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note also that while the article describes the aforementioned independent film as "award-winning", the WP article on the film lists its only award as a tie in the ReelHeART International Film Festival ReelTube Category(which is films made specifically for the internet). I don't know much about film festivals, but ReelHeART's website says they were founded in 2004, which means they were five years old when that award was given. I can't imagine that award could have become terribly significant in such a short time.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like she fails WP:MUSIC. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:12, 31 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! 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damek (Blade character)[edit]

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

Delete all - three fictional characters from a failed television series. All are extended plot descriptions in violation of WP:PLOT. There are no reliable sources that discuss the real-world implications of these characters, because there are none, in violation of WP:GNG. These have been tagged for sourcing since December 2009. PRODs replaced with merge tags, but there is nothing to merge because there is no sourced information. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge carefully and check with sources. If you choose only Damek (Blade character) with the template find, you have nothing, with the followings it is better
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (add Blade to narrow the results)

Some sources can be find to help writing and sourcing a paragraph for each character. I have in mind the section CSI: NY#Main characters. I am agree with the lack of notability but I do not see a problem with a merge and a redirection. --Crazy runner (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: None of the articles provides any reference so they all fail verifiability. The content is purely plot-only description of a fictional work. Even with a search engine test, none of the characters meets the general notability guideline. I have to agree with the nominator that, since no content is sourced within the articles, nothing is acceptable for a merge. Jfgslo (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plot only. Not notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not indiciate any notability. No predjudice against a merge, either. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 00:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara Arnette[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC). Tagged for notability since 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jazz Now magazine is referenced in the article, but it is an offline source. Assuming that it is a reasonable profile, that still is only one source writing about this singer. I can find no others. The two "quotes" in the article do not really further notability. The claimed quote from Variety isn't even in the article, and the second is from somethign that does not appear to be a reliable source. And the quote is taken out of context as it applies to a group of people int he film and not just Arnette. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Subject does not have sufficient references from reliable sources with significant coverage in those sources, to constitute being notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article gives no indication of what the subject is notable for. The only real reference I could find on Arnette is on a talent agency's site, which I doubt qualifies as an independent source.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:12, 30 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! 04:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Epstein[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP, apparently created on the basis of a misdemeanor conviction. Not likely to ever justify a full encyclopedic biography. RxS (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP, non-notable individual who only has an article because they were charged with a crime. Reso lute 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:PROF notability standards. Will Beback talk 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither his crime nor his academic work not the combination of the two would appear to satisfy WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:PROF and the notoriety is momentary. --rgpk (comment) 14:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of this article meets criteria in WP:PROF because of the major award mentioned in the third reference. Peacock (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. Subject of the article has won a decent award, was previously director of a center at a major university (Columbia qualifies), and has decently high citation counts. Gscholar was frustrating b/c subject has also published under D. Epstein (too many name collisions to analyze) as well as D. L. Epstein, so I turned to ISI Web of Science instead. Restricting to the social science index and limiting to schools where he's been, I get an ISI h-index of 11, with cites of 126, 90, 61, 35, etc (past experience, as well as, say, this paper, suggest that ISI severely undercounts versus Gscholar, our usual rough tool of choice). I conclude from available evidence that the subject means WP:PROF's criterion 1. Ray^Talk 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, it's GS that severely overcounts. That's why it's a rough tool... An h of 11 is not very impressive, I think. --Crusio (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sort of thing is field-dependent. WoS has been criticized in the past for undercounting, not merely b/c GS overcounts, but also because it fails to track chapters in books, invited articles to conference proceedings, that sort of thing. I did a very small random sampling of some tenured faculty at a (very) good university from the faculty list for the politics department, and he seemed above the norm for poli sci, so I said keep. If you have contradictory information, I'd be happy to revise my opinion on this one. Ray^Talk 21:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that GS counts books and book chapters, which WoS doesn't do. However, the effect if that is very much dependent on the particular field and within a field, the disadvantage is the same for everybody. As citation counts should be interpreted in the light of the particular field (for example, neuroscientists tend to be much more cited than mathematicians), the field remains level. GS has enormous problems for citation analysis: the same article often has multiple entries (which can either inflate or deflate an h-index) and any citation is counted (and hence easily manipulated: see the curious case of Ike Antkare)... --Crusio (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Citation counts are not a great way to judge notability (a review article, for example, is almost always heavily cited though its contribution is small). Nor are directors of centers always useful unless the center itself is notable and the individual was responsible for setting it up and acquiring funding etc. Usually, one should look for other factors that would indicate notability. At an ivy league university such as Columbia, I would expect a notable professor to, at the least, hold a named chair. Epstein does not appear to hold one, though his cv seems to have disappeared from Columbia's website.--rgpk (comment) 21:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that citation counts are not a great way, but the reason they're commonly used as a proxy for academic influence is that a lot of very influential academics are, nonetheless, not written about directly until their obituary. Hence WP:PROF. And our standards allow for named chairs at universities less prestigious than Columbia, so I don't find it implausible that a professor not holding an endowed chair at Columbia might be notable. Ray^Talk 05:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is unlikely that a notable tenured professor is without a chair at Columbia. Failing other evidence of recognition in the field (and citation counts are not a good independent measure), I'd say that an unchaired tenured professor is almost certainly not notable enough for Columbia to be working at retaining that individual and therefore is unlikely to be notable enough for a wikipedia article. That's just the way elite universities work. --rgpk (comment) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per Resolute (talk · contribs) and Will Beback (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Ray. A researcher at a major Ivy League university is a long way towards notability, but I'm not sure that he makes the grade. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP. This article is no more than a resume, and the sources (university staff page, a blog, and an association article) don't establish notability. Even his award doesn't have a WP article! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neutrality^talk 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Choctaw Nation river clan[edit]

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

POV content fork of Choctaw Nation Mississippi River Clan that asserts, among other things, full sovereignty outside of the "United States corporation". Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE this listing, if a listing must be removed please delete listing for Choctaw Nation Mississippi river clan, not Sovereign Choctaw Nation river clan Tribe does have Sovereignty outside the UNITED STATES CORPORATION posted by Sovereignchoctawnation 22:51, 26 May 2011
Delete — No sources available, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. — TransporterMan (TALK) 23:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verified notability. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional article, written to promote a particular set of opinions, which are completely unsourced, and constitute original "research". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note per Wikipedia:CANVAS#Appropriate_notification, I am giving notice that I have invited Heiro, Uyvsdi, and User:67.235.129.179 to participate in this discussion in light of their substantial participation in the Choctaw Nation of Florida discussion. I would have also invited the main "keep" participant in that discussion but he, GregJackP, has been indefinitely blocked. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above, specious WP:OR and chestthumping weirdness not grounded in available facts. He iro 13:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author is clearly involved with and promoting the organization. The group does get a fair amount of web hits, but they are mostly social networking sites and wikipedia mirror sites - couldn't find mentions in newspapers. History section is mostly about Choctaw people as a whole, not this organization. Notability is not established, and citations are lacking. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Delete This one's obvious; the ALLCAPS rings a bell... lemme look at the other one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choctaw Nation Mississippi River Clan) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "If you are not a member of this tribe, please do not edit this page" did it for me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:52, 28 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 (closing as speedy). Neutrality^talk 07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION - MAKING MODELS[edit]

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

Declined prod. Seems like original research (WP:OR), written as a personal essay (WP:NOT#ESSAY), not suitable content for an encyclopedia. France3470 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:COPYVIO: It doesn't merit the "Original" of "Original research", but appears to be lifted sentence by sentence from lecture notes. See User_talk:P.vilochka#Copyright_problems_with_ORGANIZATIONAL_DECISION_-_MAKING_MODELS for a 9th May version of presumably the same article; compare the "Political model ..." section with http://www.palgrave.com/business/linsteadfuloplilley/lecturers/docs/CSDMLect11.doc as one example. PamD (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I did look for copyvio as per the comment on the talk page, but despite a while staring at the various documents I wasn't able to find the relevant sections. A second look now makes me feel rather sheepish; PamD is completely right many sections are lifted word for word. My new computer makes downloaded documents practically illegible, apologies, I'm really going to have to sort it out. Thanks for the careful checking. Not sure the protocol but is a speedy warranted in this situation? France3470 (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PamDEbikeguy (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio. I tagged a couple of sections this morning before I was unable to continue. Edgepedia (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether copyvio or not, the text is barely readable, vague, and uninformative, the sort of prose woven when you have many blank pages to fill and nothing to fill them with: Each of decision making models offers its own way of finding the right or best solution. All of them are based on various aspects (the same as there are various decisions in various situations and conditions), such as: preferences and the purposes of participants, conditions with which we can imagine various styles and decision-making process, expectation results; character of used technology, and the basic values, belief and dominating the justification. The most crucial element in all models of organizational decision-making is choice.

The correct response to this kind of typing is pande manum. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a useful or well-written article. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:15, 27 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. the delete arguments are founded on solid interpretation of policy and a search for sources and the keep arguments are not policy based and mostly from the arguments to avoid Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night's Watch[edit]

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

This backstory of this article is somewhat complicated, so bear with me. In 2006 the article was moved from this title to Night’s Watch (different accent), but somebody copy pasted the article back. The duplication was quickly fixed and this page redirected to Night’s Watch. About a year ago I set out to clean up the articles about this fiction series, which included merging Night’s Watch and similar articles into an article called Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire. The merged article still had a lot of problems and after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire (2nd nomination) close as delete I decided to nominate it for AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire ended in delete and the closer deleted all redirects to the article, which included all of the articles I had previously merged. For some reason this redirect survived and the old 2006 copy pasted article was recently resurrected.

As it currently stands the article is a copyright violation as an unattributed copy paste move of an 5 year old version of Night’s Watch. If this article is kept it could be solved by history merging, but it would be simpler to delete this one and undelete Night’s Watch.

I think it would actually be better to just delete this article, for the same reasons as Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire was deleted. There is zero of evidence of notability for the Night's Watch from the books. They are however getting mentions in reviews of game of Thrones episodes of the television adaption, but these contain no more than "group of dudes guarding a wall of ice" and do not establish notability. We are left with a lot of intricate detail only of interest to fans, which does not belong in wikipedia, but rather a fansite dedicated to this fictional universe. I should also mention that World of A Song of Ice and Fire#The Wall contains a short description of the Night's Watch and might be an appropriate merge/redirect target if such outcome is reached. Yoenit (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete If all article that are dedicated to separate subjects of the books of George Martin are deleted we are left with a few articles that are just lists. That is what happened to the articles that were dedicated to the major noble families. They got merged in a Major houses in A Song of Ice and Fire. Read the article for yourself and compare to for instance the previous House_Targaryen article article. It is a shame that articles of decent quality to which people really like to contribute was sacrificed. And why? Because a rule said that it is better to have low quality articles that are just within the boundaries of relevancy for an encyclopaedia than to have decent articles that are just out of the boundaries. One wonders if we, the people who read and contribute to the articles, are here to satisfy the rules or that the rules are mend to help and motive us to read and contribute! Scafloc (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to World of A Song of Ice and Fire, where it gets mentioned a couple of times in #Westeros. One, the fact is, the parent article was deeemed non-notable and/or too focused on fictional details, so how and why should a child article survive its parent article? Two, the article deteriorates into fictional detail so fast that even though I do watch the associated TV series, I can't grasp it. If you cut all the WP:INUNIVERSE cruft and PLOT and ORIGINAL RESEARCH, what you're left with is "The Night's Watch is an organization dedicated to defending the realms of man in A Song of Ice and Fire. The Night's Watch mans the Wall, a huge fortification built primarily of ice located in the far north of Westeros." That's all you need, and that description fits best into World of A Song of Ice and Fire, with or without leaving a redirect behind. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or delete: If, as the nominator states, the content is the same as it was in an article deleted by AfD and it still has the same problems, this would fall into G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. As I cannot know for sure since I never read the original article, I have also weighted the individual merits of the article as it is, and the article is unreferenced, the fictional organization does not meet the general notability guideline and the content is a plot-only description of a fictional work. A Song of Ice and Fire may be notable but notability is not inherited to every content fork, and this article is an arbitrary content fork and an unnecessary split. Jfgslo (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see in the article history I tried to delete it under G4, but no admin was willing to bite and it was eventually contested. The content was also not completely the same, as I trimmed a lot of cruft when I merged. Perhaps we can ask an admin to temporarily undelete the deleted pages for review? Yoenit (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic will be gaining additional RS mentions as the HBO series Game of Thrones progresses. This is a spectacularly bad time to try and delete it, and there is nothing wrong with the article which cannot be fixed through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 , early closure per WP:SNOW. Marasmusine (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpointing[edit]

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

Speedy delete via AFD — Neologism unique to single game, no sources. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:13, 26 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. Neutrality^talk 23:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hopp[edit]

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

Autobiography. In response to a BLP-Prod tag, all the subject could come up with was a picture of some of his paintings in a newspaper. Not enough to meet our notability guidelines, as my own search in news ardhives only turned up false positives. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. A brief blurb in a community paper is not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. When a prod is removed without a satisfactory rationale, that tends to be a red flag that no such rationale exits, and the article is about a non-notable subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple trivial mentions, but doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only the Phoenix NewTimes slide captioned as Art by Jeff Hopp counts as an independent source and it's hard to imagine how it could be less significant. Fails WP:GNG "sources address the subject directly in detail ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ..." Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 31 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 as an article that served no purpose other than promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penryn Pride[edit]

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

Speedy delete: Neologism not having sources. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 27 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! 04:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Millie Mag[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia requirements for notability. Doesn't seem to be any significant coverage in reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about an American hip-hop/rap artist from the Philadelphia area. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of substantial coverage.--Pink Bull 21:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability. Seems to be just a session musician with a bit of solo mixes, basking in the glow of others. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 00:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Grinnon[edit]

