Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 6

< 5 May	7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeShaun Williams[edit]

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

I have several issues with this person. (1) He's a basketball player who doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL standards. (2) All of the references used are either routine coverage or Syracuse University's school newspaper. (3) This is an unwatched BLP, and there has been tremendous slander against his character that has been up for months ([1][2]) and hasn't been removed. I'd also like to point out that the article's creator, User:GoCuse44, is an avid Syracuse basketball fan who's had numerous articles deleted in the past for WP:CRUFT. This, IMO, is another one of them. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As blatant G10 attack page violation, to which several SPAs have added as their sole Wikipedia contributions. Even were the attacks trimmed, the subject wouldn't meet any criteria of notability. Ravenswing 02:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just removed the various attacks ... not a lot left there. Ravenswing 02:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article begins with Williams appeared in 97 games, starting 67 - this meets WP:NBASKETBALL, which only requires one appearance. All the personal slander and unreferenced current living conditions have been removed; article can be kept as it is. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Appearing in one game for a college team does not presume inherent notability, only if they appear in one professional game. The fact that he appeared in 97 games, starting 67, for a college team does not make him notable. Article still does not meet WP:Notability (sports)#College athletes. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The games referenced above are at Syracuse - appearing in one college game doesn't meet notability standards. Neither does the current incarnation of the ABA - it's the original ABA (which was nearly on par with the NBA in its day) that would qualify someone. Rikster2 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a similar AfD currently open which exactly pertains to this discussion; it can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Brennan-McBride. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. keep arguments don't reference GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Web Analytics[edit]

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

The article fails our requirements for notability, the notability tag on the article is more than 2 years old. I made an attempt to find coverage of the article in reliable sources but couldn't. Currently the article only uses blogs and the software's own wiki as references. The article was created and primarily edited by the software's author (Peter Adams). -- Atama頭 23:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say that Wikimedia using this software as Web Analytics for the WMF and all its wikis count as a reliable source. Article simply needs updating with references. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Really? Is something notable because it's used by Wikimedia? I must have missed that part of WP:N. If you can find reliable sources, by all means present them, and I'll consider withdrawing this nomination. Otherwise I don't understand your argument at all. -- Atama頭 17:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use by Wikimedia is not sufficient for WP:N and I can't find much in the way of coverage, just some brief mentions in lists of other similar products. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator and Tijfo098. Perchloric (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just having the WMF use it is not enough for notability. But this and Piwik are two of the most notable open source Web analytics toolkits currently available. See additional coverage from an InformationWeek magazine article and in the book "Web analytics 2.0". Those took me about five minutes to find in Google, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's more. Steven Walling 00:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think you'd need to find more. The Infoweek article merely mentions the name of the software once in passing in a discussion about Web Analytics, and the book is the same case. We look for "significant coverage" to establish notability, and neither of those sources seems to satisfy our general notability criteria in my opinion. -- Atama頭 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if you look around, both in search engines, books, magazines, and in our own categories, you can clearly see this is one of the two most prominent open source Web analytics packages. If something is obviously prominent in its field, you don't need a million sources to prove it. Case in point: both Cisco (PDF release notes) and one of the largest hosts on the Web, Dreamhost (see announcement) provide OWA. Steven Walling 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North American Soccer Reporters[edit]

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

Non-notable group of reporters who write about soccer. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. While some of the members may arguably be notable on their own, their notability doesn't transfer to the organization. Appears to be little more than a promotional article, listing members and providing links to join the group. Appears to fail WP:ORG Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that they give away a player of the week award, which gets their name mentioned a lot, but again, I didn't find that significant in-depth coverage of the assoc that a notable org would have. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a journalism related professional association, and not specifically a business as defined by WP:ORG. Similar US and UK based sports journalism associations are found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. WP:ORG is not relevant criteria. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guru, listing other orgs with articles is really just WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't it? Whether it falls under WP:ORG or another criteria, which criteria doesn't require significant coverage by reliable third party sources? That is what is lacking. What criteria do you think it should be judged under and where is the significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real coverage in reliable third-party sources. – Pee Jay 18:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, no outstanding deletes (non-admin closure). GB fan (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Hairer[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic. While he may be notable in the future, currently there are not sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The only claim to notability is the single prize awarded, but it is not cited. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Honorary doctorate, stupendous cites on GS. Did the nominator carry out WP:Before ? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Three of his works have over 1000 citations each on Google scholar; if it were ten times fewer it would still be enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I think the two birthday conferences in his honor are also significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A prestigious prize from SIAM, an honorary degree, two birthday conferences, and top GS cites of 3892, 2607, 1166, 766, 608 are more than sufficient to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Sufficient resources on Google Scholar, Honorary Doctorate and Birthday Confernces in his honour confer notability for WP:Academic --Whiteguru (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Extremely prominent academic. Nominator is advised to read and understand WP:PROF before making such nominations in the future. Ray^Talk 17:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per whiteGuru. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject of this BLP is about as notable as it is possible to be without winning a Fields medal, the mathematical equivalent of a Nobel prize. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination to reduce by one the number of AfDs clogging up the system. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, as per Xxanthippe, etc.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nomination withdrawn. I had checked using Web of Science and had inadvertently used the social science index instead of the science index. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. State Names: The Stories of How Our States Were Named[edit]

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

Not sure this passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). Article was created by the book's author. Rd232 ^talk 22:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. Falls short on the notability issue, but still sounds interesting. Delete would seem to be in order. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no inherent notability in the subject is conferred on the book; as above, it does sound interesting. Book is self published; insufficient references to establish notability. WP:NBOOK Criteria#1 is not fulfilled. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. However, the sourcing is underwhelming. Sources 1 and 2 have identical material and clearly reprint a publicity release by the Church; I have removed one since having both is simply padding. I have removed reference 4 since it was a circular lift from Wkikipedia. Many of the other sources are of a directory nature or deal with incidental aspects of the Church's activities. Having said this there is validity in Carrite's point that "a verifiable and neutrally-written article has been constructed". The consensus is that the key points should be kept in some form but whether as a standalone page or merged as part of the locality article is moot. The next step should be to take the discussion to the talk page in order to agree which form is best. TerriersFan (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Baptist Church[edit]

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

This is not a notable church. The building is not particularly special, and having the street named after the church is no big deal. The former minister, Jonathan Stephen, is probably notable as a college principal, but this notability is not inherited by the church. St Anselm (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the church is that old, there may well be coverage about it, but I didn't find any. Might be keepable if someone finds the coverage, but in the meantime, Merge to Reading, Berkshire#Religion. The fact this church exists and how long it's been around has a place in Wikipedia. The section "Carey Today" certainly doesn't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't call a church established in 1867 "old" by British standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly early for a Baptist congregation to have erected a building on that scale in Britain. And churchs that survive for 150 years often acquire notibility along the way.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reading, Berkshire#Religion. There seem to be a number of references in Google Books and Google Scholar, although. Some further research may establish sufficient notability for a separate article in future. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is useful even as it stands, and surely it is more efficient to keep it and tag it for improvement, than to remove it merely because it needs improvement and make some future editor replicate all of the sourcing and the image that the page already has.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a large, active church with a wonderful Ruskinian gothic building. I am improving the article and sourcing accordingly.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts What makes a congregation WP:notable? Having a recent pastor who is WP:notable. Being a large enough church to support two pastors. Being housed in an architecturally notable building. Supporting missionaries in India. The fact that a missionary they sponsor was among the many Christian missionaries in recent years arrested on trmped-up charges in a country where many people resent Christian missionaries? The hiring or departure of a pastor meriting an article in the local paper. I believe that any or all of these add up to WP:notability for a congregation.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~None of those would make a church notable. If we said those things make a church notable, we would have articles on most of the churches in the U.S. BelloWello (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Comment I have struck the comments of User:BelloWello, who has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. OCNative (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  In order for the church to have been notable, it needs to have been written about in independent reliable third-party sources with significant coverage. Articles in local papers can count towards notability, but it would need to be a lot more than one article in a local paper when a pastor arrives and another when he leaves. If you can find this coverage (and GNews and GBooks doesn't pick up everything), there can be an article. If not, it can be merged to the article on Reading quite easily. Should someone find more information that demonstrates the church's notability later, it's a simple matter to restore the old article and add the new information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited, nothing about this church makes it any more notable than the 5000 member baptist church down the road from my house that I am forced to see every sunday. BelloWello (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see[3]I.Casaubon (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. See WP:ADHOM. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck the comments of User:BelloWello, who has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. OCNative (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