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

Not a notable basketball player - does not meet notability standards for college players (award winner, record holder, significant non-trivial media coverage) nor did he play in a major professional league. Now out of the game. Rikster2 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself says that he rarely playied for the majority of the championship season. Not much on his life online. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NSPORTS nor does he meet WP:GNG for significant, non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in multiple independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being on a national championship winning team, even for a major sport like American college basketball, does not mean inherited notability. He rarely played, and his claim to fame of winning both the ACC tourney and national championship is not grounds for notability, either. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G6 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes in dogs and cats[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —France3470 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary dab page as the the topics are clearly separate and distinct from eachother as well as being only partial matches to the title, see WP:PTM. A hatnote already exists at both pages which takes care of any confusion. See also Diabetes in cats and dogs also at AFD. France3470 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - frankieMR (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally a redirect to diabetes in cats and dogs, which was originally one article and then split into diabetes in cats and diabetes in dogs. And then this was repurposed into a disambiguation page, for which I agree it is completely unnecessary. Given all that, I don't see why this needs a full AFD to proceed: couldn't this be a speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6? postdlf (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. The reason I decided on AFD was that it really did not conform to the requirements of G6:dg-disambig. However, in retrospect I think a G6 is still appropriate. Will tag both now. France3470 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G6 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes in cats and dogs[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —France3470 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary dab page as the the topics are clearly separate and distinct from eachother as well as being only partial matches to the title, see WP:PTM. A hatnote already exists at both pages which takes care of any confusion. See also Diabetes in dogs and cats also at AFD. France3470 (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - frankieMR (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally a single article on both topics, and then was split into diabetes in cats and diabetes in dogs (first by moving this page to diabetes in cats, so there is no useful edit history at diabetes in cats and dogs). And then this was repurposed into a disambiguation page, for which I agree it is completely unnecessary. Given all that, I don't see why this needs a full AFD to proceed: couldn't this be a speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6? postdlf (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now tagged G6. France3470 (talk) 04:05, 27 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 Tucson, Arizona#Primary_and_secondary_schools. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Freire Freedom School[edit]

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

Another non-notable grade 6-8 school. A redirect is probably not appropriate given the school's type. Raymie (t • c) 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD was not previously transcluded on today's log. It is now. Hut 8.5 18:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Twinkle broke? The AfD template was not placed on the article either automatically, nor was the user notified. Raymie (t • c) 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tucson, Arizona#Primary_and_secondary_schools, as is standard practice for primary schools that don't meet notability. tedder (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tucson, Arizona#Primary_and_secondary_schools as is the de facto practice for article about elementary/primary schools lacking references to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 15:16, 27 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. Acroterion (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrumtru Withdrawal[edit]

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

Neologism; no sources, possible hoax. TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn – speedily deleted while this nom was processing in Twinkle. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 26 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krigsprisen[edit]

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

Non-notable Norwegian radio program with no reliable sources or significant, non-trivial coverage: WP:RPRGM. Meph^talk 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would be speedy delete if it had fit formally with the criteria. Geschichte (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable student radio programme. De728631 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per improvements by Ruud (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 00:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAUST (programming language)[edit]

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

FAUST was created at GRAME (Centre National de Creation Musicale). Their papers and talks thus do not constitute significant independent coverage. See discussion for ChucK for comparison. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone accuses me of "deception" again, I know there's a tutorial on it at CCRMA, but it is WP:SPS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your concern about the Smith article? WP:SPS states an exception, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm not familiar with the subject but Smith gives credit for the creation of FAUST to "Yann Orlarey et al." so he appears to be independent and secondary and he also appears to be a previously published expert. I think this duplicates the other Smith citation, the one that did get published, meaning this is still just one source (i.e., one person saying something.) But if we hadn't had the other, I personally would have accepted this one. Msnicki (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said at ANI that they don't count for notability, just like my essay. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines are fairly technical and not always intuitive, e.g., the plain language notion that something is notable if it seems notable versus the technical definition here that a subject is notable if and only if reliable independent sources have actually taken note. It's deceptively easy to fall into a trap not unlike trying to represent yourself in court, not realizing there's a whole bunch of statutes, case law and procedures that you're supposed to know. The differences between your essay and the Smith article are (1) you're anonymous here and can't be qualified as an expert in comparing apples to apples, (2) even if you did identify yourself and you were an expert in apple comparisons, we don't permit original research here and (3) Smith is an expert and he's published his material elsewhere. Msnicki (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs to be expanded, but I've added references that seem to establish notability. - SudoGhost™ 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://books.w3k.org/index.html W3K publishing published a grand total of 4 books, all by the same author, Julius Smith, who also wrote the CCRMA tutorial. And coverage in those books is minimal anyway. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Publishing three books has no bearing on anything. Introduction to Digital Filters: With Audio Applications. has a section on Faust that is 16 pages long, hardly minimal. The Computer Music Association reference likewise covers it over the course of 4 pages. Neither of these are a "brief" mention by any stretch of the imagination. - SudoGhost™ 19:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SudoGhost, I'm confused. I found (what I thought was) Introduction to Digital Filters: With Audio Applications online and the section on FAUST sure doesn't look like 16 pages to me. Am I looking at the wrong thing? Msnicki (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that's the same section (it refers to Appendix K, so I don't think so. But this is what I was referring to. It begins at page 417 and goes from there. - SudoGhost™ 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it matters much. Both the book authored by Smith and published by W3K publishing and the tutorial by Smith on his CCRMA home page have practically the same content about FAUST. It's one source for all practical purposes. I don't know if a publisher that has published a grand total of four books (all of which are penned by the same author) is anymore convincing than a self-published pdf. I agree that Smith is independent of the GRAME group though. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SudoGhost, that's very useful. I've fixed the citation in the article and because this is clearly a much stronger published source, I'm changing my position to weak keep, below. FuFoFuEd, the reason this matters is that I had previously understood both the Smith sources to be flawed, albeit differently. One was quite long but never made it to print and the made it to print but appeared incidental. Now we have one that's both in print and substantial. Msnicki (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete.~~ Weak keep. I just went through and fixed the citations, finding them all online and looking at them. Only one of the sources, the Smith book, is useful to establish notability ~~and even it is quite short.~~ but it's actually a pretty darn good one compared to a lot of the junk that's offered on WP. The Orlarey et al paper is a primary source and not useful. The Lee book is such a brief mention as to make one wonder why anyone would bother citing it all. Right now, I think this subject fails the requirement for significant coverage by independent secondary sources required by WP:GNG. In my view, it still needs another article by an independent source that's really about FAUST to get it over the hurdle. I would still prefer to see a second good source but I think what we now have just barely clears. Msnicki (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We now have two good sources, the Smith book and either of the LAC papers. My WP:!VOTE is that this now satisfies WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is also the (relatively independent) paper "Interfacing Pure Data with Faust" (by Albert Gräf, University of Mainz, the author of Pure (programming language)). There aren't that many (academic) stream programming languages out there and Faust would be among the more notable among them. WP:GNG is mainly intended to get rid of all those toy programming languages written by computer science undergraduates during their compiler construction course. —Ruud 15:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add the citation to the article, please? This could change me from weak keep to keep. Msnicki (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ruud 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've filled in the URLs, moved the citations inline and changed my WP:!VOTE to keep. Msnicki (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I know SNOW has been deprecated for AfD in general, but in this instance I think it is more important to thwart the efforts of mitbbs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of California Anti-Chinese racism[edit]

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

This seems to be two unrelated incidents. It makes no sense to me to include them together on one article. Also, see somewhat related ANI discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Obviously important topic. UCSD has the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination dedicated to reviewing these cases. CallawayRox (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, single events that cosmically don't matter. That UCSD has an office on it is commendable but doesn't really concern us. --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If UCSD takes this seriously, then why shouldn't Wikipedia? CallawayRox (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably Speedy delete -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 UCLA racism controversy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Synthesis of two unrelated unimportant events, slammed together to paint a picture of university-wide, systemic racism. These are the kinds of negative attack pages that bring the Wikipedia into disrepute. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unrelated incidents having no encyclopedic significance, falling under WP:BLP1E. Acroterion (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. unimportant event that doesn't need to have an article on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just two unrelated local news events, not an suitable encyclopedia topic. Peacock (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is obvious synthesis meant to push a POV. Placing two objectionable topics together arbitrarily, both of which fail wp:web, does not make the combined article unobjectionable. See this ANI and the erstwhile clandestine off-wiki attack campaign it documents. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Withdrawn joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Murphy (hurler)[edit]

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

WP:N I haven't been able to verify the existence of this hurling player and coach, although there is a much younger player of the same name. The coaching stints look quite notable, but without a source that isn't a wikimirror, I'm stuck. The author hasn't replied to previous attempts to ask for help in sourcing, but I'll make sure they're informed in this nomination. Additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:35, 26 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visix[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Unambiguous advertising for a software development firm for visual communication applications, commonly referred to as digital signage:

next big product premiered in 1989
The company’s driving idea was to expand the concept of digital signage so that anything with a screen could become a display for messaging.
Visix, Inc. designs, develops and supports a suite of software applications that allow users to create, import and manage visual communications from anywhere using a Web browser-based interface, and to deliver those messages to multiple endpoints.
The company aims to provide everything needed for comprehensive communications - including the software they develop, hardware to run that software, and distribution accessories. They also provide multi-tier service and support options to help their customers manage and maintain their visual communications.

for a non-notable business. References provided refer to press release style stories announcing new product versions; and to inclusions in various Top 5000, 500, 100 lists; none of those references establish genuine notability, much less a significant effect on history, technology, or culture. The article contains an entirely unreferenced but quite elaborate company history, suggesting that this article was originated by an insider at the business. Yet another tech firm advertising on Wikipedia. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak delete. This article looks like written by a PR person/department/firm. Who else would know that this company ranked 2,763 out of 5000? Their Wikipedia article lists a large number of sources as External Links. I have checked a few of those, and they only mention this company briefly. If someone can point out some significant independent coverage among all that, I'll change my vote; I've watchlisted this discussion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's press releases. Lots of press releases. But I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ADVERT Mariepr (talk) 14:35, 28 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Carley[edit]

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

non-notable, does not meet WP:BIO or any other standard, as per standard searches Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's quoted here and there, but there's no significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a resume, nothing notable about him to meet WP:BIO. Just a run of the mill manager in the finance sector. LibStar (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe run of the mill is a bit harsh (joking) but I am the subject and agree this shouldn't be here - a wikipedia entry is the last thing I want. Please delete away. Kb123 (talk) 15:55, 31 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 List of minor Marvel Comics characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources. [[User:Anthem of joy|Anthem]] (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of minor Marvel Comics characters. Two characters share the name Armageddon. One is a minor character of an alternate universe [1] [2] and the other Armageddon (Arm'Chedon) is in the main continuity [3] [4] [5]--Crazy runner (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Crazy runner. BOZ (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of minor Marvel Comics characters. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the content can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. Since the content is not sourced and any content would come from primary sources or by original research by synthesis, I do not believe that a merge is warranted. Jfgslo (talk) 16:21, 31 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Jacobson[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:BIO, paucity of sources, nothing even close to establishing notability under any standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources. The article strays far from a neutral point of view and is sourced entirely to primary sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stub or delete. There are mentions in a couple of academic journals:
- [6]
- [7] (see also [8])
Google Books mentions are mostly self-published authors; perhaps with the exception of [9].
Google News coverage is incidental: [10]; enough to verify that the person exists, but not to write a long article about him. --JN 466 11:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The possible exception isn't an exception. It is also a self-published book. Google Books tells us that the author is Martin Ucik, and the publisher is singles2couples publishing. The Singles2couples web site tells us that Martin Ucik is the founder of singles2couples. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. All in all, I think it's a delete. --JN 466 13:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a long advertisement, WP:SPAM. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. His "publisher," by its own admission, publishes only his books [11]. Qworty (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert per arguments of Qworty. Yworo (talk) 14:15, 31 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and violates our guidelines on coverage of fiction. Merging of content seems an unlikely solution as the list List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons has been deleted via a discussion. There is no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Anthem of joy (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. As the article is unreferenced, there is no verifiability, so there is no evidence that the fictional weapon meets the general notability guideline or that it can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. A quick search engine test shows nothing to presume different. Jfgslo (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any non-trivial reliable source coverage. Probably better suited for a Wikia project. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:NOT mentions the idea of weapons lists in terms of games, but it really is good advice for all toys and fiction. In general, these end up being WP:DIRECTORY style databases with very little context, and tend to run afoul of the same issue as WP:NOTPLOT. The spirit of policy calls for deleting this material, as does previous consensus at similar AFDs (see above). But if this is disputed, it might be worth further clarification (and discussion if necessary) at WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (note - same reason cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (2nd nomination))[reply]
Delete Notability issues as no references WP:GNG and per above - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW delete , which I'm going to implement as a protected redirect to Sola scriptura, as appropriate for a POV fork. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Christian[edit]

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

This appears to be an unnecessary conceptual fork from Christianity and has been deleted twice as promotional. Raising for discussion as to any possible future credibility to a claim that this might be considered notable, verifiable or might be re-written in a neutral tone in the near future. Considering the repeated resurrection, salting may be in order. Fæ (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Fæ (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; essentially tautological essay. A Biblical Christian - is a Christian (believer of the Lord Jesus Christ), whose belief and practice, doctrine and conduct, principle and way are strictly 100% Biblical (being in accord with the Holy Bible). The sticky points, as usual, are interpretation and implementation. A redirect to sola scriptura might actually work here; that's the article that discusses the use of the Christian Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice, and issues resulting from that. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork. Redirection to sola scriptura is an excellent suggestion as that does indeed seem to be the article which covers the topic. --AJHingston (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork, or an unencyclopedic subject, or an original POV essay. Take your pick. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is this a content fork, this has the potential for crippling POV issues... what Protestant Christians wouldn't consider themselves "Biblical Christians" given this usage of the term? It looks like the author's intent is to draw a false distinction between Christian groups. That the article is completely uncited makes this even worse. eldamorie (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So obvious I shouldn't have to give a rationale. There must be some criteria under which this can be speedily deleted. St Anselm (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2008 Baghdad bombings[edit]

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

Article is a news item, which lacks ongoing notability. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" for which NOTNEWS was intended. This is also a classic example of WP:BIAS. A similar incident (with 32 deaths) in a Western country would not for a second be nominated for deletion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per brewcrewer--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. And -- notability is not fleeting.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bercrewer. It's not the right application for NOTNEWS.--Oakshade (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-documented, major terrorist attacks in the modern world - involving hundreds or dead or wounded casualties - are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 September 2008 Dujail bombing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a news item, which lacks ongoing notability. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Per WP:GEOSCOPE, the fact that this terrorist attack has been reported internationally suggests that it is notable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large fatality count, and change from four-year pattern, as well as RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Epeefleche--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Big Bear earthquake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a news item, which lacks ongoing notability. Furthermore there was no damage or casualties. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons articulated in detail in the first AfD, especially by User:Davemcarlson and User:Oakshade, clearly demonstrating that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply and explaining why this earthquake is better covered at its own page. Also, it is not correct that this earthquake caused no damages; USGS characterizes it as having caused "substantial damage and landslides in the Big Bear Lake and Big Bear City areas."[12] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very significant coverage, much of it even years after the earthquake, therefore WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. [13][14][15] WP:NOTNEWS, as it states, is meant to discourage articles from "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." A 7.3 earthquake is not a routine event. There is no "must be deaths" requirements for article topics. --Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is notable and covers a significant even. Judging from review of article and review of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:00, 29 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. Neutrality^talk 23:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Fans' College Poll[edit]

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

Non-notable college football poll that existed for four years and no longer does. The members of the poll are non-notable (as far as I can tell) college football fans with no ties to the media or to NCAA programs. X96lee15 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —X96lee15 (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article cites no coverage of this poll in independent reliable sources,and I could find none. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "blogspot" doesn't really qualify for the kind of sources we need.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No directly relevant independent reliable sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG, there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources are all self-published (I removed text and sources that were used for irrelevant discussion of BCS poll and possible POV-push that it was being considered for inclusion in BCS rankings.) This article could be considered WP:PROMOTION, as the poll's website at http://scfpoll.blogspot.com/p/about-poll.html says "For more information, including historical polls, click here", and clicking links back to the Wikipedia article. WP is serving as a repository for this organization! —Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (non-notable), Arxiloxos and Metropolitan (no reliable sources), and Bagumba (self-promotion). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 days (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur film, no sources available on quick check. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find absolutely no mention of this film anywhere else online—even its existence seems non-verifiable. ----Smeazel (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Smeazel. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax article created by User Dre williams about a "film" to star Dre Williams. Film and "actors" fail WP:V. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, hoax article. Keb25 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Kenya–Somalia border clash[edit]

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

Article is a news item, which lacks ongoing notability. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because this part of the world is neglected by the world's media does not make it any less notable than 2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash. A border clash is a border clash. We are lucky it made the news. We need not over burden wikipedia with articles related only to the Israeli-Arab conflict and nothing else. Chesdovi (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable border clash (due to news coverage). By their very nature, such events do not have an easily measurable long term impact. --[[User:Anthem of joy|Anthem]] (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS, as it states, is meant to discourage articles based on "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." An armed conflict between two sovereign nations is not "routine" and, as Anthem of joy pointed out, always has long term impact.--Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous comments. An armed border clash is certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep newsworthy article. Bazonka (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chesdovi. Kavas (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Border clashes seem to inherently notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm sorry ZGBradley. I have no doubt that you and your classmates have fun playing this game but it's not verifiable outside the circle of you and your friends. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trapball[edit]

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

Subject is a game created by an 8th grade class in 2011. Lots of confusing Ghits but none that I cold find about this particular game. PROD was removed without improvement or pertinent rationale. Concern was: Not notable - See WP:MADEUP, WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is about as clear-cut a case of WP:MADEUP as you could ask for. ----Smeazel (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable game made up in school one day, fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:MADEUP. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:41, 31 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 Moot. Since this whole AFD is completly tainted by socking I'm calling it void. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Closer to Your World[edit]

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

A whole myriad of television news theme articles were deleted in July 2010 (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-2 Package. I cannot see how this differs from any of the other ones that were deleted. Also if it has any real significance, it should have a bit more mention than being listed on a laundry list on the Television news music page. This is of course ignoring the fact that the article seems to be written from a fanboy perspective and includes the complete lyrics to the theme song (an obvious copyright violation) as well as a dearth of sources. If anything, it should maybe have a brief mention on the TV stations that use the theme song's pages, but that is it. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-2 Package specifically excluded this article and has no relevance here. Orphan status, "fanboy" perspective and possible inclusion of a copyright violation are all fixable through normal editing. The only real reason for deletion given here is lack of sources. I'll see what I can find. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the article is not an orphan, with over 20 incoming article links. To open this up, I'll add whatever sources I find to the article, either as refs or as external links. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Addition to proposal for deletion - I don't see how the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-2 Package isn't relevant. First off, this seems to not meet the WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC criteria. The user who suggested that "Move Closer to Your World" not get deleted seems to have the overwhelming majority of edits in television related topics, so that seems to smack of some sort of vested interest. If anything, it should have a a brief mention on the TV stations that use the theme song's pages, if for some reason (which I can't see) listing what jingles and theme songs a particular TV station used is noteworthy. In fact the links to the page you mention are basically mentions like "WPXI is known to commission its own theme music from companies, although it has previously used the famous "Move Closer to Your World" theme. It has commissioned both "Total Coverage" (its previous package still used by WJAC) and after WPXI moved to its new Summer Hill Television Building, it started using the Tower V.2, ending the NBC collection all together." or In 1970, the station was the first to promote its newscasts with a jingle called "Move Closer to Your World". and "It even used Move Closer to Your World, the theme song made famous by WPVI (though it was known by the station as The Eyewitness News Theme). " Several of the linked articles make the claim that this is a famous jingle, but with out any proof to back the fact that is widely known outside the circle of television theme song enthusiasts and seems much akin to a restaurant adding famous to its name to make it seem special. If it is truly famous, I would expect at least two articles in a publication of the stature and wide range of The New York Times specifically about this theme song. - Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-2 Package is not relevant to this discussion because this article was not included in that discussion other than by one editor specifically stating not to delete it (and two others specifying not to delete the related Television news music. That discussion is simply a moot point here. Your theory about one editor's supposed "vested interest" there is similarly a moot point. (If they !vote here and you can demonstrate an actual conflict of interest it would matter.) The quality/meanings of the incoming wikilinks is moot. I was merely stating that the article is not an orphan, though your nomination implied otherwise. Incidentally, if I am completely wrong on all of these points, your case for deletion is still solely based on lack of reliable sources as none of the other issues are reasons for deletion. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It is relevant. It is apples to apples. One could make all the same arguments for deleting those others could be made for this one. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Yes, one could make the same arguments. Fine make those arguments or the others can make those arguments or someone else can. Those arguements, discussing this article are then relevant. People discussing different articles -- whether you consider them the same or similar -- are not relevant to this discussion. The argument for deletion here is lack of reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet or violates WP:NRVE. WP:GNG, WP:NOTLYRICS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING,WP:NOR and is trivial Fancruft/Listcruft. Overpush (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of User:Rageholic Filled With Ragehol (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rageholic_Filled_With_Rageahol)[reply]
Delete. The article is largely unsourced. If this music package is notable, I'd expect there to be some sources such as articles from television industry magazines or music industry magazines. So far, the sources consist of what appear to be mostly television news music fansites. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. All sources I have found are either from the production company and/or distributor, pages of limited utility from the stations themselves (mostly bare mentions), download sites (likely copyright vios with no helpful info) and blogs/forums. ~~Withholding my !vote until the new info (below) plays out.~~ - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC) See below. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is coverage of this theme music in this book. Not available for preview, but snippet can be seen. Barely visible in this one. And some other book hits which aren't visible in snippet views either. Given the age of the music, there may be offline sources that we do not have available through a google search. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Very brief mentions in obscure books hardly seems as a worthy reason for inclusion. This one [16] just seems to mention it in a list - so would the other theme songs listed there be also worthy of inclusion? I think not. While this one [17] just mentioned that a TV station used it. I am sure you could find brief mentions in obscure books for the laundry list of other similar theme songs. Finally, that would just leave this one source [18] which seems to be more anecdotal than anything else and doesn't indicate the importance of this theme song. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - The one with the available preview specifically states "During the 1970s "Move Closer to Your World" became in effect, and anthem for local TV news." Along with info about it being released on records and becoming the theme for 92 local news casts. I would say that does indicate the importance of this theme song. There's may be coverage in offline sources which we have not explored that cover this topic. We have one significant online source. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Were these records promotional items from a television station that used the theme or were they a legitimate commercial record label release? Also the source you cite seems to be dealing more with anecdotal evidence. If this was such a watershed TV theme, why isn't there more about it? Why does it not appear to have a commercially released recording in any format? I hardly call your one source significant. It is one book with nothing to confirm that it is factual. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - The "obscure" book is from a professor at the Cronkite School at ASU. IMO, it is certainly a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - It is one book and you seem to think that academics are reliable sources and act like they are some sort of being that would never lie or stretch the truth to fit their own narrative. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - SERIOUSLY? It's a textbook. If you would like to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, PLEASE do. Otherwise, it is a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment If you think textbooks are always accurate I have a bridge I want to sell you. [19] [20] [21] [22] Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - We accept that even reliable sources can make mistakes. Do you have any specific complaints about this source? If not then, it's a rather pointless with respect to this dicsussion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources identified, "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups" (Al Ham, London Philharmonic Orchestra, 615 Music and Cliff Schwarz) and used by numerous stations throughout the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico, Australia, Brazil, Peru and Asia, as well as in Lizzie McGuire. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WTF? This one source revealed all that? Did I miss something? Where in the one source you found did it reveal it was used by numerous stations throughout the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico, Australia, Brazil, Peru and Asia, as well as in Lizzie McGuire. Where are the "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups"? You mentioned Al Ham, London Philharmonic Orchestra, 615 Music and Cliff Schwarz - they were all no doubt contracted by various TV stations to re-record the theme for their own use - it is a cover version of a proprietary work. Lets take the London Philharmonic Orchestra. Searches of several of their discographies reveal there is no commercially available recording of this theme song. I doubt there were any independent releases of the theme song. You seem to use dubious logic. The article is filled with obvious original research and uses sources which seem to be fan sites. If this was something of note it would have had a commercially released recording and would have shown up in more literature and not just random fanboy sites. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The London Philharmonic Orchestra website [23] or IMDB [24] mentions nowhere on its website they ever did a recording of this theme song. You would expect them to list it if it is a significant and important bit of music, which it is obviously not. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Per WP:NSONG, songs that are "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups" are notable. Do you doubt Al Ham, London Philharmonic Orchestra, 615 Music and Cliff Schwarz recorded the song? Independent reliable sources have been listed. You seem to shift tact with the wind. I say it's not an orphan, you say the links don't count (still, it's not an orphan). I say a textbook is a reliable source, you say the author might by lying and textbooks are sometimes wrong (you still haven't taken this to the the reliable sources noticeboard). I say it's been recorded by "by several notable artists, bands or groups", you say they were contracted and don't seem to be commercially available (it has still been recorded "by several notable artists, bands or groups") (Actually, Al Ham should read "Al Ham with the Hillside Singers".). I list the countries it's been used in (along with the Lizzie Mcguire use) and you somehow decide that I said this was all in one source. If you'd like a released copy of the song, the Grand Rapids Public Library has the single in the Richard Vander Veen collection.[25], you can see another copy here. It was also on several production albums and on "Eyewitness News Music: The Action News Series... Move Closer to Your World" We have addition input from Broadcast Pioneers [26][27][28], SFLTV[29], Eyewitness News[30], PBRTV[31], WNEP-TV[32], WTNH-TV[33], KTRK-TV[34], ‘’Philadelphia Magazine’’[35], wnymedia[36], KCTV[37], WPXI[38], etc. Having read the criteria at WP:MUSIC/WP:NSONG and WP:GNG, I cannot see where Rageahol is getting fuel for this from. Since the addition of the textbook and other book sources, it’s a mystery. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment -Did your even read any of these? Your "http://eyewitness-news.co.tv/" source is just a copy of the Eyewitness News Wikipedia article and states "Source : Wikipedia.org" on the bottom of what appears to be some sort of domain holding page, ditto for http://wnep-tv.co.tv and http://kctv.co.tv. Not independent and reliable. The link [39] to the Grand Rapids Public Library states "No matches found" in a search for "move closer to your world". The link at http://thekey.xpn.org/category/scene (actual link to article [40] ) states that it is actually another theme song and you might actually want to note that the record there is a promotional one issued by the station. The WTNH link [41] just mentioned the theme song in one of the user's comments - hardly a reliable source. The KTRK link [42] appears to be some sort of borking of the ABC local TV station content management system which is showing content from another station (I swapped out ktrk in the url for wabc and got this [43] )and the words "move closer to your world" are used in the following non-theme song related sentence "6abc is bringing you one more way to move closer to your world, with Action News at 4pm!" The following are just fanboy sites wnymedia.net [44] (only reference is the sentence "They’ve brought back the “Move Closer to Your World” Eyewitness News theme music, and they run old clips to herald its glory days." which includes a link to the Move Closer to Your World Wikipedia article, pbrtv.com [45] (only mention was this inside baseball sentence "We said goodbye to Al Ham's "Move Closer to Your World" Theme in exchange for 615 Music Productions' theme."), sfltv.com [46] just mentions it on the comments to a blog post "The “11 Alive” branding is to WXIA and its viewers… just like the “Move Closer To Your World” theme music is to WPVI and its viewers. " - again a highly reliable source (sarcasm). The Philadelphia Magazine article [47] states just the following "Action News Theme Song: “Move closer to your world, my friend. … ” What, you didn’t know there were words?" Seriously, did you read any of these? As for the London Philharmonic Orchestra there is no reliable source that shows they ever recorded the theme song, something that you would expect to mention if it is a significant piece of music. Also if any of those mentioned recorded it, it should be listed in any sort of discography of their works. As for the Broadcast Pioneers the sentence "By the way, when Walter was the Promotions Director at 6ABC, he co-wrote the Action News theme song, "Move Closer to Your World." was used in two of the links and the third is a third hand recollection of someone [48]. If it was significant, wouldn't this organization have a longer mention of it instead of a bio and a passing mention in a newsletter? I really doubt that you even read any of these other than taking a brief glance at them and just assumed they supported your hypothesis. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Recorded by "several notable artists, bands or groups". Your most recent doubt is the London Philharmonic Orchestra. SouthernMedia admits the (then) new version was unpopular. Barring claims that they lied about who recorded the song and slandered the London Philharmonic Orchestra (for reasons unknown), I submit that the production company is a reliable source for who has recorded their song. We have unquestionably reliable sources: News is people: the rise of local TV news and the fall of news from New York a textbook by Craig Allen at the Cronkite School, Sound and Music in Film and Visual Media: An Overview another textbook, by Graeme Harper, Jochen Eisentraut and Ruth Doughty all of the Berklee College of Music, Critiquing radio and television content another textbook,by Peter B. Orlik director and professor in Central Michigan University’s School of Broadcast and Cinematic Arts, 2001 recipient of the Broadcast Education Association’s Distinguished Education Service Award and a 2003 inductee into the Michigan Broadcasting Hall of Fame. Feel free to take any of those to the the reliable sources noticeboard. Otherwise, that's three unquestionably reliable sources (plus Broadcasting , Volume 87, Inside local television news, Critiquing radio and television content and [[Welcome south, brother: Fifty years of broadcasting at WSB, Atlanta, Georgia), along with Al Ham and the Hillside Singers, London Philharmonic Orchestra, 615 Music and Cliff Schwarz. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Did you read any of these things or were you too busy coming up with fake sockpuppet allegations to prove you are in the right when clearly you aren't, something that you would have noticed if you took the time to actually read and grasp the context of your precious sources. Just because someone did some academic ball licking doesn't make them an expert, it makes them a ball licker. Still that isn't really the issue, the issue is that these sources have the words "move closer to your world" in them and you think just because they have those words in that order it makes it a relevant source, but you ignore the context of the words. As Overpush, who is so obviously a sockpuppet of me (sarcasm), "what I am thinking is causing the confusion is that "Move Closer to Your World" is both a music package and a similar related slogan/tagline." You can't see the difference between the two in your rage. The next time you go to Tim Horton's get a decaf. Did you fail reading comprehension or something? Sources might mention words, but it is the context that makes them relevant. In your case sir or madam, you are citing a great deal of irrelevant non-sense, websites that are nothing more than domain placeholders that recycle Wikipedia content, and things that just happen to have words "move closer to your world" in them in that order. I gave up after about 50 pages of google search results for relevant and quality sources of information. Seriously, when you are citing things like comments to blog posts, fanboy sites and newsletters something is wrong and it is obvious that "Move Closer to Your World" is not important. Look at WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUBLISH like my sockpuppet (more sarcasm) said. Then maybe actually read for context the sources you think actually mention it. It isn't hard and even a Canadian can do it. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not enough importance to justify this article or this level of silly debate, especially the exchange between the two guys arguing what the sources really say. There are a lot of google hits for this bit of cheesy 70s music, but hardly any of them seem to be reputable consisting mainly of anorak websites and the like. There seems to be some mention in various text books and what appears to be contemporary references to the song (not sure the proper name of what to call it - song? theme? album?), but they seem to be drive by references that just mention the name of the music with "Critiquing radio and television content" [49] and "Inside local television news" [50] seeming to use the idea of "Move closer to your world" as a branding/promotional slogan that is consistently used by a TV station and not a specific piece of music, something made clear by the context. They would be very good sources if they actually talked about the use of the music and not the use of slogans. You two guys are both right and wrong at the same time, it is kind of cute. Still there is nothing that seems to show the notability of this bit of music except by those who seem to have an obsession for such minutiae that would Mr. Neville Shunt's delusional enthusiasm for railway timetables. Railway timetables most likely have a greater cultural impact on the world than this little bit of moldy 1970s cheese. DCMA Takedown Notice to Follow Shortly (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)— DCMA Takedown Notice to Follow Shortly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. blocked as a sock of Rageholic Filled with Ragehol (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rageholic_Filled_With_Rageahol)[reply]