foreign missions It takes a pretty significant congregation to send missionaries to India and Peru. You many or may not like missionaries, but it is not the scale of enterprise that ordinary churches undertake.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Recent expansion to the article has now given it notability. Spiderone 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of local human-interest pieces such as the collection of Christmas gifts or the departure of a minister do not qualify the subject for notability in a worldwide encyclopedia. Nor does the church inherit whatever notability Stillman may have; some of the cited articles on Stillman don't even mention the church. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the "localhuman interest" article makes the church notable almost all by itself because it is about this church funding a local man on a four-year long mission to Peru. Relatively few churches play in this league. The church also bought a neighboring church when that congregation departed (disbanded?), so it runs a significant campus, not a single building, and it has had two apparently full-time pastors for years. In my opinion, this is more than plenty. And their last pastor Jonathan Stephen now heads a good-sized Seminary. But, as I said, we all judge differently.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funding a missionary, owning multiple buildings, and having two pastors are not notability criteria, and your reference to Stephen, who doesn't appear to be notable either, is an attempt to invoke WP:INHERITED, which is an argument to avoid. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking as someone who has served on a few hiring committees and been a member of a few congregations, I can tell you that ordinary churches hire ordinary pastors because that is who they can get. Hiring, in his second congregation, the kind of hot young preacher who is soon hired away form you to head a seminary is an indication that this congregation is something above the ordinary. I leave others to judge whether this meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. For my part, I fail to see the point of working to delete reasonably well-sourced and well-written articles. Wouldnt it be better to spend our time improving them?I.Casaubon (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there are millions on articles on Wikipedia as it is and it's the same pool of volunteers who end up working on all of them. When you have too many articles and not enough volunteers (as has happened in the past), articles end up having libellous things inserted into them which don't get spotted. Besides, you are mixing up notability and claims of importance. Anyone can claim their club/business/product is notable through subjective claims of importance, which is why notability for Wikipedia purposes is defined as significant coverage from independent reliable third-party sources. Find stuff that has been written about the church (that's the church itself, not just people associated with it, and it needs to be more than passing mentions in local papers), and Carey Baptist Church gets an article. Ignore the notability guidelines and it probably won't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"not enough volunteers" is a serious problem. I submit that if Wilipedia maintained a less combative environment, and if editors were able to spend less of their time on AFD debates and more on working together to improve articles, more people would be willing to edit. When all of this time is spent debating whether a perfectly respectable church like Carer or College Church can or cannot have a page, working here becomes less than appealing.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are are underestimating how much bigger Wikipedia would be if there were no rules on inclusion. About half of new articles are posted by single-purpose accounts intent on publicising themselves, their band, their business or something else they're connected with. In general, users who join with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia as a whole over a wide subject area - even those who break rules and have to be corrected by other editors - have a good chance of staying, whilst those whose main agenda is to push a single article/product/viewpoint tend to make no further contributions, whether or not their intended article gets deleted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let's just forget all the hidden ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT agendas and stick to the essence: there are multiple, independent, non-trivial articles out there, from which a verifiable and neutrally-written article has been constructed. This more than century-old church is inclusion-worthy. The end. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse Accelerated Technologies[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. Hasn't seen references in several years and a google search turns up nothing of interest. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is better than most. It is brief, and seems free from promotional language; it nevertheless manages to sound highly technical while being vague to the point of unintelligibility. I found at least one instance of what might be non-mostly-press release based coverage in a reliable source[4], but I'm not sure that's more than a story about a product rollout. I'd be open to persuasion that this might be notable enough to keep, but it's gotta be in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being mentioned in trade journals like "Chip Design Magazine" and "Electrical Engineering Times" as a company with good products is not notability. Perchloric (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be plenty of references in various news and magazines[5] as well as books[6]. Obviously a lot of work to be done, but enough references to be notable. --Icerat (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation You listed to a search (the AFD already does that) but have you read the results? Most are either press releases or passing mentions. The books seem to be incidental mentions (didn't buy them to find out...) I'm open if you can show some links to actual articles from reliable sources that is more than a press release or passing mention. I didn't find any originally. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:40, 12 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! 06:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social enterprise in the United States[edit]

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

Appears to be an essay that is a few days old, very long, and outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Edited issues aside, it is still an essay based on pure OR. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A college student somewhere wanted to see his or her 5-page paper on Wikipedia, but it's speculative and it's WP:OR. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete or --Reference Desker (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the United States section of Social enterprise. There's some okay material in it (better than what's main US article section actually), but a lot of it is not so great and there's no reason to have a separate article yet. Steven Walling 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry and the Wizard of Oz[edit]

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

Just 4 Google hits, counting WP. WP:CRYSTAL, utterly non-notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page should be deleted just about yet. Besides, four Google hits is just only the beginning. -- SonyWonderFan (talk) 21:25, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Keep I don't write articles about future events, however I don't see any reason this one should be deleted. Clearly the movie exists/will exist and is notable enough being the production of a major studio. Why waste time talking about it? Borock (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As we don't have a crystal ball and can't tell if this direct-to-video production will ever be notable. As to Borock, the question isn't why should it be deleted as much as what criteria does it pass in order to be included?. The answer is none. That something exists is not a valid reason to have an article by itself. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is its page at Warner Brothers, a major studio. Tom and Jerry are also major characters. Although it is not something I am interested in (mainly 'cause our kids are grown up and we don't have grandkids yet) I honestly don't see how it could not be notable. Also the fact that they are taking orders for it shows that a crystal ball is not really required.Borock (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:RS which describes what 'reliable sources' means. The studio is not a reliable source, they are a primary source. That is fine as a cite for some stuff, but it doesn't establish notability. Of course the studio is talking about the DVD. What makes it notable is if someone ELSE that isn't making money off it is talking about it. IE: The New York Times, other papers, other websites that are not user generated (IMDB doesn't count as 'reliable' for notability, for example). We know it EXISTS. The problem is that if no newspaper, magazine, mainstream website, etc is talking about it, then that means no one cares, which means it isn't notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It doesn't even exist yet. We have announcements from WB that it will be released in August, but August isn't here yet. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rename. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Busignani[edit]

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

I'm on the fence about this. NN bio could be deleted, but might be better off as a merge & redirect to San Marino. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is the equivalent of a President. Granted the country is small, and the terms are only 6 months, but still the head of state. All other entries at List of elected or appointed female heads of government and List of elected or appointed female heads of state have articles (with today's other additions of Edda Ceccoli and Gloriana Ranocchini). At List of Captains Regent of San Marino many, clearly not all, have separate articles. Leading a country, in my opinion, is not NN. --Tbennert (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep via Tbennert. Heads of State, no matter how short the term or how small the country, would seem to be inherently notable. We have had a couple presidents that served shorter terms here in the US, for example. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Head of state of an internationally recognized sovereign nation. Period. Slam dunk. Ravenswing 02:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Head of State and former president of one of the main politcal parties in her country. Note, her actual name is Patrizia (not Patricia) Busginani. The "Patricia" appears to be an artefact of past attempts at translating her name for English-language press releases. See Google news and Google books. Would anyone object if I moved the page to her correct name? Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heads of State are always notable. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and close as WP:SNOW. I support voceditenore's page move.4meter4 (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Hilb[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic. I am unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability at the level suggested by WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a little rude, but you are obviously not a Mathematician - Emil Hilb contributed a lot of energy in the "Enzyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften", calling him not notable is hilarious. Mathsfreak (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mathsfreak, he may well be notable to you or other mathematicians, but notability for academics in Wikipedia follows these guidelines the WP:Academic guidelines and your article on him fails to demonstrate this. You need to back the claims of notability with sources that are recognized on Wikipedia as being reliable. We need enthusiastic editors like you on Wikipedia - but Wikipedia has developed rules and guidelines as to what is or is not a suitable Wikipedia article, and if you want your work to survive on Wikipedia, you do need to work within them (even if they do sometimes seem irrational). ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per his article on dewiki. Seems to be enough over there to establish his notability. Mato (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a mathematician (at least by training) and I've never heard of Hilb - but that's probably irrelevant, as I was mostly interested in logic and algebra. The German article, if translated rather than merely cited, doesn't seem particularly good but would go some way to establishing notability and mentions (though, by English Wikipedia standards, doesn't properly cite) at least one source I'd definitely regard as reliable - the Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. However, what it mentions of his career, his definitely notable colleagues and his encyclopedia articles (unless they can be shown to have been cited in later mathematical research) seems to me to repeatedly fall just short of Wikipedia notability - though repeatedly enough to give a decent chance that other sources (probably several decades old and in German) would actually establish either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. There's nearly a week still to go on this AfD - I'd very much encourage Mathsfreak or other interested and knowledgeable editors to expand this article and look for further sources and facts for it. PWilkinson (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hilb held the chair for mathematics at Wurzburg until his death in 1929, being preferred over Ernst Zermelo for the position. Chairs at major German universities in the 1890-1935 era were extraordinarily difficult to attain (there usually being no more than one or two per university), easily being on par with endowed professorships and the like today. Internet sources are difficult to find that far back, but [7] this excerpt from Gbook's scan of Scripta Mathematica ought to be helpful in tracking down further sources. Ray^Talk 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the source cited: "Apparently, Zermelo's teaching qualities had been questioned in spite of Hilbert's judgement that “Zermelo's lecture courses are always very successful”". Tijfo098 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment At first glance it's far to slim and neither the article nor references (an entry in a database and a passing mention in someone else's biography) indicate notability, but the German version suggests otherwise. Something really needs adding to this article though.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ray Yang. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a bit more information to the article on what he did professionally. I found the information here. I had not heard of Hilb before, but of course everybody's heard of Lindemann and Zermelo. Doing a Ph.D. thesis under the supervision of someone that everyone's heard of falls short of establishing notability; maybe getting a job that Zermelo couldn't get doesn't fully do that either, but it's something in the article that got my attention. Contributing the encyclopedia articles on trigonometric series and differential equations seems to be the principal occasion for notability, as far as I can tell so far. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's not a lot there, but what there is seems to be adequately sourced and to indicate that he was one of the respected mathematicians of his day. I think the article creator, Mathsfreak, would be well advised to focus more on quality than on quantity — he or she has been creating many short articles about mathematicians that need significant cleanup by others, and I think this is a good example of that pattern. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Equivocation. Although WP:PROF seems hard to establish, he does get some WP:GNG-type coverage in German (stole these from the de.wiki):
- Otto Haupt: Emil Hilb. In: Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. Band 42, 1932, S. 183−198.
- Siegfried Gottwald (Hrsg.): Lexikon bedeutender Mathematiker, Verlag Harri Deutsch, ISBN 3-323-00319-5, S. 203.
- Hans-Joachim Vollrath: Emil Hilb. In: Peter Baumgart (Hrsg.): Lebensbilder bedeutender Würzburger Professoren. Degener, Neustadt/Aisch 1995, S. 320−338.