- Comment Way to stifle discussion SummerPhD. I am amazed you didn't add Overpush to your campaign of lies and false allegations. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - User:DCMA Takedown Notice to Follow Shortly was blocked as a sock of User:Rageholic Filled with Ragehol (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rageholic_Filled_With_Rageahol) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUBLISH needs to be looked at by both SummerPhD and Rageholic Filled With Rageahol. Both make some good points, but I think there is some issue of sources here. I wouldn't call the SouthernMedia site a reliable source mainly for the facts they rely on user submissions and they seem to not have any contact information other than an e-mail as well as having a private domain registration with Domains by Proxy, Inc. listed as the contact [51], which may have something to do with their questionable use of copyrighted materials. I was able to find a bootleg recording of the music package for $7.50 [52], but not any legitimate releases. DCMA Takedown Notice to Follow Shortly does make a good point that most of the textbooks that SummerPhD cites are lacking in proper context despite being reliable sources, as what I am thinking is causing the confusion is that "Move Closer to Your World" is both a music package and a similar related slogan/tagline. The Al Ham article seems to be lacking sources and references along with being a visual train wreck and I have tagged it as unreferenced and called for more references in the Cliff Schwarz and The Hillside Singers. Perhaps an alternative solution to deletion would be merging the verifiable parts of the Move Closer to Your World article into the Al Ham et. al. articles. As the article stands now, I still move for deletion if multiple reliable sources for the information in the article are not presented. Overpush (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of User:Rageholic Filled With Ragehol (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rageholic_Filled_With_Rageahol)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 00:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Keane[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Clicriffhard (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Clicriffhard (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and has not made a fully pro appearance meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeAndre aka Bigg Khrisco[edit]

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

This article is an extremely well-written autobiography, and I hope this AfD does not scare off the editor from contributing further to Wikipedia. Ultimately, however, there are no reliable sources that can support this subject meeting WP:MUSICBIO. The artist is self-publishing. The websites listed are social media sites, upload sites, press releases, YouTube videos, discography websites, or the artist's own website. I have not found any third-party sources supporting this artist's notability. Again, well-written article - just not notable. Singularity42 (talk) 13:17, 26 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) 04:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Reilly (director)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The external links in the article are to unreliable sources, pages which only barely mention him, an advertising site, etc. Likewise Google searches have produced a resume, various unreliable sources, etc, but nothing substantial. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Possible COI from creator of article (other articles created by the same user should also be AfD'd). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:35, 27 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) 04:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safdar Husain[edit]

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

Police officer who did his job, as some two hundred million(random number) police officers do in the world. Not notable, fails to fulfill WP notability criterion. Rather an appraisal someone wrote for a family member or a friend. --Martin H. (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Inspector rank, so would appear not to be notable- the article is hagiography which is irrelevant, but refer Wikipedia:Notability (people) Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person andy (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comment "Police officer who did his job, as some two hundred million (random number) police officers do in the world. Not notable, fails to fulfill WP notability criterion." it is not reasonable to make general propositions without considering the concrete cases, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used to say that General propositions do not decide concrete cases.

It is also not reasonable to expect the layman reader to read the history of an article of Wikipedia and check the revision history of an article, but we expect from an administrator or editor of Wikipedia who place a tag of deletion to check the revision history of an article. The original introductory para of the article reads as follows: “Safdar Huassain, a retired Senior Superintendent of Police, and formerly an Inspector of Police of Punjab Police (Pakistan) is famous for his bravery, gallantry, high degree of honesty. He served British Indian Police Service and Punjab Police, Pakistan with iron hands. In the present context of terrorism in Pakistan, old folks still talk about his bravery. The criminals were so terrified by his personality, that he was said to never wear the arms.” This introductory Para briefly describes the topic. But an editor like you has changed and now it reads as follows: “Safdar Huassain was a Senior Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police of Pakistan's Punjab police” and after reading this first line you have place the tag of deletion.

My original words, “In the present context of terrorism in Pakistan,” were deleted. Just type on the google “terrorism in Pakistan”, and you will find the most dangerous country of the earth. The police of this country is not like the police of your country. The criminals of this country are not like the criminals of your country. Now the army cannot control the persons, which it is the duty of Police to control, because we have no Police officers like Safdar Hussain. Just read the latest news 1 2

When I wrote the original article, there were also the following lines, deleted by your friend;

"He administered his area effectively and provided service & protection to the people of the area, who still remember his legacy, and in this context, the old folks talk about his positive role in the history of the Punjab Police (Pakistan). He was an exemplary police officer, who maintained a very high degree of honesty, integrity and professionalism. He was said by the people of Punjab (Pakistan) to put the gold necklace on the neck of a goat and let her go in his area, and no one dared to touch the goat. Due to political pressure by politicians allied the criminals of that time, the government was forced to transfer him, and actually transferred him but ultimately, Nawab of Kalabagh, Malik Amir Mohammad Khan, Governor of West Pakistan, who also belonged to same Awan (Pakistan) tribe of Safdar Huassain, cancelled this transfer. This time Safdar Hussain dealt with iron hands with the criminals." These all lines were deleted.

He has a fame that is still remembered by the people, still quoted by the judges in the court of Punjab, still discussed in the Police training centers. It is a general principle of Wikipedia that editors write in good faith. If i write an article on a village or town of my country or people, I write in good faith. English language is not my mother tongue, but I am making effort to contribute to Wikipedia. It is not reasonable for other editors that first to delete lines and change the article and then place tag of deletion, instead they should improve it. With respect, I have to disagree with you.Averroist (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references do not satisfy the need tor significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO, the standards for notability for bio articles in Wikipedia.There are two citations to a broken link (article not found) from the local police department, which might not be considered "independent" and a link to some webpage related to some mall, which not only does not mention him, but which would not be considered a "reliable source" for biographical information about historical figures. There is mention of a book, but no bibliographical information which would allow one to decide if it is a reliable and independent source. Lots of laudatory assertions made here by Wikipedia editors are not at all effective in establishing notability. Were there other books, newspapers and magazine articles from independent and reliable sources? Edison (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted 2 broken links. Webpages are often moved to other pages. with a small research an editor can find it. With regard to your comment "a link to some webpage related to some mall, which not only does not mention him, but which would not be considered a "reliable source" for biographical information" was given at the end of a line, only to refer to an historical event, not for biographical information." There are reference of 3 books in Urdu language. There are many articles of the newspaper "Daily Jang" written about this officer and many other officers, but are not available on internet. I am not a full time Wikipedian. I remembered the contents of the article, but unfortunately did not save date of publications of these articles. There is the archive of newspaper, but I am now out of my country. Averroist (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the notability of the person[edit]

I have significantly improved the article with 29 references and reliable sources to show that the person is a notable man in his area. Previously I did not mention his ancestry or praise his family background in order to prove his notability, but I tried to describe his personal contributions. But the above mentioned objections raised by the editors force me to do this. Even if we ignore his professional contribution, he is a notable man.

The electronic media of the modern world and specially his country is very different from his time. Most of the job he did under Martial law government, and he displeased the government. The press was not independent in his country and the electronic media started in his country in 2002. He got retirement in 1986.

During the course of my legal practice, I heard the fame of this officer. To find the references authorities and reliable sources is my job. I have created the article Scepticism in law with 26 references. I wrote the other article Punjab Muslim League with 47 references. Now I have added a document dated 1905 issued by a representative of the British Raj to the father of this person. This document clearly demonstrates the influence wielded by his father and grandfather among the tribe, and the tribe in the Punjab, during the era of the British Raj. Previously , due to this certificate ,the active editors of the article Awan( Pakistan) have added the image of this certificate and the name of Safdar Hussain in the article, which is also a prove of the notability of this person. Daily many people try to add the names in the article of this tribe, but it is reverted by the active editors, see the revision history of the article Averroist (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability or importance of the father is not an issue here. You added tons of references for nothing, you not improved the article in the required direction, the references are for trivial facts or for unrelated stuff. Besides all the blablabla in the article one of the rare important sentences is he maintained rule of law with iron hands, without any fear or favour, which made him a hero in the history of the Punjab Police (Pakistan).[35] The footnote 35 (in the currect revision) is a statement by a colleague. Sorry, this underlines the missing notability and it also underlines that there is no public coverage/literture related to the person and that the article is therefore some sort of original research to close this gap. --Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the notability or importance of the father is not an issue here. The issue is the notability of the person. I am a lawyer and know that what is the point of issue. I’ll come to it later but I ask you a question. What claim do you have to acquaintance with the tribal and feudal areas of Pakistan and their tribal heads. When in the end of the last century, While writing about the Chiefs of Punjab, Sir Lepel Henry Griffin states in his book entitled, “The Panjab Chiefs: the most authentic book on the subject that; “In Shahpur District, the Awans held the hilly country to the north west, Jalar, Naoshera (Naushera) and Sukesar, where the head of the tribe still resides. Here the writer is writing about his grandfather as the head of tribe. When a representative of British Raj in 1905 writes that his father “is the son-a respectable Awan of the Salt Range. He thus belongs to an influential tribe in which his father is much respected.”

It means that Our person is now the head of his tribe and so a person of notability, I also wrote that The author of the "Tareekh Awan", History of Awan, has listed the names of all the ancestors of Safdar Hussain, while giving his complete genealogical table starting from his father, Khan Sahib Qazi Zafar Hussain”. So noble an ancestry he has, that only Sir Olaf Caroe Governor of the North-West Frontier Province, who spent 60 years of his life among the tribal people, can appreciate it. but you wrote all this as blablabla. I always use decent language and civilized language and when I look in my Oxford dictionary. I could not find this phrase. When I searched on internet, I came to know that ‘

“The phrase bla bla bla is generally used in response to someone that has said one of the following things: something that is not interesting to you, something very close to the truth but you have no intention of admitting to, or just random comments of bullshit and sarcasim (most popular.) This phrase is commonly used in text messages and very popular in the town of Weert, Holland.”

Make yourself aware of Wikipedia's policy and do not use the phrase like this one. An editor of Britannica or Americana will never use these phrases. You are an administrator of Wikimedia, so please do not make the standard of wikipedia so low. Now come to the point. The name of the article is not Safdar Hussain as a Police Officer. If you find a sentence without proper reference you can edit it, change it, or delete the sentence, but please do something. But you have no right to delete the entire article. If you are not happy with picture with Police Uniform, I can upload other one without uniform. But the person is notable, if not as Police Officer (by your standard), as head of his tribe, as I have proved by references. If I find references you say that it is original research. Very clever, There is public coverage/literature lying in the the archive of the daily newspapers. But the archive before the year 2000 have not been digitalized of the newspaper of this country. Averroist (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is indeed Safdar Hussain, a retired Senior Superintendent of Police and formerly an Inspector of Police of Pakistan's Punjab police. Thats how the article introduces him and thats what the article is about. The article is not about Awans or hilly countries, although most of the content is such negligible narration. The core of the article not changed since your unexplained removal of the initial prod, the notablity is still not demonstrated. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have improved the article and the introduction in the light of your criticism. The introduction of his tribe Awans, its importance and his area (not the Hilly countries, you do not read the article with care, why do you taunt or you are prejudiced ) has been mentioned only under the heading “Family” and not in the whole article. It is also important because when due to political pressure by politicians allied the criminals of that time, the government was forced to transfer him, and actually transferred him but ultimately, Nawab of Kalabagh, Malik Amir Mohammad Khan, Governor of West Pakistan, who also belonged to same Awan (Pakistan) tribe of Safdar Huassain, cancelled this transfer. It is only his tribal background that he could survive political oppostion. With regard to your comments "the notablity is still not demonstrated" is your subjective and prejudiced opinion. Averroist (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to bring to your notice the two basic principles of Wikipedia. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time. So Please do not bite the newcomers Averroist (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article is victim of Discrimination[edit]

There are many other articles on wikipedia relating to Pakistani Police officers. These articles also needs additional citations for verification, and the tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia,but why only my article is victim of discrimination? which was far better than these articles.