As you can see it's mostly obits from his day and modern historians of German mathematics that pay attention to him. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me as judged by cited refs. Have added a couple of refs. (Also is Otto Haupt: Emil Hilb, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker Vereinigung, 42, 1933, S. 183-198 1933 or 1932?) This source http://www.didaktik.mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de/history/vollrath/papers/073.pdf seems very useful as has a list of biographies of Hilb and a list of his publications. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep on basis above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no votes for deletion. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K. David Elworthy[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic. While he may be notable in the future, I am unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability at the level suggested by WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Elworthy wrote the reference text "The Geometry of Filtering" as well as having taught at the St Flour Summer School in Probability. Only a Non-Mathematician would consider not calling him notable. Mathsfreak (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mathsfreak, he may well be notable to you or other mathematicians, but notability for academics in Wikipedia follows these guidelines: WP:Academic and your article on him fails to demonstrate this. Writing books or teaching at a summer school are simply not enough to make him Wikipedia-notable. You need to back the claims of notability with sources that are recognized on Wikipedia as being reliable. We need enthusiastic editors like you on Wikipedia - but Wikipedia has developed rules and guidelines as to what is or is not a suitable Wikipedia article, and if you want your work to survive on Wikipedia, you do need to work within them (even if they do sometimes seem irrational).ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, we can't all be mathematicians, can we? Arrogance aside, he does pass notability. Check books and scholar if there is any doubt. Disclaimer - I'm not a mathematician, but I really like numbers. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (a book with nearly 400 citations in Google scholar and an overal h-index there of 20) and #C5 (the personal chair he held at Warwick). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep on arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Ray^Talk 17:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nomination withdrawn. I had checked using Web of Science and had inadvertently used the social science index instead of the science index. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xue-Mei Li[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic. While she may be notable in the future, I am unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability at the level suggested by WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She has already written two books ("The geometry of Filtering" and "On the Geometry of Diffusion Operators and Stochastic Flows"), and is one of the few experts in the UK in stochastic differential geometry, how could you possibly consider her not notable? Mathsfreak (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mathsfreak, she may well be notable to you, and indeed to other people in stochastic differential geometry, but notability in Wikipedia means something rather different from being notable in real life, and your article on her fails to demonstrate this. Having a PhD and researching in mathematics even at an institution as reputable as the University of Warwick is simply not enough to make her Wikipedia-notable. If other mathematicians have reviewed her books, which you have not mentioned in the article, at length or regularly cited them or any of her other research papers, that may well mean that she is Wikipedia-notable - but as well as mentioning them in the article, you would need to back the statement up with sources that are recognised on Wikipedia as being reliable. We need enthusiastic editors like you on Wikipedia - but Wikipedia has developed rules and guidelines as to what is or is not a suitable Wikipedia article, and if you want your work to survive on Wikipedia, you do need to work within them (even if they do sometimes seem irrational). PWilkinson (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete in view of MathSciNet h-index below. Too early. I find a GS h index of 13 which may give a pass in a low cited field. Input from mathematicians would be helpful. I am concerned that this nominator is not carrying out WP:Before before nominating. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I think this is a case of not quite there yet, per the rank of associate professor. I can't altogether account for the GS h-index (suspect it may be a case of multiple researchers with the same name), but the MathSciNet h-index is 2. Ray^Talk 17:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The citation record is borderline, but not really quite enough to convince me, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. In the UK, she and David Elworthy are practically the only people involved in Stochastic Differential Geometry. Furthermore she is married to a fairly famous Mathematician, Mathsfreak (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per above. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the physical sciences you would need an h-index in the 10+ range to be considered for an initial academic position at research universities. At h=13 she would still be pretty junior. Notability requires a lot more, otherwise most university lecturers in the sciences in the UK would get a wikipedia bio article. Perchloric (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC) (edited Perchloric (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. It doesn't look like there's enough for WP:PROF and not inherited. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no votes for deletion. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Luckhaus[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic. While he may be notable in the future, I am unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability at the level suggested by WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the nominator please tell us what he gets for cites on Google Scholar ? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 by virtue of the high citation counts to his works on Google scholar, and #C3 by virtue of his membership in Leopoldina. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precisely as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Ray^Talk 17:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nomination withdrawn. I had checked using Web of Science and had inadvertently used the social science index instead of the science index. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn and no votes for deletion left. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Theodor Sturm[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic. While he may be notable in the future, currently there are not sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is Member of the Board of Directors of the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics - that should suffice for being notable. Mathsfreak (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS gives h index = 18 which should suffice for WP:Prof#C1. Did the nominator see these data? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I agree with Xxanthippe that the citation record is good enough for a pass of #C1. I don't think the Hausdorff Center directorship is enough by itself but it strengthens the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nomination withdrawn. I had checked using Web of Science and had inadvertently used the social science index instead of the science index. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Strange that he should be "Vice President of the Vice Chairman of the Collaborative Research Center". What kind of vice is that, anyway? BTW, is he a descendent of the Sturm of Sturm-Liouville? If so that would be worth mentioning. Richard Gill (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England national football team results 2008[edit]

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

Appears to be an unnecessary content fork of England national football team results – 2000s. Seegoon (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This is a redundant content fork. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, content fork. Giant Snowman 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, redundant to England national football team results – 2000s. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caslink[edit]

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

Nonnotable software project, no independent sources cited, article author also appears to be author of the software. Author removed prod tag without explanation or improvement of article. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A good faith google / google news / google books search did not turn up any notability for this piece of software. There are hints of notability for an older database search scheme with the same name, but it doesn't appear the two are releated.--Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Alexey Podrezov] First of all, please check editing history before making such claims. I did improve the article before I removed the prod tag. I wrote the preface explaining why the project is notable. Maybe the project is not notable for the entire world, but it is very known in the MSX community. Many MSX community pages are linking to my article, also there are a few discussions on msx.org resource about my project. A few similar software projects were started after my Caslink v1 was released because it caused inspiration, people started to see the use of their old MSX hardware again. And my presentations about the article were welcomed on several demoparties in Finland, including a such a big event as AltParty.

[Alexey Podrezov] I am very much shocked by Wikipedia's policies and admin practices concerning deletion of articles. You guys approved articles about "rusty trombone" and similar kind of crap, but you want to delete my article that describes a software project that is used by a generation of gamers and enthusiasts on MSX hardware. What about innovation? What about computer history? What about technology? Should we just drop everything because 95% of Earth's population does not care?

Delete per nom - no evidence of notability whatsoever. Note that almost every word in the article comes from http://www.finnov.net/~wierzbowsky/caslink2.htm - if the author isn't the owner of that site it's a copyvio and if he is it's spam. andy (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although a copy of the project's site, the material is not a copyvio as it has been licensed appropriately, and verified with an OTRS ticket. See the article's talk page.

Whoops! andy (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This software lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Alexey Podrezov] Yes, the project is not advertised on any big media's site. It was created mostly for the vintage computer lovers. And their numbers are not large comparing to, for example, Android fans. However, please tell me what "reliable sources" provide coverage of the crap that is described in the "rusty trombone" article and why that article has the right to exist and mine does not?

[Alexey Podrezov] As for the sources, my project was mentioned in several MSX magazines, for example in the August's edition of Freesoft MSX Magazine (http://xoomer.virgilio.it/enribarb/msx/freesoft.html), on several MSX community pages: CAX pages (http://cax.nm.ru/msx/packed/index.html), Devili (http://www.devili.iki.fi/Computers/links.html), Planet Retro (http://planetretro.org/index.php?basicsearch=comp), on MSX.ORG resource as well as on several other pages (http://handige-zaken.nl/msx/hardware.html)

[Alexey Podrezov] Added various external and internal links, references, categories, optimized the article, added a screenshot of UI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podrezov (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 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. I'm discounting the "keep" opinions by Gaius Claudius Nero, Bearian, Dr. Blofeld, Dream Focus and Outback the koala because they are not based on applicable guidelines such as WP:N or other community standards. I am also discounting the "delete" opinion by Hrafn for incivility. I am not giving particular weight to arguments based on the WP:FOR criteria, since these are not community-adopted guidelines, but neither am I discounting them. This leaves us with the following opinions to take into account when adjudicating consensus: Fut.Perf., Serpent's Choice and LibStar (delete) versus Doktor Plumbi and FeydHuxtable (keep). This 3-2 outcome does not represent consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 08:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Netherlands relations[edit]

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

Another bout of mechanical creation of useless new "X–Y relations" substubs. Next to no non-trivial content. Didn't we finally reach some project-wide consensus that this type of stub is not wanted? Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations has recommendations on when and how such articles should be written; these standards are certainly not met here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are for being expanded, i can't write whole albanian part on my own, luckly you and the others can help --Vinie007 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, your argument isn't right. Please read the article of the relation, and the guide: They have been engaged in a war (not fully at war, but see Dutch military mission in Albania, They have been/are in an alliance (see NATO), read article of Albanian army. --Vinie007 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The concern about the article is legitimate, but I agree with Vinie007: Condition#3 of Bilateral relations (They have been/are in an alliance) is satisfied. The Dutch military mission in Albania was clearly a strong alliance between the Albanian and the Dutch crowns in 1913-1914. As far as the "triviality" of the subject is concerned, I don't believe this article deserves more space than the relationship between the Netherlands and Albania. There are 50k Albanian emigrants in the Netherlands, and both countries have important import-exports, aside from their alliance in 1913-1914. In addition it is important to point out the relationship between Albania and the Netherlands for the implications brought by the refusal of the Netherlands to sign the SAA with Serbia because of their lack of compliance to bring Mr. Mladic to the Hague tribunal. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not certain that the Dutch participation in the International Gendarmerie constitutes either a war or an alliance in the sense intended by the WikiProject guideline. The Great Powers ambassadors chose the Netherlands for the police mission in Albania specifically because there was no treaty relationship between the countries; the Dutch were considered neutral in Albanian affairs, and -- as far as I can tell from available sourcing -- that participation engendered no lasting alliance; the Dutch simply went home when they were done. By means of comparison, and at the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, I don't think there's a risible claim to an Iran-Sweden relations article, although Sweden performed exactly the same role in what was then Persia, at the same time. Nor does the revolt in Albania during the Dutch Military Mission constitute in any real sense a "war" between Albania and the Netherlands. Certainly, there are no evident sources that claim it does. If I misunderstood the intent of the guideline conditions, I'd certainly be open to re-evaluating this position, but at the moment, I just don't see how this meets the standard. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You say that the participation of the Netherlands engendered no lasting alliance. Condition#3 of Bilateral relations simply says (They have been/are in an alliance), it doesn't necessarily warrant a lasting alliance, but simply that they were once in alliance or they are now in an alliance. You may not deny that from the moment the Dutch mission was established, an alliance was set up between the two crowns, the Albanian monarchy and the Dutch one. The choice of the Netherlands which had been neutral until then, doesn't mean that the alliance wasn't established from that point onwards, for a certain period of time. And I don't see how the inexistance of an article Iran-Sweden relations should undermine the argument of having an Albanian-Dutch one. We are considering only point 3, not other points of Bilateral relations: there have never been wars between the Netherlands and Albania, on the opposite, good relations, which were started by the Dutch mission, that was key to the creation of the state of Albania.--Doktor Plumbi (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think the Dutch Military Mission constitutes an alliance at all. It wasn't a negotiated agreement between the Albanian and Dutch governments. There was no treaty. When Albania was occupied by the Central Powers during WWI, the Netherlands did not intervene (indeed, they remained officially neutral throughout the war). The modern equivalent to the Dutch Military Mission is a UN Peacekeeping Force. If a country, under the auspices of the UN, engages in police action in a third party state, there isn't any expectation that that constitutes an alliance -- or something sufficient to base a bilateral relations article on. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see why this would be deleted. With some expansion it could be a great article.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because it fails WP:GNG. this is a WP:ILIKEIT argument. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the WP:GNG does it fail? And how is that a WP:ILIKEIT argument? It sounds like you're saying you don't like it.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of significant coverage of specific bilateral relations. all the article has is multilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (1) On the basis of past outcomes, almost all bilateral relations between European countries articles have been kept. (2) The Netherlands appears to have been instrumental in the independence of Albania, as it was for the United States; its early recognition paved the way for other nations' bilateral relations. (3) There is a lot more to be added, and this can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many bilateral relations topics betweeen European countries are notable; not all are. There are (depending how you count transcontinental countries and so forth) about 50 countries in Europe. There neither are nor should be (50 x 49) / 2 = 1225 articles as a result. Even within Europe, many pairings simply lack notability. As for point #2 (or #3), where are the sources? If reliable third-party authors agreed that Dutch political recognition was "instrumental" in Albanian independence, that might led credence to the topic's notability. But I don't see that in a source. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book contains a bit about the role of the Netherlands in the Greek–Albania dispute. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Gaius.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yet another stringing together of isolated tangential and/or trivial mentions in an attempt to give a pretence of a relationship where no substantive relationship exists.If this had the potential to be "be a great article", it wouldn't be currently based upon such marginal bottom-of-the-barrel-scrapings. It seems that citizens of two countries need only sneeze in the same room for an 'X-Y relations' article to be created. That past AfDs allowed themselves to be bamboozled by such shenanigans does not mean that we should continue the idiocy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One nation helps another in its creation/independence, then its a notable relationship. Them sending people over to help prevent anarchy is rather important. Dream Focus 12:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that a brief (well under a year) mission, nearly a century ago, to help set up a police force, in the Provisional Government of Albania, had a significant impact that endured through a peasant revolt and ensuing imprisonment of most of the officers, their replacement with Austrian/German officers, the Principality of Albania, the Albanian Republic, the Albanian Kingdom, Albania under Italy, Albania under Germany , the Socialist People's Republic of Albania & post-Communist Albania is both ludicrously tendentious and an insult to our intelligence. ~~Notable~~. ~~Close to notable~~. ~~In the same galaxy as notable~~. ~~Can see notable through a powerful telescope on the night sky~~. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, but you made me LOL. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Involved in a military operation is notable. Whether the outcome was successful or not is not relevant. Dream Focus 02:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - on the one hand, Albania and the Netherlands have no current significant diplomatic relations. On the other, the Netherlands has had more important historical involvement with Albania. I'm leaning towards suggesting that this article should be deleted and replaced by one detailing the Netherland's relationship with the Provisional Government. Anthem of joy (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - alminac entry standard for all encyclopedias. Expand the article, don't delete it. Outback the koala (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. the article merely confirms a little bit of interaction. most of the interaction is in a multilateral not bilateral context. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin not all bilaterals are inherently notable or form part of an almanac. a number of users have used this as an argument when over 200 bilaterals have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant? Some of the ones nominated got deleted, others have been kept. During one mass nomination spree, guidelines were suggest by many, and then they were made. Most of the keeps in this AFD have stated it meets those guidelines. Dream Focus 10:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream focus. There's at least one whole book specificaly on the Dutch help to Albania in 1913. For details of the modern relationship see 'On Dutch Albanian Friendship' in "To Albania with Love". FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The entire book is certainly not about this topic. "On Dutch-Albanian Friendship" is a 3-page section (beginning p.37), which doesn't do anything to dispel my belief that the guideline isn't met here. It discusses a workshop in 1999 in which "ten parliamentarians from Albania" attended a workshop in the Hague, along with some Dutch legislators. Nor was it an official government function, but one "organized by the East/West Parliamentary Practice Foundation," which doesn't appear to even approach being a notable organization. It also discusses another seminar, this time attended by "a group of ten representatives from several Albanian municipalities and the Albanian Association of Municipalities, headed by Albania's Deputy Minister of Local Government." Although I didn't write the guideline on notability of bilateral relations, I cannot envision this as being the sort of event that constitutes "an alliance" under that guideline. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am involved editor who wrote following articles related to the topic of this debate:

Bilateralism means: political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states.

The Principality of Albania, established in February/March 1914, did not exist as sovereign state when Netherlands gave its soldiers to help Great Powers in October/November 1913 and during next four or five months after that. The International Gendarmerie did not support Provisional Government of Albania. On the contrary. The International Commission of Control and International Gendarmerie forced Ismail Qemali to step aside and leave Albania. In case of the establishing and functioning of the International Gendarmerie there simply were no "bilateral relations between Albania and the Netherlands". Great Powers needed neutral soldiers to take care about law enforcement in future Principality of Albania and Netherland accepted to help Great Powers. The International Gendarmerie was subordinated to the International Commission of Control until German prince Prince of Wied took the throne in March 1914. Soon population of Albania started revolt - Peasant Revolt in Albania. Dutch mission together with Kosovo kachak forces of Isa Boletini tried to fight against people of Albania and failed.