Averroist (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector rank[edit]

With regard to the comment by Crusoe8181 that "Inspector rank, so would appear not to be notable-" the higher rank of police officer is not a criteria of notability. The criteria is his fame. During the period of British Raj prior to and following creation of Pakistan, this officer was more famous as inspector till 1960 because government was very strong, and the post is of field officer. Many dacoits were gunned down by his revolver at that time. With these Police encounters he acquired great fame. Later on, when he was promoted, and did his job as Superintendent of Police in period of great political instability, and frequently changing political government, he was less powerful than as Inspector.

The deletion discussion must be decided by those person who are authority on history, culture, and government of Pakistan and British Raj. When in the above para I added an internal link for Police encounters, I found the article Encounter killings by police. The starting words of this article is "Encounter killings is a euphemism used in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to describe extrajudicial killings in which police stage "gun battles" and shoot down suspected gangsters and terrorists." Now this job is mostly done by the rank of Police Inspector. Note that only 3 countries of the whole world has been listed in this definition. Many films have been made on this subject in these countries, and the film industry make great money by making these films.

"Crusoe8181" has in his mind the inspector rank of his own country. He does not know that what is Inspector Police of British Raj and the period following creation of Pakistan.Averroist (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiography[edit]

With regard to the comments of Crusoe8181 that "the article is hagiography ", I also wrote in the original article that "he was famous for his hot temperament and he used to beat hard criminals several time." and "and due to political opposition against this hot-tempered examplry police officer,". This is not a praise. This is a criticism. As a lawyer of criminal justice system, I strongly believe in the rule of law, and that a Police officer should not take law in his hand, but I wrote what is reality. Averroist (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family member or a friend[edit]

With regard to the comments of Martin H. that "Rather an appraisal someone wrote for a family member or a friend.”, the administrator of Wikimedia has insulted my contributions and services for Wikipedia and my writings. Why you wrote “someone wrote”. Do you know that you can check the name of user which created the article by seeing the revision history of the article. Do you know that you can make judgment about a user after seeing his user page and contributions. Do you know that this “someone”, has created 13 articles and improved how many artcles. They all are not my family members and friends. They are heroes, writers, philosophers of my nation. Please check that how many universities there are in our country, It was not any representative of university that wrote the articles but I wrote the articles. Please learn to make correct user page and please correct the html code of your user page before putting tag of deletion in any article. Averroist (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone in an English-speaking country with similar cridentials would undoubtedly be considered notable. However, I can't speak to the article's sources so I will refrain from !voting. Pink Bull 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry Averroist, you really seem to have a sincere admiration for Hussain and put a lot of effort in the article, but I must agree with Martin H. Most of the references are only for the tribe and geography, whereas the main claims to notability are only based on hearsay, folklore, and reputation. You may have heard others talk about him, you may have known him personally, but WP requires proof from reliable published sources. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) v/r - T P 19:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gery Chico[edit]

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

The subject appears to be fairly unremarkable, with the two claims to notability being that he is running for major of Chicago, and that he was given a local award. He does have coverage in the local press, but that is normal for candidates for significant local appointments, and WP:Politician does indicate that running for major by itself it not notable. There are no sources beyond the local press, and I wonder why people outside of Chicago would be interested. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:Politician says that "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" are likely to be considered notable. Chicago is a major metropolitan city, and Chico is the former head of the Chicago Public Schools and also of the Chicago Park District, in addition to having been an unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senator and mayor of Chicago. The article has numerous sources, which indicates that Chico meets the general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90 Geread (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Metropolitan90 Trilliumz (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Top municipal official in major cities like Chicago are notable. SilkTork's arguments would be quite convincing for a smaller city of a couple hundred thousand people, but they don't apply here. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was not convinced that the subject had broad coverage during the GA review and I agree with the nominator that the subject does not have sufficient notability for an encyclopaedia article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are quite a few citations that may point to influence, but he merely served in appointed positions restrained to Chicago, not in elected public office, and I don't think being board president specifically satifies public office notability, which leaves us with GNG, where the sources look as though they are similarly restricted to Chicago local matters, yet one could argue the coverage is significant, but is the content covered broad enough to justify keeping an article on an unelected local politician? I don't think so. Hekerui (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Metropolitan90 (talk) has said it far better than I can. Chicago citizens may want to know about him, even if I do not.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't much care reading this either but he currently seems quite significant. We can revisit in 20 years or so, but for now, keep.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:Politician due to his positions with the Chicago Public Schools and Chicago Park District. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. He also passes my standards for notability of attorneys. He was "General Counsel to the Chicago Development Council ... Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard M. Daley" ... partner in two notable firms, including Altheimer & Gray, chair of several major civic committees in a major city, and candidate for two major offices. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Wow. Wish they were all this easy. With multiple stories, not just repeats of the same one in the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times and elsewhere, he easily satisfies WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 20:05, 31 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Converter[edit]

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

Article about software with no claim to notability; produced by the same company that created News Publisher (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News Publisher), and the article is written by the same set of people. It has existed for a couple of years, was speedy tagged soon after creation but the tag was removed with promises of sources. These sources have not appeared, and I'm unable to find anything that remotely meets WP:RS. bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On first few searches on internet, I could find genuine reviews of the software at:

http://www.techhail.com/software/5-free-virtual-printer-software-to-save-printable-docs-in-pdf-format/4462 Ankit (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not come close to meeting the requirement that a subject should have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, to have a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more links found on google search: http://www.completsoft.com/universal-converter.html Ankit (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to review this policy - none of the sources provided so far meets the criteria for a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared to me that there is one article on Wikipedia: Universal_Converter_(Unit_Conversion_Software) with almost no reference from any reliable or unreliable source etc., would that not be considered a AfD? I am not trying to argue the rules, just want to me more clear why many articles on Wiki are perfect with no links, while many independent review links and they are not considered by moderators. Ankit (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Universal Converter article is two years old and linked on many wiki pages and has links on internet, can the article be kept with "article needs improvement" tag so that moderators get enough time to improve article and find more links? There will be more independent reviews of the software in future and those can be added as reliable links. 122.176.130.168 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles for deletion discussions such as this one generally last seven days; this article was only added to the deletion discussions yesterday, so there is plenty of time to add any existing reliable sources. Please also read Wikipedia's policy on editing where there is a conflict of interest, and note that the existence of other articles on Wikipedia can't be used as arguments to keep or delete an article; each article stands on its own merits. It is possible that the other article you mention should be deleted, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. How long an article has been on Wikipedia is also not relevant to whether the subject of the article is notable or not. --bonadea contributions talk 12:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same problem with press releases and user created content. I've never seen anyone brazen enough to use a google knol article they created to act as a reliable source for his own software product. Kuru (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the significant independent coverage here. Sites like Softpedia simply parrot the developer's description. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing available but self-published reviews, press releases, and download sites - frankie (talk) 02:01, 31 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News Publisher[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article about electronic publishing software without claim to notability; there are no reliable sources but several self-published ones - looks a little like an effort to market the product, to me. bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Converter, software produced by the same company, article written by the same people. --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources on the page are sufficient to establish notability; or even acceptable as reliable. Every one is a primary company source, user editable content, press releases, or dimple directory SEO. I left a note on the article's talk page to improve this, but it seems to have been ignored. My own searches for sources did not turn up anything, but this may be hampered by the rather generic name of the software. If kept, there's a good sized clean-up that would be necessary - I'm afraid this is simple COI created adcopy. Kuru (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. reference from website: http://o-oum.com/ and http://www.blog.fulldowns.com/ are review sites as mentioned on top of the websites, and I do not see any link to submit user generated content or the company name on the above mentioned sites. Ankit (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

o-oum is a press release, or a simple copy of it; the other link is a blog. Have you had a chance to read WP:RS yet? Kuru (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Also, references
http://www.blog.fulldowns.com/press-release-submission-software/
http://o-oum.com/articles/a-stunning-news-distribution-service-providing-software-news-publisher.html/
http://wiki.buddhistmeditations.org/news-publisher-%E2%80%93-an-elegant-and-effective-tool-for-internet-marketing/ have author name mentioned as site admin, and the site top banner pertains to product reviews, along with no link to submit user generated content on these pages/sites. Ankit (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two blogs and the same PR link as above. Kuru (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Same reasoning for keeping the article:the reference from techbuzzblog.com : http://techbuzzblog.com/gadgets/2011/03/press-release-submission-software-an-easy-approach-to-increase-your-online-business.html is by the site admin. and techbuzzblog.com is a reputed site for reviews about technical topics and gadgets and the site publishes weekly features reviews and stories of gadgets and products. Please see its weekly features stories on its front page: http://techbuzzblog.com/ Ankit (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access this link at the moment, but the URL seems to indicate it is another blog. I hope you do not mind that I have struck your multiple !votes; one suffices. Kuru (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could access it - it's another blog, and the text is identical to that of the blog.fulldowns.com post. --bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a review by the site's editor on the page: http://www.lifetimeupgrades.com/windows/network-internet/browser-tools/news-publisher/ Ankit (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

will a link from site hotreviews.com (review site) be acceptable? http://hotreviews.com/press-release-submission-press-release-submitter-press-release-service-news-release-distribution-submit-a-press-release-submit-press-release-press-release-distribution-submit-press-releases-press-rele/ Ankit (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
will a link from site advice-and.info (advice and information site) be acceptable? http://advice-and.info/Computers-and-Technology/377160_Getting_Instant_Traffic_To_Your_Website_Using_Press_Release_Submitter.html Ankit (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article that specifically describes CAPTCHA feature in News Publisher: http://www.thoughts.com/lucianomulli316/manual-captcha-bypass-gives-advantageous-alternatives-to-captcha Ankit (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some more links: http://www.skyeclothes.com/news-publisher-grow-your-business-with-news-marketing.html
It appeared to me that there is one article on Wikipedia: Universal_Converter_(Unit_Conversion_Software) with almost no reference from any reliable or unreliable source etc., would that not be considered a AfD? I am not trying to argue the rules, just want to me more clear why many articles on Wiki are perfect with no links while many independent review links on this article are not considered by moderators. Ankit (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit, you still seem to be showing links to blogs. Have you had an opportunity to read WP:RS yet? Kuru (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the News Publisher article be kept with "article needs improvement" tag so that moderators get enough time to improve article and find more links? There will be more independent reviews of the software in future and those can be added as links. 122.176.130.168 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles for deletion discussions such as this one generally last seven days; this article was only added to the deletion discussions yesterday, so there is plenty of time to add any existing reliable sources. Please also read Wikipedia's policy on editing where there is a conflict of interest, and note that the existence of other articles on Wikipedia can't be used as arguments to keep or delete an article; each article stands on its own merits. It is possible that the other article you mention should be deleted, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 12:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's some discussion, and a number of sources (which I haven't looked at, so I don't know if they are the same that have been posted here) on Talk:News Publisher as well. I've requested on that page that all discussion about the possible deletion of News Publisher should take place on this AfD page, to make the debate less fractured. --bonadea contributions talk 13:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blogs and press releases are not reliable sources. The article is an advertisement. Yet more unremarkable software being advertised on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the section: Newspaper and magazine blogs on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability it states that "if a news, magazine blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control, it is counted as reliable source". Further to it, if the author is the admin or the editor of the site (which is mentioned on top of most of the links present in the article page and here), it strengthens the source's reliability. Now, the links posted by admin/editor of lifetimeupgrades, techbuzzblog, blog.fulldowns.com, butuhdoa.info, etc. and all other links will be counted as a blog section of news, magazine sites? especially when some clearly stated the post as their featured post. I believe we need to make a distinction between a user generated blog on generic blog sites such as blog.co.in, eblooger.com etc, and the dedicated news/blog sites of technical articles such as lifetimeupgrades, techbuzzblog, blog.fulldowns.com Ankit (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to Kuru's judgment here as the more experienced editor, but it is clear that at least techbuzzblog.com and blog.fulldowns.com are inappropriate as sources in this case, because they are simply reprinting the promotional article written by the company itself (the text is also found here, and a lot of it is also on the company homepage). --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have links to the New York Times blog or another significant publication with strong editorial control which extends to blog like sections from their authors, that would be great. Such sites are what that exception is carved out for. I think you're trying to really stretch it at this point, and your conflict of interest as an employee/owner is becoming a problem. If you're seriously asking me to evaluate "fulldowns.com" as a reliable source, then I'm done here. Kuru (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Mashup web sites that simply reproduce press releases or equivalent do not count as independent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:12, 30 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) 04:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Elizabeth Gates Wallace[edit]

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

Delete. Actually, a simple redirect appears appropriate for this article. The subject is the mother of First Lady, Bess Truman. Nothing in this article presents significance, importance, or notability outside of the notability of her daughter. Even the article states that the subject lived an uneventful life. Sources include a book about First Ladies and Find-A-Grave, which is unreliable. Cind.amuse 10:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Notability is not inherited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the article is poor, and when I came across it I initially thought as you did. But if you did a search (for Madge Wallace Truman) on Google Books, as I suggested, you'd find that her influence on Bess and Harry has been discussed by many reliable commentators. The article could be considerably expanded using these sources. By the way, just a correction: the article states she lived an uneventful life until her husband committed suicide. —SMALL JIM 11:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I've revised my opinion after looking in greater depth at a selection of the Google Books hits that allow preview - there's far less independent evidence of notability than I thought at first. Basically she was a strict woman who disapproved of Truman, was probably anti-semitic, fell apart after her husband committed suicide, died in the White House aged 90, and left less in her will than expected. Not enough for independent notability. —SMALL JIM 15:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG, just not notable. Mtking (talk) 05:54, 31 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 speedily deleted. The article was written in completely promotional terms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talk • contribs)

Spiralation: ICTA Support Initiative for Tech Start-ups[edit]