My comment does not mean that I support deletion of the article. Maybe there are some political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states Albania and Netherland that justify existence of this article. But in case of the International Gendarmerie there were no bilateral relations between Albania and Netherlands. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 13 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 16:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEVENT, the relevant part of the latter being "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate". His role in the event was, basically, be stupid enough to not notice being tailed. There is little of note to be said about the man personally apart from his connection to the bin Laden raid. Wat little needs to be said is already at Death of Osama bin Laden#Identity of his courier. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is not about one event or news, this guy provided training to the 911 perpetrators and provided safe have to the top suspects in its aftermath, its mentioned in this book briefly here. By the criteria of this nomination Death of Osama bin Laden also fails because of "one event" and "not news". Absurd. This is about a terrorist which the CIA and US intelligence knew about and tracked for years and was essential to eventually finding bin Laden. His name is mentioned in tons of wiki leaks documents that the CIA tried to extract from people in Guantanamo. He was described as bin Laden's right hand man and his contribution to the al Qaeda network planning and infrastructure is immeasureable. Bin Laden relied on such men and were the brains behind his operations, at least for influencing developments in the al-Qaeda network. He is independent in his own right as an al Qaeda operative, the US government and intelligence would verify this. He's been linked to Tora Bora and many of the other top officials and events. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is already more to be said about him, and it is clear that more will come out. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saw this on Jimbo's talk page. Incredibly notable and getting more so.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Hugely important figure already, and will be becoming more so in the coming days/weeks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think harboring the most wanted man in the world for several years constitutes as a significant role. Leading the US to bin Laden's location would be another significant fact and also and apparently he trained the 9/11 hijackers in the use of computers. I think a article is called for. I also think that the media will dig up more on him as the weeks and months pass. We may end up seeing an actual photo of him and some more biography. I think deleting this now is a mistake. I think there is a lot of interest in finding out who he was and what his full role was and I think some of those details will emerge. 1.4k people hit on this article yesterday demonstrating a high interest and significance. --Ishtar456 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom et al - frankieMR (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has become a historic figure, worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable individual. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEVENT inapplicable. Training individuals pre-911. Continued association and confident of Bin Laden. His not noticing he was being tailed of no consequence, specially as there are satelites circling the earth that can zoom in on the unsuspecting and determine which finger they use to scratch their noses. That more about the man's actions becomes available now that investigations can be revealed is a boon for Wikipedia. Good article. Most informative and helpful to our readers in their understanding of the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think we should give an article to every friend of bin Laden, but he certainly has some real historical significance. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:GNG / WP:BIO, in his own right Chzz ► 10:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous news sources over several days, notable individual Jebus989 ^✰ 12:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable dead historical figure. Erxnmedia (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable figure as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable in his own right for his terrorist training activities and role in numerous terrorist attacks. Numerous sources already cited above to show he passes WP:GNG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this WP:SNOW yet? If there's little chance of deletion, let's close this AfD and get the AfD tag off the article, as thousands of people are seeing the deletion tag every day when they view the article. OCNative (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Let's close this AfD right now. It looks really bad on the article. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Munck[edit]

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

No sources, no notability obtained. We've already deleted his article on 5 seperate occasions. [8], [9] (ones i nominated). Redirect this or delete, then WP:SALT the page until Ethan gains notability. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:40 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Has only a bit part in one television show to his credit. Perhaps one day he'll meet the notability requirements, but not yet. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Following rewrite and improvement. Sandstein 09:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baptist Churches in Alabama[edit]

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

No indication that any of these are notable for any reason. Altairisfar 17:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC) *Nomination withdrawn due to complete rewrite of article and change of heart. I'll try to convert to a table and clean it up instead. Altairisfar 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Has now been completely rewritten with all new content, now in a table, the scope is narrowly defined as Baptist churches that "are National Historic Landmarks, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, listed on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage , or are otherwise significant for their history, association with significant events or people, or their architecture and design (meaning they must be notable enough for a stand-alone article)." Altairisfar 02:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Let it continue since there are still obviously issues. Altairisfar 06:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Altairisfar 17:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many Baptist churches in Alabama which are notable, including at least the following ones that are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (list below). I don't happen to really like having vague lists, but there is room in Wikipedia for a list of all the notable baptist churches in Alabama, i think. IF the creator of the article actually wants to develop it. The list should be moved to "List of Baptist churches in Alabama" though. And the intro text should clarify that it is only about notable churches, not every church. --do ncr am 19:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

draft list of NRHP-listed Baptist churches in state, since put into article

(begin list of NRHP-listed places in Alabama with "Baptist" in name)

Ackerville Baptist Church of Christ, Ackerville, Alabama
First Baptist Church (Greenville, Alabama)
Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church (Auburn, Alabama)
County Line Baptist Church, vicinity of Dudleyville, Alabama
First African Baptist Church (Tuscaloosa, Alabama)
First Baptist Church (Selma, Alabama)
Siloam Baptist Church, 503 Washington St., Marion, AL
Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, 454 Dexter Ave., Montgomery, AL
Pastorium, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, 309 S. Jackson St., Montgomery, AL
Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, 1530 6th Ave. North at 16th St., Birmingham, AL
Stone Street Baptist Church 311 Tunstall St., Mobile, AL
St. Louis Street Missionary Baptist Church 108 N. Dearborn St., Mobile, AL
Montgomery Hill Baptist Church, E side Hwy. 59 on CR 80, Tensaw, AL
First Baptist Church (Bay Minette, Alabama), N side D'Olive St., Bay Minette, AL
Mount Zion Baptist Church (Anniston, Alabama), 212 Second St., Anniston, AL
Parker Memorial Baptist Church, 1205 Quintard Ave., Anniston, AL
Sardis Baptist Church (Birmingham, Alabama)
Sardis Baptist Church (Union Springs, Alabama)
Canaan Baptist Church (Bessemer, Alabama), 824 Fifteenth Street North, Bessemer, AL
First Baptist Church, East Thomas, 419 11th Court West, Birmingham, AL
East End Baptist Church, 2609 Sixth Ave. S, Birmingham, AL
Peace Baptist Church, 302 Sixth St. N, Birmingham, AL
Shady Grove Baptist Church, 3444 31st Way North, Collegeville, Birmingham, AL
First Ebenezer Baptist Church, 420 Graymont Ave. North, Smithfield, Birmingham, AL
First Baptist Church, Kingston, 4600 Ninth Ave. N, Birmingham, AL
West End Hills Missionary Baptist Church, 1680 19th Place SW, Birmingham, AL
New Rising Star Baptist Church, 3104 33rd Place N, Collegeville, Birmingham, AL
New Pilgrim Baptist Church, 903 Sixth Ave S, Birmingham, AL
Mount Ararat Baptist Church (Birmingham, Alabama), 1920 Slayden Ave., Ensley, Birmingham, AL
Bethel Baptist Church, Parsonage, and Guardhouse, 3233, 3232, and 3236 29th Avenue North Collegeville, AL
New Hope Baptist Church (Beatrice, Alabama), vicinity of Beatrice, AL
First Baptist Church of Wetumpka, 205 West Bridge St. Wetumpka, AL
Aimwell Baptist Church, 500 Earle St. Mobile, AL
Mt. Olive Missionary Baptist Church No.1, 409 Lexington Ave. Mobile, AL

(end list)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Changing !vote -- see below. First off, it should be noted that the list Doncram created above is not the list in the article. As for the topic in general, this is an intersection that is appropriate for a category, but not a list. The universe of Baptist churches in Alabama is so nearly unlimited in scope as to make a list of them unmaintainable (although the number of Baptist churches in Alabama is admittedly not infinite, it is unbelievably large, more so if the list includes defunct churches). Additionally, almost all of those churches are nonnotable per WP criteria, and all of the ostensible purposes of a list of them would be something that Wikipedia is not: a worship guide, travel guide, or directory. As for the list that that Doncram created above, there might be an encyclopedic purpose in something like a List of Baptist churches in Alabama on the National Register of Historic Places, but that would be a different article (and some of the blue links in the above list don't actually point to Alabama churches). The article that has been nominated here should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to substance of Orlady's comment are given in replies below, including specifically link to wp:CLN which explains relationships of lists and categories. --do ncr am 11:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Orlady. The list in the article is extremely disorganized, using neither alphabetical nor any other obvious order. For example, at one point, an Antioch Baptist Church is listed, and ten lines later, another Antioch Baptist Church is listed. Is this the same church listed twice by mistake, or two different churches? No wikilinks are provided (if, indeed, any of these churches are notable enough to have articles of their own), nor is any data provided about the churches other than their names (for example, the towns where they are located are not mentioned). Furthermore, some of the churches have changed their names, but they are listed under their former rather than current names. If an article by this name were considered useful, and I am skeptical of that, I don't see how the current list could be considered helpful as a starting point. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does not speak to notability of the list as a topic. The list is complementary to a category (which also can be created). It serves practical purpose of allowing editors to discuss, within the list, the notability of individual churches, and to include pictures, and to keep track of ones with and without articles. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists)#Lists and categories:

"Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together; the principle is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page."

See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. --do ncr am 11:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my recommendation to neutral in recognition of the complete overhauling of the list in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Above list of NRHP-listed Baptist churches in Alabama amended to point to the actual Alabama churches rather than disambiguation pages or churches in other states, as pointed out by Orlady above. But still, the above list is rather tangential to the article what I nominated for deletion. Altairisfar 22:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article amended to be the above list of NRHP places, plus more, such as the First Baptist Church (Huntsville, Alabama), established in 1809, the oldest Southern Baptist church in the state. I think any links that first pointed to dab pages have now been fixed to point to the correct redlink. As most editors here know, articles for all the NRHP-listed ones could be created at any time. --do ncr am 11:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you feel strongly about saving this article, I'm willing to withdraw my Afd nomination on these conditions: that the article is moved to List of Baptist churches in Alabama on the National Register of Historic Places, as suggested by Orlady, or even the horribly worded List of Baptist churches in Alabama on the National Register of Historic Places or Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage; and maybe someone could try to balance the lede?

I checked what churches were on it before and none were on the NRHP or Alabama Register, so my issue was with notability. But, as Dennis said, it was horrible before and at the present title would still be nothing more than a laundry list of crap. I can deal with a very narrow scope. My point in nominating it was that in a state with 67 counties, with the majority being rural, there is roughly one Baptist church for every 100-300 people (not literally, but very close). In my small Alabama county of barely 22,000 people there are 178 Baptist churches, none of which are on the National Register, and only one is on the Alabama Register. BTW, the editor that started this article is not new, as you suggested on his talk page, he's been churning out the same type of articles on Wikipedia since June 9, 2005, evidently without taking the time to learn any of our policies and procedures. Altairisfar 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I myself don't happen to really like open-ended lists, in part because it can be unpleasant to police them in terms of keeping them from becoming indiscriminate/directory-like, but I think they are valid. List of Anglo-Catholic churches is one which i was involved with for a while, trying to help for some reason i can't recall. It was difficult there to deal with multiple additions of non-significant places. I sought there to make a positive difference there by building out a table clearly calling for both evidence of Anglican-ness (which was an issue in fact) and calling for evidence of notability, and paring away items that were not supported by evidence. I no longer watch that. In Alabama, I do think that a list of Baptist churches actually makes sense; there indeed must be thousands of them and a good number are significant and are worth mentioning in a list. My sense of the consensus on list-articles in wikipedia is basically that lists of items that are all individually notable are okay, and further that the lists can include items which are not individually notable enough to have a separate list-article. (Some will disagree, but that is my sense of the consensus.) There are broad lists of synagogues and of many types of churches. So, I just happen to think a list on this topic is pretty obviously useful, in fact, and it is apparently of interest to its creator, and it is not proper to delete it as a topic.

I did suppose, apparently incorrectly, that the creator was relatively new to Wikipedia. But it doesn't really matter; we should try to be accommodating and to provide support and education and socialization. If the creator in fact doesn't want to develop this list, it is not horrible for the list to linger on, not much developed, not much read, not much linked.

I don't care if mention of the temporary prominence of 2011 tornado relief efforts is kept in the article or not, but it is salient in the webpages of numerous churches found by google search of "Baptist Alabama". I also don't care particularly about the other statement now tagged. But it is an obviously TRUE statement, not "original research". It reads: "Others are significant for other reasons, or have chosen not to accept NRHP listing with its potential restrictions." There is one church in the list that I added which is not NRHP-listed. There are other significant churches, I am sure, and I am sure everyone commenting here would have to agree there are modern, non-historic Baptist churches in the state that are not NRHP-listed. I know also that many obviously historically important churches, elsewhere, choose not to accept NRHP-listing; it is okay to suggest that some churches in Alabama may have declined NRHP listing because in fact they may have. The statement is deliberately a compound, true statement. However, Altairisfar, if you want to edit or remove those statements, please feel free to do that; editing or removing them would be better than having those tags there forever.

I don't feel strongly about the need for the list; i do think it is okay and it should not be deleted for wrong reasons. If you care to withdraw your AFD nom that is good and would probably pretty much resolve this, but since there are a couple delete votes i think the procedure is that the AFD needs to run the 7 days and then be closed by an uninvolved administrator. --do ncr am 16:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying in an article that some Baptist churches have chosen not to accept National Register listing because a contributor "knows" that to be true is a form of original research. That unsupported assertion -- which I surmised was based on inference from a general pattern -- is what I was tagging when I added that inline template to the article. The above comment indicates that the template (which Doncram has removed) was spot-on accurate. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be one more instance in a series of negative digs, in a long pattern of wp:wikihounding, in which Orlady is following me and personally criticizing me. That is a misstatement. In context of the long pattern, in which I have correctly charged Orlady of lying about me, it amounts to another deliberate lie. I did not state in the article that the any Baptist church in Alabama or anywhere has chosen not to accept accept NRHP listing. The compound statement is obviously true. In the compound statement, I did suggest the possibility that there are historic churches in Alabama. It is possible. Some might say that should not be suggested, that that is slipping something in which should not be suggested unless there is specific evidence of it actually having happened. Specific evidence could conceivably be provided by pointing to a specific instance where a historic church in Alabama was NRHP-nominated and was accepted by the National Register and where the church finally opposed its being listed, which would show in the NRHP's database as an "Owner objection" case. I don't have such an example. It is nonetheless absolutely possible that churches, like other owners of likely-to-be-NRHP-eligible properties, have chosen not to accept NRHP listings. In fact, in most cases a church's opposition to NRHP listing would prevent any NRHP nom from getting started at all. My point in mentioning it was to explain that there are historic churches which are not NRHP-listed, to get away from the potential idea that all historic churches are NRHP-listed.