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

The article gives no claim of notability, and is written like a promotion. I tried tagging it for speedy deletion, but users keep removing the tags. This article has been removed several times (see here: User talk:Spiralation already for violations of Db-promo. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an official initiative by the Sri Lankan governemnt, and there is ample evidence immediately accessible from the links provided to support that. It has been reported in the press, for example in the Asian Tribune and the Sunday Times of Sri Lanka. The article is factual. I cannot see any possible justification for a speedy deletion, and significant government programmes, like legislation, should have a presumption of notability. If an article has weaknesses, they can be addressed in the usual way. A merge with the ICTA article might be considered, but the information retained. --AJHingston (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article as it is a programme run by the Sri Lankan Govt. It does not seem to be for promotional purposes but purely for informative means. --Rukshilag (talk) 11:32, 26 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 speedily deleted by Anthony Bradbury under G6. NAC—S Marshall T/C 11:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Amy Miller[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with only red links. Both of its articles were recently deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. Seems like this would be a clear case of uncontroversial maintenance. ----Smeazel (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try tagging that. Wasn't sure if that would qualify. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:49, 26 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) 04:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marki Ann Meyer[edit]

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Lack of significant, reliable, and independent sources. Subject lacks significant roles in television and films. Cind.amuse 08:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I said in the AFD for Sierra McCormick that I wasn't sure whether the students in Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? would count as having significant roles—but in this case that's unimportant, because even if you do count that she doesn't appear to have had any other significant roles, so she still fails the guidelines in WP:ENT requiring significant roles in multiple notable productions. ----Smeazel (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetorical Comment Well, since I was the creator of this article, and obviously I would like to see it stay, I'm not going to make the obvious keep vote, since I know it would be disregarded anyway, so there is just this comment: What I truly don't get is that people are so anal here on wikipedia about certain things. It's an online encyclopedia, and this article is probably no more then 1MB in size, yet people get all in a tizzie because some article isn't up the some standard of what is notable and important. Just because it's not important to others doesn't mean it's not important to some one else. Having the rules on making sure the articles are complete and accurate are very important, and styled correctly, but to delete articles because some of some rule created to clean up wikipedia to keep it to only encyclopedic suitability is, in MY humble opinion, stupid and asinine. Anyway, I've said my piece, and will let the dice fall where they may in regards to this AfD.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Opps, apparently I forgot to put my signature in. Also wonder if people will realize that my comment is rhetorical and for the record only.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Well, yes, obviously everything is important to somebody. That's not the point. Wikipedia isn't a personal webpage or a place to promote unknown/"up and coming" actors. There have to be some standards, or everyone could just write articles about themselves and their friends, and Wikipedia would become a useless collection of vanity pages. That's the kind of thing the Wikipedia notability guidelines exist to avoid. (It has nothing to do with storage space.) There can be disagreement about where that line is drawn—personally, I tend to think lately Wikipedia editors in general have tended a bit too much toward deletionism. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and according to current guidelines this article seems to me to fall fairly unambiguously on the wrong side of the line. I'm sorry if this person is important to you, but that's not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Most people's grandmothers are probably very important to them, but that doesn't mean everyone's grandma should have a Wikipedia article. ----Smeazel (talk) 03:19, 27 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogumiła Żongołłowicz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

this was previously deleted and suspiciously a single purpose editor has recreated. it looks blatantly like WP:AUTOBIO. nothing notable about her career, the references only refer to her as an author but are not sources that address her indepth. gets a mere 7 gscholar hits [53]. even many PhD students get more than ths. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the notability. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article of a non-notable person. Keb25 (talk) 10:55, 29 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) 04:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Police Rugby League Association[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. nothing in gnews and nothing on a major Australian news website [54]. the history section looks like complete original research. this is not a mainstream competition. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, therefore fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 01:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent de Paul, S.I.[edit]

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

The subject is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, and he has only won one award which I did not find anything about via Google. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any WP:RS to demonstrate that he satisfies WP:BK or WP:AUTHOR. His one book is out from lulu.com, a vanity press, thus WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 30 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naqsha Bibi[edit]

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

Notable only for one event. Ridernyc (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Is not that notable enough to be put on Wiki Tashif (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:1E and there may be a copyright infringement. Not sure enough to speedy it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what, a large portion of the article falls under WP:NOTESSAY. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The essay section seems to have been removed and dealt with numerous times and the article keeps getting vandalized. I figure why deal with that though when in my mind the article clearly should not be here in any form. Ridernyc (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If the article is kept, the essay part should be deleted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:1E. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:11, 31 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Sarah MacDiarmid[edit]

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

as per WP:EVENT and WP:EFFECT. unfortunately people disappear all the time, they get some coverage but a mere 7 gnews hits [55] says it all. and yes gnews has australian papers back for at least 50 years. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop relying on ghits for 1990s events in Aust - it is completely missing! The-Pope (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, Sydney Morning Herald goes back a while too [56]. how about a search on one of Australia's biggest news websites, 1 hit [57]. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staggered. Do you actually read the results that you generate? The search for SMH find mentions of it in other papers, not references in it. As an example, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time was Bob Hawke. But search Australian sources in the 90s and you have one news.com.au link which wasn't actually from the 90s, and then a bunch from a single minor fringe newspaper. GOOGLE NEWS ISN'T RELEVANT FOR AUSTRALIA IN THE 1990s! So please stop using google hit counts for anything pre-2000 in Australia. The-Pope (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please find sources to establish notability for this person and her disappearance. LibStar (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As The-Pope says, Australian newspapers from the 1990s are not in the google news archives. That said, two of the references already in the article, this one from the Australian Broadcasting Commission and this one from The Age, provide in-depth coverage of the topic. In addition, a gbooks search gives hits in The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes and Mysterious Disappearances 1990–1999: Including Sarah MacDiarmid, Ben Needham, the Springfield Three Case, Morgan Nick. Even though the disappearance happened in 1990, it is still being covered in major Australian newspapers, eg [58]. See also this search of The Age archives which gives 27 articles that could all be added to the article as references. Jenks24 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment gbooks [59] only really has 2 hits on this. LLC books use Wikipedia as a reference. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I know that. The two books I mentioned are not published by LLC Books. Are you seriously suggesting that, even with all the references I've provided, you don't think this has significant coverage? Jenks24 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

people disappearing often get significant coverage, I don't see how this appearance meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it's still getting significant national coverage 20 years after it happened, I think it easily passes WP:EVENT. Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Jenks24, and per The Popes reasonings. There is no sufficient reason to delete this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete to Sensing Murder No enduring historical significance or widespread impact per WP:EVENT. What we appear to have here is that a person disappeared, it was reported in various media (understandably, considering WP:RECENT) and was mentionned again yeas later on a TV program. As such, it fails WP:EVENT, WP:EFFECT and WP:NOTNEWS. LordVetinari (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, did you look at the sources I provided in my !vote? Although the disappearance may fail WP:EFFECT, it passes WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE (see this for example) and WP:DIVERSE. It passes more of the inclusion criteria set out at WP:EVENT than it fails. Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may as well add one more wikilink to the collection, namely WP:BLP1E. LordVetinari (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - BLP1E does not apply in this case because the article is not a biography, it is about the event of MacDiarmid disappearance (which is why this AfD has been centred around EVENT, as opposed to BIO). Jenks24 (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess I'm a little confused about exactly how the subject is notable. The article discusses one event as it relates to one person. So let's look at each of those points. Considered biographically, the article gives biographical information, therefore the fact that the article is named Disappearance of Sarah MacDiarmid rather than Sarah MacDiarmid doesn't make BLP1E any less relevant. Of course, it is questionable whether the person is still alive, so I suggest we consider this more in terms of WP:ONEEVENT rather than BLP1E; which is basically the same but without the apparent requirement that the subject be living (BLP1E). Therefore, we must ask, was the victim notable for anything other than her disappearance? The answer is, apparently, No. We could, of course, refer to WP:VICTIM and, indeed, that policy seems to suggest this article should stay, but the question arises: Is mere repeated coverage the same as persistent coverage? We're not talking about an ongoing story, with a new chapter popping up every year or two (as with Azaria Chamberlain). Also, how is merely disappearing having a large role within a well-documented historic event? Unfortuantely, people disappear all the time, but Wikipedia is not Unsolved Mysteries. Which raises the issues of WP:EVENT. Was the event a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance? No. Did the event have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or societal group? I presume not. Regarding WP:INDEPTH, I doubt that guideline alone would support inclusion else a single well-written news story would be sufficient to get an article on WP. As for WP:DIVERSE and WP:PERSISTENCE, to satisfy those two guidleines, I'd expect that each new or unique mention in the media would offer an update of some form; to do otherwise means each mention is simply repeating old news and, as I mentioned earlier, repetition is not the same as persistence. Nonetheless, I agree that this article is one of those borderline cases and I must emphasise that I'm not determined to see it deleted. However, I just don't believe the subject deserves its own article. Hence, I've slightly changed my vote above to emphasise my preference for merging. LordVetinari (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jenks24. Jivesh • Talk2Me 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I was previously unfamiliar with this case myself, the sources Jenks24 has provided certainly establish it as notable. This news article, for instance (just one of many), suggests that it's still very much in the national consciousness twenty years after the fact, and seems to speak to the criteria in WP:EVENT about duration of coverage, as well as implying that it did "have a significant impact over a wide region"—it seems to have been covered in national papers, and I'd consider all of Australia a sufficiently wide region to qualify. ----Smeazel (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, the appeal to WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT is utterly irrelevant. These guidelines deal explicitly with the question of whether a person only known for one event should have his or her own article separate from the article about the event. They have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether an event should have its own article—that's what WP:EVENT is for. If this were an article about Sarah MacDiarmid herself rather than about her disappearance, then those guidelines would be entirely germane, but arguing that an event shouldn't have an article because the people involved in that event aren't known for anything else is trying to apply WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT backwards, and makes no sense at all. ----Smeazel (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This link given by user: smeazel proves that the disappearance is atleast somewhat long-term notable.--Pink Bull 15:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources already mentioned by others above, a search at EBSCOhost Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre [Australasian magazines, newspapers, newswires and reference books] for "Sarah MacDiarmid" lists 56 results as follows:

list

   * 1.

     News
     Sarah's flame still burns strong on the eve of a heartbreaking 20-year anniversaryFull Text Available By: DENISE GADD. Age, The (Melbourne), 10/07/2010
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 100
     HTML Full Text
   * 2.

     News
     PLEA ON MISSING SARAHFull Text Available Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), 11.07.2010, p20-20, 1
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 95
     HTML Full Text
   * 3.

     News
     Did killer take our Sarah too? By: David Murray. Sunday Mail, The (Brisbane), 04/09/2005
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 95
     HTML Full Text
   * 4.

     News
     Website to help grievingFull Text Available By: People | Donna Carton. Frankston Standard-Hastings Leader, 26.07.2010, p5-5, 1
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 93
     HTML Full Text
   * 5.

     News
     Website to help grievingFull Text Available By: People | Donna Carton. Frankston Standard-Hastings Leader, 26.07.2010, p5-5, 1
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 93
     HTML Full Text
   * 6.

     News
     Did Paul Denyer kill Sarah, too?; Secret fears of killer's family By: KELVIN HEALEY. Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), 15/05/2005
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 93
     HTML Full Text
   * 7.

     Transcript
     Million dollars on offer in missing persons case ABC Premium News, 10/07/2010
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 92
     HTML Full Text
   * 8.

     News
     Yard hunt for clues on Sarah By: CARLY CRAWFORD. Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), 26/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 91
     HTML Full Text
   * 9.

     News
     $1m reward in bid to let Sarah rest By: Padraic Murphy. Australian, The, 06/02/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 90
     HTML Full Text
   * 10.

     News
     Brother's plea to find body By: Mark Buttler chief police reporter. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 15/11/2006
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 90
     HTML Full Text
   * 11.

     News
     Vic: $1 million on offer for info on MacDiarmid disappearance By: N.A.. AAP Australian National News Wire, 05/02/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 87
     HTML Full Text
   * 12.

     News
     The dark side of life exposed For 37years Charlie Bezzina worked tirelessly to solve some of the state's most shocking crimes. His new book reveals the heartbreak and hardshipsFull Text Available By: Keith Moor. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 17.09.2010, p38-38, 1
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 85
     HTML Full Text
   * 13.

     News
     $1m reward to end pain of 14 years By: Mark Alexander. Sunday Mail, The (Brisbane), 15/02/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 84
     HTML Full Text
   * 14.

     News
     Flowers mystery; Parents' plea over death By: CARLY CRAWFORD. Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), 10/07/2005
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 84
     HTML Full Text
   * 15.

     News
     $1mil. to end a family's torment By: Holly Lloyd-McDonald. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 06/02/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 83
     HTML Full Text
   * 16.

     News
     Vic: $1 million on offer for info on MacDiarmid dissappearance By: N.A.. AAP Australian National News Wire, 05/02/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 83
     HTML Full Text
   * 17.

     News
     Stop our suffering By: HOLLY LLOYD-McDONALD. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 10/07/2003
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 83
     HTML Full Text
   * 18.

     News
     $1m for leads on missing womanFull Text Available By: Andrea Petrie. Age, The (Melbourne), 06/02/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 80
     HTML Full Text
   * 19.

     News
     15 years and still waiting, hoping Herald Sun (Melbourne), 07/07/2005
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 79
     HTML Full Text
   * 20.

     News
     TV previewsFull Text Available By: JUDY ADAMSON. Sydney Morning Herald, The, 20/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 79
     HTML Full Text
   * 21.

     News
     No leads from psychicsFull Text Available By: highlights WITH GLEN HUMPHRIES. Newcastle Herald, The (includes the Central Coast Herald), 30/03/2005
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 79
     HTML Full Text
   * 22.

     News
     $1m reward in bid to solve 1990 murder By: Padraic Murphy. Australian, The, 06/02/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 79
     HTML Full Text
   * 23.

     News
     In good taste? By: Victoria Segal, Helen Stewart and Sarah Dempster. Sunday Times, The, 08/05/2005
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 77
     HTML Full Text
   * 24.

     News
     Supernatural sleuthsFull Text Available By: SCOTT ELLIS. Sun-Herald, The (Sydney), 26/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 74
     HTML Full Text
   * 25.

     News
     Sense of satisfaction By: Eleanor Sprawson. Daily Telegraph, The (Sydney), 22/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 72
     HTML Full Text
   * 26.

     News
     CRITIC'S CHOICE - SundayFull Text Available By: LARISSA DUBECKI. Age, The (Melbourne), 23/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 71
     HTML Full Text
   * 27.