I am aware of churches not wanting National Register listing, in part because of the restrictions it could impose; churches I am familiar with are clearly forward-oriented and have primary mission of religious service, and do not care one whit about history of their building, and would not want any potential restriction on how they renovate their property to serve their church's mission (while other churches do care about their architecture and historic associations). I stated that here as an assertion here which I do not need to prove; it is not original research in mainspace. For Orlady to dismiss that, she has to implicitly accuse me of lying. I accuse her of slipping in yet another insinuation of lying or other evil-doing on my part. I am not beating around the bush: I do accuse her directly of lying here. I doubt any good can come of further discussion here, so will hope not to reply further, unless to defend myself from new accusations. --do ncr am 21:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Further, at Talk:List of Baptist churches in Alabama#Unbalanced template, Orlady made other negative assertions about me, including some [wp:personal attack]]-type, personal comment that I am racially motivated and/or racially ignorant, to which I replied there. I am completely offended by Orlady's continuing behavior, spread across many articles and Talk pages to which she has followed me. --do ncr am 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the title, no I don't agree it should be moved to include "on the National Register of Historic Places". I deliberately put one obviously significant other one into the list, and I could add more. Long ago i created some lists defined to be NRHP-only like that, but I believe broader lists are more appropriate. There are many broad lists like List of Elks buildings and List of octagon houses which now include mostly NRHP-listed places, but it is better they not be defined narrowly, better that they can include other obviously notable ones. By the way, it is kinda poor, IMO, that there exists a list-article on NRHP-listed bridges in each U.S. state, poorly connected and overlapping with the corresponding state lists of bridges (sections or split out from List of bridges in the United States); IMO the NRHP ones should be integrated into the state lists. However, it was the interest of one or more editors to create those NRHP ones, and they serve a purpose, so live and let live, until someone actually wants to do the work to make the state lists better. Here, no reason to start with the overly narrowly defined topic. --do ncr am 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just let the AfD run its course then, If it survives I'm sure it will be come up for AfD again at the present title after it s full of of crap again. Altairisfar 16:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There may well be unjustified future additions, but that shouldn't be cause for it to come up for AFD again. Hopefully what will happen is that the list will be developed and maintained as a good contribution to Wikipedia. --do ncr am 16:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horrible unwikified list. Even if you wikified and deleted all the redlinks, you really aren't adding anything that a category can't do better. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough work has been done to justify a keep. The original was everything a list should not be, this 100% rewrite is literally the equivalent of deleting and starting over, and doing it right. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is wikified. It was not horrible before; it reflected the interest of an editor (not me) in creating a list on this valid topic. Redlinks are needed and helpful, are not to be deleted. Per wp:CLN, the list is complementary to any category. And it obviously is different in that it includes descriptions, photos, and redlinks or non-linked mentions of churches that do not have separate wikipedia articles. --do ncr am 11:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There are thousands of Baptist churches in Alabama. What makes the list so notable? Is simply "being" a church enough to pass the bar for inclusion? Why not a List of Burger King restaurants in Alabama? Being a church is not inherently notable. That doesn't mean you can't have articles on NOTABLE churches, or a category for them. But a list of redlinks for churches that are very not likely to be notable (most churches aren't, via wp:gng) is not what lists are for. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will take a new look, the notability criteria is narrowly defined now, see my keep vote above. Redlinks have no bearing on the Afd process that I know of, but please correct me if I'm wrong? Altairisfar 02:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have changed my !vote due to the current article being the equivalent of a delete and 100% rewrite. Adding the section that explained what was notable about them helped, and can be addressed on the talk page if someone thinks a particular church fails the WP:N test. Limiting the redlinks also helps, although I still have concerns anytime a list is over 50% redlinks. It may be a matter of just needing new articles, or it may be a case that notability doesn't exist, or verification can't be found. In this case, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Further to my !vote above, I find that this survey indicates that as of about 11 years ago there were 3,148 Southern Baptist churches in Alabama, plus 20 churches of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship, 147 churches of the Primitive Baptist Fellowship - Old Line, 6 of the Progressive Primitive Baptists, 29 of the Old Missionary Baptists, 165 of the Free Will Baptists, 3 each of the Independent Free Will Baptists Associations and the Reformed Baptists, 37 of the American Baptist Association, 3 of the American Baptist Churches in the USA, 17 of the Baptist Missionary Association of America, 7 of the Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptists Association, 26 of the Duck River and Kindred Baptists Associations, plus a few churches of couple of other brands of Baptist that I got too bored to copy the names of. The webpage says that it does not include the "historically African American denominations" (this would include, for example, the National Baptist Conventions) and I notice that it also does not list any Independent Baptist churches.
My point is that the universe of "Alabama Baptist churches" is very large (I wouldn't be surprised if the state has more Baptist churches than it has elementary schools) and actually rather diverse in scope. If contributors are committed to converting the nominated article into a list of churches with some sort of historical significance, I think it would be in the interest of both users and future contributors to create a title and lead section that clearly (and narrowly) define that scope, so that the list-article doesn't quickly become an unmanageable hodgepodge of disparate items. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the rest aside, I do agree on the danger of it becoming a huge laundry list. However, I think the current version that I'm working on may help. The lead statement may need further revision, but it attempts to explain in simple terms what makes one of these notable. I will not finish the full revision in the next few hours however (I'm taking my mother out to dinner for the holiday), but will refine further upon my return. Altairisfar 22:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, while Altairisfar's development on the historical churches today is clearly very good, Altairisfar's choice to try to limit the list to just historic churches that are listed on the National Register or otherwise, is not binding. This AFD is about whether the list topic is notable, and is not about list inclusion criteria. List inclusion criteria can be left open, can be discussed at the article's Talk page. I think it is obvious that a huge modern Baptist church with a big public presence in Alabama would also be a significant notable church to be included in the list. Say if there is one akin to the Reformed Church in America's Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, California. Any modern, non-historic Baptist church in Alabama that has significant coverage in reliable sources, as could be demonstrated by it having an individual wikipedia article, can be added to this list, IMO. It's good that the list is better quality now; it's good the AFD will be closed as Keep. Just this AFD is not going to be binding on the inclusion criteria for the list at its current name "List of Baptist churches in Alabama". --do ncr am 03:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant above by "they must be notable enough for a stand-alone article" unless they are listed on a state or national register. Altairisfar 04:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, glad you would accept modern notable ones. That's not what the current lede suggests, i think. It states "This is a list of Baptist churches in the U.S. state of Alabama that are notable because they are National Historic Landmarks (NHL), listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), listed on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage (ARLH), or are otherwise significant for their history, association with significant events or people, or their architecture and design." That seems very history-focused and seems not to allow for Baptist churches in Alabama that are notable for other reasons, such as merely their huge size or their current-day (not historic) activity. Perhaps you didn't mean it to be as limiting as I read it to be. Again, inclusion criteria can be discussed at the Talk page of the article. --do ncr am 04:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done, one way or the other. Altairisfar 06:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my earlier "Delete" and changing to Keep, based on the good job that Doncram and Altairisfar did in repurposing this list-article into . --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological List of Alabama Baptist Churches and Circuit Preachers in and around Clay County, Alabama 1838-1946[edit]

Help again this time trying to do it right Thanks for the discussion on the article I had put up laballed wrongly. I am going to put up the correct historical list article on my talk page and would like constructive suggestion as to its inclusion. There are some on the list that are actually found on the existing List of Baptist Churches in Alabama or similar title (sorry) and these could be incorporated but as historical researchable information it should all be up. The deleted article is at the bottom of the page so advise on that as well as a proper title. Thanks WayneRay (talk) 20:02, 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 close as speedy delete per author request.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clay County Baptist Preachers 1838-1946[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Altairisfar 17:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Altairisfar 17:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Wikipedia is not a publisher of family history or nonnotable local church histories. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Orlady. Furthermore, this appears to have been copied directly from an inadequately identified source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty indiscriminate list, and no notability to boot. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a family history list ??? There are tons of Lists Of things on Wikipedia? It is not indiscriminate it is Chronological and containss all of the Circuit Preachers associated with each church, listing all of the Baptist churches in and around Clay County Alabama. It is relevent for any church historian researching alabama history. It was retyped from a published church and minister's history as he was the recording secretary for the local Baptist Church association. Who are you to say what is not notable. Are you a historian? WayneRay (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At Wikipedia, notability is defined by WP:Notability. --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with apology I put up the wrong List, i replaced this with the correct one. Apology. The church listing is not up yet with a proper label. I noted there is already a List of Baptist Churches so mine is more local to Clay County. WayneRay (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the original list, if someone was interested, they could see the chronological history of who was the preacher at each church. Now, however, there is just an alphabetical list of the preachers with their years of service, and no indication of which church each one was associated with. Thus, it's not clear to me how the current version is more helpful to those studying church history than the original one was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As with Metropolitan90, the new list does not cause me to change my !vote. It looks even more like an indiscriminate list on a nonnotable topic. --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you could put up the wrong list and no one even noticed strengthens the argument that the list is not notable, and certainly difficult if not impossible to verify. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- lists should indicate the notability of their members, if only by linking to existing articles that establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE sorry for the confusion and when I am am back online I will put the other one back up under the correct title. Delete this one if you like. You are correct. WayneRay (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black sea studios[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Black sea studios" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

non-notable game studio with minimal independent secondary coverage. The Tecumseh Tribune source is rather trivial local coverage. — Scientizzle 17:30, 6 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) 17:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a company that fails notability criteria at WP:CORP. Note that a search on "Black Sea Studios" will return a lot of hits on the unrelated Crytek Black Sea, which was called "Black Sea Studios" from 2001-2008. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion read #2 there is no reason for this BAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinB87 (talk • contribs) 6 May 2011

This issue has already been adequately explained on your talk page. Instead of inaccurately citing how two established users and an admin have violated policy, please provide a valid reason why this article does not meet the criteria for deletion found at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All hits seem to be on Crytek's acquired Bulgarian studio. Cannot find enough secondary independent RS to support notability per GNG or CORP. Single Tribune mention is insufficient. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If consensus is to delete, this page should be recreated as a redirect to the unrelated Crytek Black Sea as a plausible search term. The redirect page Black Sea Studios should also be retargeted to the same page (which it pointed to for nearly 3 years since it was moved). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH. I agree with Kuyabribri about the redirects. Meph^talk 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - company is just starting out, article can be reestablished if it becomes notable. The redirect should be restored as well. Seaphoto^Talk 00:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. They've manages to produce one game, "Gork", which also has received no coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vakur Versan[edit]

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

No sources leading out of obituary. General notability fails. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:23 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article and I can't find an online source in English. All of the sources are Turkish. There are three references. First reference is an article about the first legal scholars of Turkey in republic era. Second reference is his obituary. Third reference is biography of son of Vakur Versan. He is notability. --Eng-men (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there is not a copy-vio. I didn't copy the text from another web site. I wrote it myself. I removed copy-vio template from the article, but it came back :/ --Eng-men (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Cited in several works; his The Kemalist Reform of Turkish Law and Its Impact seems to have left a mark on academia and research. Served on Turkish constitution commission and a dean at Istanbul University. Not a terribly notable person from sources, but enough to meet requirements.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a reference to a very reliable source confirming that Versan was a member of the commission that drew up Turkey's constitution. That certainly passes the spirit (which is what counts) of WP:POLITICIAN, in that it is a position of far more influence and significance than state legislators in Wyoming or Mizoram, who get an automatic notability pass. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an academic whose work has had significant and notable impact outside academia. A constitution for a major nation-state qualifies. Ray^Talk 22:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Critchlow[edit]

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

Subject wishes to opt-out (see [10]). Sending to AFD for evaluation. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does this actually mean? (The link asks me for a login I don't seem to have.) Do you mean the subject wishes to have the article on him deleted? Is that a valid reason for deletion? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject does not want Wikipedia to host this article on them. That rationale has not been accepted by the community as a rationale for deletion by itself, but it is something that the closing administrator is allowed to take into account per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Biographies of living people. NW (Talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I, for one, can't even see the "ticket" of complaint. Has anyone verified by phone or postal mail the identity of the complaintant? Why should the article be deleted? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Also. This doesn't make sense. I agree with the above commentator User:Sergeant Cribb. Why is the Keith Critchlow article being considered for deletion? It's not an orphan, and Dr. Critchlow is a significant person. What does the verbiage you wrote mean?