     News
     TV EYE ; Robert Fidgeon takes a critical look at what's on our screens this week By: Robert Fidgeon. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 22/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 71
     HTML Full Text
   * 28.

     Periodical
     I SEE dead people.Full Text Available By: Brown, Jenny. Woman's Day (Australian Consolidated Press), 27/09/2004, Vol. 56 Issue 39, p103-103, 1p, 2 Color Photographs
     Subjects: AUSTRALIA; GIBNEY, Rebecca; SENSING Murder (TV program); TELEVISION programs; SUPERNATURAL beings; PSYCHICS; BYRNE, Rhonda
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 71
     HTML Full Text
   * 29.

     News
     No visits to Denyer; Killer brother refuses meeting By: KELVIN HEALEY. Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), 04/09/2005
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 69
     HTML Full Text
   * 30.

     News
     CRITIC'S CHOICEFull Text Available By: BRIAN COURTIS. Sun-Herald, The (Sydney), 26/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 68
     HTML Full Text
   * 31.

     News
     CRITIC'S CHOICEFull Text Available By: BRIAN COURTIS. Sunday Age, The (Melbourne), 26/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 68
     HTML Full Text
   * 32.

     News
     Psychic sleuths By: Simon Yeaman. Advertiser, The (Adelaide), 22/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 68
     HTML Full Text
   * 33.

     News
     prime time By: Words: Phillip Koch. Sunday Telegraph, The (Sydney), 26/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 68
     HTML Full Text
   * 34.

     News
     Turning to crime was not so tough for smitten new mum Rebecca Gibney. By: Words: Phillip Koch. Sunday Mail (Adelaide), 26/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 68
     HTML Full Text
   * 35.

     News
     Disappearance haunts TV psychic Herald Sun (Melbourne), 06/04/2005
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 68
     HTML Full Text
   * 36.

     News
     Daredevils fit as a fleeFull Text Available By: Glen Humphries. Newcastle Herald, The (includes the Central Coast Herald), 25/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 68
     HTML Full Text
   * 37.

     News
     In from the cold to defy a killer By: KELVIN HEALEY. Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), 28/08/2005
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 62
     HTML Full Text
   * 38.

     Periodical
     SOLVING THE Beaumont mystery.Full Text Available By: Brown, Jenny. Woman's Day (Australian Consolidated Press), 31/01/2005, Vol. 57 Issue 5, p28-29, 2p, 4 Black and White Photographs
     Subjects: HILL, Scott Russell; PSYCHICS; BEAUMONT, Jane; BEAUMONT, Arnna; BEAUMONT, Grant; MISSING children; BEAUMONT, Nancy; BEAUMONT, Jim
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 62
     HTML Full Text
   * 39.

     News
     Psychic clues By: Erica Thompson. Courier Mail, The (Brisbane), 23/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 61
     HTML Full Text
   * 40.

     News
     A case for psychics By: TONY JOHNSTON. Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), 26/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 59
     HTML Full Text
   * 41.

     News
     NETWORKINGFull Text Available By: KYLIE MILLER. Age, The (Melbourne), 23/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 57
     HTML Full Text
   * 42.

     News
     Hands-on psychics By: Kerrie Murphy. Australian, The, 25/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 57
     HTML Full Text
   * 43.

     News
     Bones discovered in backyardFull Text Available Frankston Standard-Hastings Leader, 09.08.2010, p2-2, 1
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 54
     HTML Full Text
   * 44.

     Periodical
     'I KNOW WHERE THE BEAUMONTS ARE!'.Full Text Available By: Brown, Jenny. Woman's Day (Australian Consolidated Press), 06/02/2006, Vol. 58 Issue 6, p32-33, 2p, 2 Color Photographs, 2 Black and White Photographs
     Subjects: ADELAIDE (S. Aust.); AUSTRALIA; HILL, Scott Russell; CHILDREN -- Death; AUSTRALIA Day
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 52
     HTML Full Text
   * 45.

     News
     There to help outFull Text Available By: Volunteers | Jeff Jones. Oakleigh Monash-Springvale Dandenong Leader, 30.09.2009, p5-5, 1
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 51
     HTML Full Text
   * 46.

     News
     Witnesses 'too scared' to plunge into police rewards poolFull Text Available By: MARK RUSSELL. Sunday Age, The (Melbourne), 22/03/2009
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 50
     HTML Full Text
   * 47.

     News
     Police rewards going unpaidFull Text Available By: MEX COOPER. Age, The (Melbourne), 19/01/2009
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 50
     HTML Full Text
   * 48.

     News
     Rewards face scrap as $10m unclaimed By: Mark Dunn. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 06/02/2006
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 46
     HTML Full Text
   * 49.

     News
     A state of mind; Rebecca Gibney is loving her new life, writes Darren Devlyn By: Darren Devlyn. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 22/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 45
     HTML Full Text
   * 50.

     News
     don't miss By: Robert Fidgeon. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 25/09/2004
     Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
     Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 45
     HTML Full Text

#
$1m for murder reward; Parents of slain woman win inquest By: Geoff Wilkinson. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 17/12/2004
Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 45
HTML Full Text
# 52.

News
$1m reward for graveside killer By: Gosia Kaszubska. Australian, The, 02/02/2005
Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 45
HTML Full Text
# 53.

News
$1m reward for graveside killer By: Gosia Kaszubska. Australian, The, 02/02/2005
Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 45
HTML Full Text
# 54.

News
Witness to death revealed; Police re-open strangling case By: CARLY CRAWFORD. Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), 06/06/2004
Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 45
HTML Full Text
# 55.

News
Psychic phenomena By: TONY JOHNSTON. Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne), 14/11/2004
Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 45
HTML Full Text

56.

News
Swimming out of fearFull Text Available By: with GLEN HUMPHRIES. Illawarra Mercury, 25/09/2004
Database: Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre
Add to folder Remove from folderRelevancy: Relevancy Rank is 45
HTML Full Text

--Melburnian (talk) 05:58, 27 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 Wycombe Wanderers F.C. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Wycombe Comanche[edit]

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

Non-notable mascot ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is the sort of thing I'd love to see an article on, but I'm damned if I can find any decent sources to rescue this. There seems to be enough info (albeit unsourced) on the main Wycombe Wanderers F.C. article - question is would "Lucky Wycombe Comanche" be a plausible redirect? —BETTIA— ^talk 08:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - sorry, it's cute and all, but a paragraph on the club page would do I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not worthy of a seperate article. Giant Snowman 12:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not notable. A plausible redirect to Wycombe Wanderers. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Wycombe Wanderers F.C., per above comments.--Pink Bull 15:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into club article. --Jimbo^[online] 09:41, 27 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Fawcett[edit]

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

clearly fails Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Rugby_league. he has only played lower level Toyota Cup for Newcastle Knights not top grade NRL. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NSPORTS and has not had significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so doesn't pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 06:20, 27 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) 04:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents involving VFL/AFL players[edit]

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

The arguments presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of off-field incidents involving rugby league players apply to this article also. This list is mostly concerning off-field incidents, and is almost entirely negative. As such, it is unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Of course, some incidents (like the St Kilda schoolgirl scandal) may be notable - these can have their own articles. St Anselm (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: Prior to the rugby league discussion, I was involved in a dispute with an anonymous editor concerning my efforts to prune the article. I now believe the whole article should go. St Anselm (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a disparate list of incidents that hits the news cycle with no guidance of what should be in or not. notable incidents should be included in that player's own article. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's tabloid trash. The kind of news that leads to jokes about newspapers being most useful for wrapping fish and chips. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more or less the same rationale as on the other article - just gossip and tabloid rubbish. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Somewhat more constructive Delete than my earlier one - This article has high maintenance demands, with almost every addition requiring editing attention to reduce copyright violations and sensational tabloid language caused by material being copied straight from the Herald Sun and the like. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 28 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) 04:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of rugby union incidents[edit]

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

Like the corresponding list of rugby league incidents which has just been deleted, this list is almost entirely negative, and as such, unencyclopedic. There are a few notable incidents, of course - these have their own articles and are listed at List of sporting scandals#Rugby union scandals. So this list is unnecessary. St Anselm (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a disparate list of incidents that hits the news cycle with no guidance of what should be in or not. notable incidents should be included in that player's own article. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful article but develop better guidelines for what does and doesn't go on.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC) p.s. Why hasn't this been listed at the relevant project?[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No inclusion criteria Gnevin (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically a shopping list. Minor, but notable, incidents can go in the players bio. Major ones can have there own article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological Warfare in the People's Republic of China[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Psychological Warfare in the People's Republic of China

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

To put it simply, nothing in the article is actually about the topic of "psychological warfare in the People's Republic of China", except for a single sentence at the end of the lede saying that the PRC military is interested in it. The rest of the article is either about psychological warfare in general with no specific information about the PRC, or its use in ancient China. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio of http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/resources/china/chinesepsyop.pdf ; probable other copyviosFifelfoo (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I went through and could only find about 3 sentences that were not plagiarized word-for-word. Went ahead and deleted as copyvio. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:45, 26 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) 04:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Nghiem[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. surprisingly for an active TV news journalist nothing in gnews. the fellowship she won is a minor one. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE, only possible claim to general notability would be the fellowship but it's incredibly minor with no "significant coverage". bou·le·var·dier (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Gill[edit]

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

I contested the prod here myself because I think AfD would work better in this case. I was even going to speedy this but a Gsearch reveals that she actually is a real person. Still, she doesn't pass WP:NSPORT because all I could really find was a Facebook page. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically per nom. Article is definitely on a real person who competes at junior gymnastics tournaments, as is claimed in the article. However, none of the awards Gill has won/tournaments she has competed in pass WP:NSPORTS and, having a look through google and the google news archives, she does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and so does not pass WP:GNG. Who knows, in a few years she may very well be notable, but at the moment, she clearly isn't. Jenks24 (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir institute of information technology[edit]

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

Notability concern MorganKevinJ^(talk) 03:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11; tagged as such. Blatant advertisment for non-notable company; article created by its founder. In addition, the company name barely has ten Ghits. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as spam (~~by the time I got there, the AFD template had been removed~~ whoops, sorry, I double-checked and found it had been there but I'd missed it). – Athaenara ✉ 08:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Kind of Stone Age[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. this Australian band existed from 83 to 91. not all coverage may be found online but there is nothing in gnews. google search [60] reveals directory listings rather than indepth article. the last paragraph of this article goes into the career of an individual band member after the band ceased working. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : not sure if I'm meant to post here or the Talk page. but I think this band is notable for the time it existed. I'll try find some more articles - I'm away from my books & sydney libraries until mid-june unfortunately though. as you mention, google's probably not going to have much on them, though the punk archives do mention the band. I think it meets WP:BAND item 6 Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles the article mentions that Andy Rantzen and Andrew Londsdale were members also - they are well respected in Australian electronic music & experimental communities - I think this fulfills WP:BAND.item 6.

also, I think it meets WP:BAND item 5 too. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). I found an article in "Experimental Music: Audio Explorations in Australia" book edited By Gail Priest with an article from Shannon O'Neill who calls the Cosmic Conspiracy Productions label—that WKoSA were released on in 1989—"a significant label". I think this meets 'one of the more important indie labels mentioned in WP:BAND item 5. (I added this article/book as a reference - the specific chapter is on google books - Andy Rantzen and Andy Londsdale are also mentioned (briefly) in this chapter.

I'll start with fixing the formatting of the references, and look for the books mentioned (if not too late by then). also, I've asked around to some other music people, so hopefully I might get some more info soon. thanks Kathodonnell (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts here but it does not meet WP:BAND.item 6, as notable means having an actual WP article. this band does not have 2 members with articles. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the band does not need to have two (or more) members with Wikipedia articles, it only has to have two (or more) members who would be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards (ie if the articles were created, they would survive AfD). The articles do not have to exist. Jenks24 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply, could you point me to where it says being notable means you have to have a WP article for WP:BAND. I've been looking on Wikipedia:Notability music and can't see where this is mentioned (+ it seems a bit circular to me, if you can't make an article until one already exists - I thought the idea was that it's ok to include topics that other people have written about & deem important). it seems to be talking about having other (secondary sources) publications written about the topic. I mentioned one book which has written about the members, can find more. also, in any case, Andy Rantzen does have a WP article and so does Andy (Andrew) Londsdale / Browning Mummery. I can search for the other members tonight. thanks Kathodonnell (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is also a page for another of Andy Rantzen's later bands, Itch-E and Scratch-E - they were on Volition Records label - one of Australia's earliest dance labels (previously it catered for other music styles) - ran for around a decade. this band had some commercial success, won an Aria (Aus music award) (which makes them notable for WP:MUSIC as I understand it Kathodonnell (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct place for your comments re the proposed deletion. This discussion will run 7 days, but if the article is deleted and you later find sufficient RS sources, you can seek to have it restored, and add those sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks very much. I've asked around. and found the name of the Sydney street press that may have featured them (it's in the State Library of NSW) so I'll go and look at that when I return home. also they were written about in a couple of books so just chasing that up too. Kathodonnell (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -satisfies WP:MUSICBIO crtieria & is being suitable referenced by Kathodonnell. Dan arndt (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another notable member, besides Rantzen, is Chris Abrahams (per here). Band is mentioned in Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop (in 'Box of Fish' entry) with the group compiled on Aberrant Records release Flowers from the Dustbin (1983). Article needs work but should not be deleted.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -as per WP:MUSICBIO Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:13, 28 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana (Bulgarian Singer)[edit]

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

The article does not reflect any notability. Nor can I find any RS support for such. Epeefleche (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because as you can see I have stated a source for where I found my information. Furthermore Bulgarian music is important and people should be able to read about the style and music of Tatiana!

Thanks, but that source is not an independent reliable source, and is insufficient in any event to satisfy wp's notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source provided does not establish notability as it appears to be either a music sales site or the record company's catalog. RadioFan (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington OHL Relocation Team[edit]

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

Contested prod. Pure speculation on the author's part about the possible relocation of the Brampton Battalion of the Ontario Hockey League to nearby Burlington. No references, amounts to wishful thinking. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be nothing more than the fantasy of a hopeful fan. Pure speculation, with absolutely no basis for it. Reso lute 23:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be speedied as a test page based on the look, and is pretty close to G3 as a blatant hoax as well. Reso lute 23:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 23:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And Throw It Under The Zamboni: While I don't agree that this qualifies as a hoax article - there doesn't seem to be trickery involved here - of course it's unsourced wishful thinking ... a classic WP:BULLSHIT fail. Ravenswing 23:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculation at the moment. A case of wishfull thinking or of whating to get that cookie for being first. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced speculation. Phrases like "there may be..." and "if they can ... they will" are clear indicators that this is only speculation at the moment. Guoguo12 (Talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Guoguo12. Rlendog (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SNOW. Article is unsourced speculation. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YesAsia[edit]

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

The article of the popular Asian online shopping store has not yet established the notability. Yes, I created this article. However, I cannot nominate it for speedy delete for hopes to bring this article into attention. Nevertheless, I will allow administrators to speedy delete it if possible. --Gh87 (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page history split. See Yesasia. — kwami (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the page history from Yesasia; notable retailer. I have added some independent sources and rewritten it sufficiently to remove the "advert" and reference tags. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I wish this entry has some info about its competitors (Am I demanding too much?). --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's patently similar to Amazon, so I have mentioned that firm as supported by a relevant citation. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as per WP:ORG--Michaela den (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the page to be useful in establishing the credibility of YesAsia in my online shopping experience. I just wanted to make sure my credit cards weren't going to be stolen. - Octieriffic, June 2, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.81.226 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents at independent parks[edit]

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

If an incident is truly notable it should be included in the main theme park's article or have it's own article. As it is, the scope of this article is basically newsclippings that meet the original research criteria in the lead of the article. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete. There is no encyclopedic explanation for this list other than cruft from clippings. I'd like to toss in the obligatory WP:BLP#E1 regarding identifying the victims of accidents. Keegan (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is a useful summary list of incidents that makes it easier to find these incidents. Yes, the incidents can be listed in each individual independent park article but this summary is helpful/useful. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Dunno Instinctively I was a delete, until I read it. I think shuffling them off to the article of each park is actually a bad idea on two counts, first they'll be deleted one by one as not notable or undue weight, or something like that, and secondly I think it dtracts from the notable concept that amusement rides are fallible. Perhaps retitling it to Funfair accidents would be a better approach. Greglocock (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a dupe of Amusement_park_accidents Greglocock (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to Greglocock's last comment opinion, it is not a duplicate of that other article. His original assessment of why the summary article exists is exactly right -- it is better to have these pieces spun off from each park's article so that they are more easily found/tracked/referenced as their own topic instead of forcing the reader to visit each article separately and hope that there is consistency in the writing/referencing. As for Keegan's comment regarding BLP, you'll notice that the victim's names are purposefully left out of the article specifically for that reason - it's an article about the incidents, not about the victims. The article definitely meets notability criteria for the various incidents (as opposed to WP:OR) with every item being appropriately referenced in mainstream media (although some editing, granted, may need to be done to cull a few items out with regards of the severity of each item - as is the nature for any WP article). SpikeJones (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Incidents involving amusement park rides are rare relative to the number of rides given per year, and thus are notable in that rarity. Agree that victim names should be expunged from the article, since it's the event itself that is notable, not necessarily the person or people involved, and removing the names does not compromise the article. Like any Wikipedia article, I won't argue that this one couldn't use some cleanup, and would volunteer my services accordingly. As to listing them instead in their respective parks' articles, I would counter that such placement would give undue weight to them, and thus it would be preferable to include them here instead. --McDoob AU 93 04:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept it should be cross referenced consistently. Looking at the first two parks that first park, Blackpool Pleasure Beach, does not link back to this article but does link to an article entitled 'Incidents at European parks' and the second park, Coney Island, does not link to any mention of accidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeraRose (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poor article cross-referencing is a reason to mark the article for improvement, not deletion.SpikeJones (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we really need AP Accidents as well as Incidents at APs? Surely a merge between those two makes more sense? And why is Disney* conspicuous by their absence? Greglocock (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AP accidents article covers the general topic of what "an" amusement park accident is, with metrics and other information. The article being discussed is a summary of incidents that have taken place at parks from independent owners. If you look at the Park Accidents footer, you'll see that there is a link to incidents articles for the major Park companies, including Disney. If the incident articles were merged per your suggestion, you would have an article that would become too unwieldly and would need to be broken out again eventually. SpikeJones (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I don't even think a merge is appropriate. The article in question has some topical overlap with Amusement park accidents, but the treatment is entirely different. The Apa article addresses the subject overall. The Iaip article is, as the plaintiff noted, a collection of individual incidents. However, the incidents are not unrelated, and the collection of them is not unencyclopedic. Most importantly, consider that the Iaip article completes the Template:Amusement_park_accidents collection: where an event doesn't belong in any other article, it should be in Incidents at independent parks. And so, the Iaip article should remain. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 10:11, 31 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) 06:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelcey Brade[edit]

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

Autobiography. A PROD was earlier declined, and an even earlier stub was deleted. Plenty of sources briefly mention the subject's work or collaboration on journalistic projects, but this is inevitable for reporters. I have been unable to find RS about the subject. The community should decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmm... my nom appears to be about a subject that is so little known, that it's not even attracted any !votes here. It can't be CSDd because it makes claims of notability, but it can't be deleted out of process either. Therefore I'm clearly advocating deletion for lack of independent RS dedicated to the subject, rather than an eventual 'keep' per no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made a search for sourcing before reading the article, and came up with essentially what's in the article, I don't see this quite hitting the GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per nom, can't find any third-party coverage. Note you could have PRODed this: the PROD that was declined was specifically a BLP PROD, and WP:PROD allows articles where a BLP PROD has been declined to be deleted through the normal PROD process. Hut 8.5 08:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know; I don't know why I didn't think of it at the time - I know the policy well enough. It would have been gone by now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, though, I'm sure casual observers who find this will get a better understanding of why it was deleted due to the discussion. PROD deletions can upset people and new editors not familiar with how wikipedia works. I think most people assume almost anyone can have a wikipedia page, and are surprised when that notion is tested.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that any article that's been through two full cycles at AfD has had at least as much chance to be contested as a PROD, would it make sense to treat 14-day-AfDs-without comment as PRODs? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable idea, assuming an AfD-without-comment-deletion article could be restored like a PROD if requested.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, yeah, I should have been explicit about that assumption. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, like the nominator I found plenty of brief mentions but that is all. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In trying to source BLPs for WP:UBLPR, I've run across lots of these local news broadcaster articles, most of whom are not notable. I've seen lots of ones for Scottish TV. Anyway, many are only partially verifiable (usually using their station's bio page), and are probably not notable. If the standards applied in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson are used, where a local broadcaster had some decent minor coverage, some minor local awards, and one big huge BLP1E moment of fame, this article should be deleted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:31, 26 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! 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwill Group Foundation[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. created by a single purpose editor. nothing in gnews and google indicates mainly directory listings. gets 1 gbook hit for 1 line mention on 1 page. LibStar (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article. Keb25 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thai name, for search purposes, is มูลนิธิกลุ่มปรารถนาดี. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Boulle[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, nor can it be attributed to reliable sources (Channel 4 claims which are unsupported cannot be counted as such) and it may even be perceived as advertising - Wikipedia:Deletion policy. See discussion page - attempt to find reliable sources has failed. Bobadillaman (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Independent and the London Evening Standard are both reliable sources and both are cited in the article. Could you explain your concerns more clearly?—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Americans Bank[edit]

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

Promotional article for a bank. I can't see this meeting WP:CORP - most sources I found are either directory listings, a blog or two, and websites affiliated with this entity. As always, others are welcome to prove me wrong. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I expected this to be a simple call on the basis of business spam, but this is a different deal — a non-profit bank that is part of a network called Young Americans Center for Financial Education. I strongly suspect there is an encyclopedia article here and advise people to approach this one with caution. I have no opinion myself as of yet, I'll suss things out for a few minutes. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-claim to fame is "the only bank in the world specifically designed for young people." [61]. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that WP has already deleted a piece on YACFE. I'm not an administrator and can't read what was formerly up, but that strikes me as the logical name under which this information should appear. Google search for the specific name returns about 8600 hits, which is modest but probably indicates there are a few keepers out there in the long grass. Still searching... Carrite (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The group is based in Denver, so the Denver Post is the newspaper of record for them. Here's a 2007 ARTICLE on the new CEO of the institution, which speaks of Young Americans bank as a model for potential emulation. Ah, here we go THIS PIECE by Tina Giego from the Denver Post is the sort of coverage that gets traction at AfD. Here's ANOTHER PIECE on the activities of YACFE. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's A BIT BY OPPENHEIMER FUNDS on their five-year partnership with YACFE detailing their High School education programs.Carrite (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess the bottom line, based on the above, is that this is a keep. The material I've bumped into isn't particularly impressive, to be sure, but I think the institution is unique enough to merit encyclopedic coverage and that there is sourcing available if someone really wants to go after the topic. I think this needs to be redirected to Young Americans Center for Financial Education, as I mentioned above, but I'll leave that to other hands. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The YACFE article was deleted as blatant advertising created by a now-blocked group/role account editing on behalf of that organization. I was the original CSD tagger and am fairly confident that there was little to no information in that article worth saving (though I'm not 100% certain due to the time that has passed and the fact that I can't access the deleted content either). That being said, I might be amenable to moving this content to a new article on the YACFE as a whole. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:ADVERT and WP:CORPDEPTH. I see advertising copy and a niche local market. Mariepr (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to YACFE per Carrite's careful review and analysis.--Arxiloxos (talk) 13:54, 27 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 Lupe Fiasco. this can be undone after the publication if it garners coverage Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe Fiasco's Food & Liquor II: The Great American Rap Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not cite any reliable sources. This album will be released around November/December 2011, it's too early to create a page for it as there is not enough information about this album. Also, the title is just a working title, nothing about this album or its release date has been confirmed yet. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 16:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am a fan of Lupe Fiasco, I suggest a redirect to the parent article per WP:TOOSOON. There just isn't enough information to be found about it yet. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:19, 26 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goss Interactive[edit]

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

Previously PRODded twice and deleted twice. Recreated a third time. Examination of the sources shows that this company does not meet WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV criteria for inclusion. Trivial mentions, primary sources, blogs, press releases, etc., do not amount to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have reviewed the claims and references and amended where neccessary. The claims the company makes about it's products have been removed to make it more fact based.User:Prettyblossom —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Good effort, but there's still the issues of WP:CORP criteria for inclusion as well as the existence of this article for promotional purposes. The claims a company makes are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Note that I was going to speedy-delete and salt this article under CSD:G11 but decided to go the AfD route on the small chance that some significant, independent, reliable secondary source coverage can be found to rescue it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable souces are referenced including SOCITM, Guardian and RealStoryGroup (previously CMS Watch) who also conduct independent reviews of the product, I have added this review to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamma duck (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Mamma duck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As stated in the nomination, trivial mentions in otherwise independent reliable sources don't meet WP:SIGCOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Also unambiguous advertising, full of vague and meanibngless peacock claims for yet another company that supplies and delivers online efficiency savings, digital marketing and a Content Management System. This version has user friendly WYSIWYG controls that empower an unlimited number of non-technical individuals, groups and departments to effortlessly manage and deliver content to Web 2.0 websites, portals, intranets and extranets in a secure and flexible environment.....supports best practice when building websites, and aims to deliver websites to the highest accessibility standards. -50 notability points for "Web 2.0" and -50 for "best practice". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bryant (British Radio DJ)[edit]

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

WP:N: Tough sourcing because of the commonality of the name, I'm unable to find reliable secondary sources that cover this British DJ/presenter to verify the existence of or evidence the notability of. This Harvey is apparently different than the more-covered New York City DJ of the same name, not to mention the Alabama football coach, etc. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 26 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) 06:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffreys Henry[edit]

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

I fail to see how this company meets WP:CORP. Most search hits were sites affiliated with the subject, directory listings, PR pieces, or only mentioned this company in passing. The "top 100 firm" claim, though unreferenced in the article, is what got this past A7 in my book. However, in researching this claim and other claims of high rankings the company makes (on its website), these rankings were made by publications (Accountancy Age and Hemscott) that I would consider to be "media of limited interest and circulation" under WP:CORPDEPTH. If I'm wrong on the last claim please let me know. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:COMPANY. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 26 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 Eyecare in Ghana. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanaian Optician[edit]

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

No reliable sources - three of the references are just defining "optician" (in a section plagiarized from the article of that name) and the fourth is a random document on Scribd. Redundant to Eyecare in Ghana, so not worth fixing up, but there's also nothing to merge because the article contains no reliably sourced information. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eyecare in Ghana per nom. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eyecare in Ghana per Blandchardb.---Lenticel ^(talk) 04:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 26 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) 06:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relation reduction[edit]

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

This article is motivated by a topic in the philosophy literature, namely Pierce's Reduction Thesis. However, the content of the article is original research (WP:NOR), consisting of an attempt to introduce a novel formalism. Searching for key phrases in Google Books and Scholar didn't uncover anything resembling the text here. Melchoir (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Pure WP:OR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: but shrink to stub. The Google books result turns up several references for relation reduction algorithms, so the subject seems to be notable. Presumably a reference can be found for the definition but the rest of the article is unsourced and unencyclopedic.--RDBury (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for RDBury or anyone else: If the article is to be kept, which reference do you think we should start with? I'm not sure that I see an obvious candidate. Melchoir (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first two hits on Google Books, Witold Pedrycz Computational intelligence: an introduction and Advances in web-age information management: 6th international conference both use the term but you're right in that they don't seem to suitable as references for a definition. I'll change my vote to "Delete" unless a secondary reference can be found.--RDBury (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this linked on relational algebra, but this isn't a topic that one can find in database theory textbooks. It seems a research topic, which may or may not have any sources. In either case, I think it's not notable enough for Wikipedia lacking significant independent coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to assume this is original research unless someone can provide a source that does more than mentioning the term. Given the initial author of the article, I'm doubtful this will happen. —Ruud 11:08, 27 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) 06:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kavanagh[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG and no evidence that he meets WP:SKATER in that he didn't win his national championships. Is there any evidence available that he actually did compete at international, not just national level? The-Pope (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He competed in the Trophee de France, a Grand Prix of Figure Skating event,[62] and the Nations Cup.[63] Although WP:SKATER doesn't say this, I think one can generally assume that national medalists in countries with strong skating programs (Canada, USA, Russia, China, ...) have also competed internationally. Pburka (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NSKATE having competed at Grand Prix events. This fan site indicates he has participated in Skate America. Admittedly the site is not a reliable source, but I rather suspect that the information is true and we need to dig through print publications to get a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Having skated in a Grand Prix event, he meets the figure skating portion of WP:NSPORTS. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:05, 26 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.