"User wishes to opt-out per [1] ( https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=5619173 ). Sending to AFD for evaluation. NW (Talk) 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"

What does this have to do with "OTRS" (Open-source Ticket Request System? We can't see the ticket anyway. Also, what does "user wishes to opt out ..." mean as the reason for deletion? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to close this as a WP:SNOW keep. Subject is clearly notable, I accept the faint possibility that there may be a need to redact something for the safety of the subject, but that would be a matter for the oversight team/OTRS team/OfficeW/WMF, not for AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I was thinking that it was getting a little snowy as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Users may have a right to vanish, but notable subjects do not have the right to "opt out" of being covered in Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per rationale above by User:SchuminWeb. I never saw the original complaint "ticket" since I can't. So I don't know what the objection was. Everything in the article is factual and all was publicly known. Cf. his entry in Debrett's People of Today published in England. The Wikipedia article has about the same information. Critchlow is a significant public figure. If's there's a compelling reason above what I can know, since I can't see the original complaint ticket, I have to leave that to those with privileges to decide that. But on the face of it, I see no reason to delete the article short of a courtesy to the complaintant. Puzzled. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears to be a notable architect. Google Books suggests that he is prominent in his profession. Bringing an article to AfD based on an OTRS ticket is rarely a good idea -- it effectively says, "This article should be deleted for reasons that I can't tell you." Well, if the community can't be told the reasons, why should it be a matter for community decision? If the problem is that serious, take it to the Wikimedia office for them to delete, rather than taking it to AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Critchlow has notability in the fields of Islamic Art, Symbology and Sacred Architecture. See Google Books for a listing of his academic writings. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no valid reason has been advanced for deletion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others. Sorry, Prof Critchlow, you're just too notable. Douglasi (talk) 11:49, 13 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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Araki-ryū[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article about a martial art whose only claim to notability is that it is hundreds of years old. However, it gives no supporting evidence for that claim and I found no independent sources that support notability. Astudent0 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources located to support notability. One of the two external links provided in the article appears to be a website promoting a practitioner. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I see the article needs a lot of work, I found Japanese language sources easily. Take, for example, this Google Books search, which shows Araki-ryu listed in the 日本武道辞典 (Dictionary of Japanese Martial Arts) and the 武藝流派辭典 (Dictionary of Martial Arts Styles). This article needs some severe paring down, but not deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's clear this art exists, but I don't see anything showing notability. At best there seem to be just passing mentions. Admittedly, since I don't read Japanese, I'm at the mercy of Google translate. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 13 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 Thermal interface material. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal interfacial materials[edit]

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

This article has no references. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 02:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "no references" is not a reason to bring an article to AfD when plenty exist. It is easily verified with a simple search. Read WP:BEFORE prior to AfD-ing articles please.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, premature AfD listing, article was less than an hour old when listed. I think this falls under WP:BITE. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Why this continual relisting of a discussion where no policy-compliant reason for deletion has been presented? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thermal interface material. Per our naming conventions, singular is used in the article title, so "Thermal interface material" should house the article material. I'm saying merge instead of redirect as the sentence in Thermal interfacial materials reads better as a lede than the one in Thermal interface material. If others, disagree, then a redirect is still appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (Argentine band)[edit]

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

Incomplete nomination by Vlad.Ureche (talk · contribs). Note: I am neutral, but the article requires copyediting. Jared Preston (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know how reliable they are, but these sources should be considered: [11][12][13]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep, provided discography meets WP:BAND criteria. However, article is promotional in tone and needs significant rewriting to meet WP:NPOV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullaziz Al-Hlayel[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP (since 2009) and previously contested PROD. I could find no significant coverage of this player; note he is not listed in the Wikipedia article on his team, nor is there any evidence he has played a match in a first division game. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Tooga - BØRK! 23:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find evidence that Al-Hlayel actually played a game in a professional league, and thus this BLP fails WP:NFOOTY. A general lack of significant coverage in reliable sources makes it fail WP:GNG. Tooga - BØRK! 20:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverified. Unless it can be established that he played in the Saudi Premier League, he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is no indication that he passes WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Miller (model)[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy online model; most such "Cyber Girls" have already been deleted as, by consensus, not notable. The only substantial independent coverage cited is a profile in the hometown newspaper, and that isn't enough to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nom seems erroneous, she was never a playmate. Coverage out there seems at least barely meet GNG.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point us to such GNG meeting coverage? --Damiens.rf 20:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the research you did when nominating 100 articles for deletion in one hours's time to determine the subject was not notable? Yes, I am upset.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to avoid addressing my challenges. In regard to your question, while I took one hour to post all afds, I have been researching them waaay before posting the first nomination. It's naive to consider only my log's timestamp. But this discussion has become counterproductive already. --Damiens.rf 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you're free to avoid addressing my challenges. Fapping is not research.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. Nom says 'us' above when they mean 'me'. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note : please can we concentrate on the sources. Do they count as detailed RS or not? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per milowent. and carrite.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They gave completely different reasons for keeping, the first one already dismissed and the second one not supported when asked to. Thanks for taking part on our democratic system, though. --Damiens.rf 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I agree with both. so?. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe it indicates you just want the playmate bio to stay for whatever reason. But putting that aside for a moment, since you agree with Milowent statement that there's enough coverage about this girl "out there" to fulfill GNG, would you provide us with examples of such coverage (since Milowent denied to do so when asked?). Of course, this supposes you agree with Millowent because you know these coverage to exist, and not because you simply like the outcome of his opinion. --Damiens.rf 19:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (still). Nom's argument specious at best, reeking of IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not seeing anywhere close to enough to convince me this should go. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD has jumped the shark. It's preposterous that half the "keep" !votes have a rationale faulting the nominator for overstating the subject's notability, and there's the IP sock of an indef-blocked user !voting not once but twice. The only thing qualifying as an RS here is a hometown newspaper article saying "Local girl wants to be Playmate," and that's nowhere near the notability threshold.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [14]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:17, 14 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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Air Racing Championship[edit]

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

There appears to be no significant coverage for this event, which does not appear to be notable or major. wctaiwan (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Well it does seem to exist,[15] but I agree there is not a significant level of coverage.—RJH (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews. no real coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 14 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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graph of a square[edit]

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

How-to formula. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, verging on WP:CSD A1/A10 - frankieMR (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. These formula are neither notable nor referenced. Jim.belk (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A1: no context. —Caesura ^(t) 20:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-notable original research. The graph of the (unnecessarily complicated) equation given is in general not a square but a constellation of four lines of infinite length enclosing a rectangle. The formulas given for the lower left corner and height and width are simply incorrect (unless a = b = 0). --Lambiam 23:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very similar recreation of Graphing a square by same author, which was deleted on May 4 (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Square). Non-notable bit of dubious original research -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits[edit]

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

WP:NOT#STATS. There is no independent notability to the 2000 hit mark as there is for something like 3000 hit club, 500 home run club, etc, etc. At best nowadays it gets briefly mentioned as a statistical note (like your car hitting 100k miles) in a game summary. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This opens a whole can of worms regarding similar pages, like List of Major League Baseball players with 400 doubles, List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 runs batted in, List of Major League Baseball players with 4000 total bases, etc. Not saying the can of worms shouldn't be opened, I am undecided right now, I'm just sayin'. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just think it's a can that needs opening. Outside of the big clubs, events, and milestones we have this giant set of lists of arbitrary marks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2000 hits is not a regularly celebrated milestone, 3000 is. 3000 makes you a likely Hall of Famer, 2000 makes you a very good player, but there have been many 2000 hit players who will not be considered seriously for the Hall of Fame. Eauhomme (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I entirely understand the rationale for deletion here, and I'm even somewhat inclined to agree. That said, I don't think this conflicts with WP:NOT#STATS. That portion of the WP:NOT policy says the following about excessive listing of statistics: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." Sure, MLB players with 3000 hits are in a much more exclusive club, but there are still only 260 players on this list – not many at all, given the sheer number of men who have played in the major leagues. As such, this list isn't exactly "long and sprawling," in my opinion. But enough about What Wikipedia Is Not; what about What Wikipedia Is? According to WP:5P, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." One certainly can find these kind of baseball statistical listings in almanacs, both general and specialized. Finally, to address the point about the questionable notability of the milestone – sure, it's far from earth-shattering when players have their 2000th hit, but, as a baseball fan, I know I've seen newspapers and TV programs mark the occasion when a player passes the milestone. 2000 isn't as big of a deal as 3000, but it's still no small feat. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is establishing general notability for the list. Nowadays players get mentioned when they cross 2k, but I have never seen all 2k hitters collected in a list like this outside of Wikipedia, suggesting it doesn't really have huge notability. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If players get mentioned nowadays (even though they weren't back in the day, isn't that enough for notability? I easily found articles for Ichiro, Jeter and Grudzielanek crossing 2000 hits. I'm sure we could find all instances in the last ten or twenty years if we looked a little deeper. </devils advocate> – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic we need dozens of these rather pointless lists. Almost every round number of anything gets mentioned somewhere. That establishes notability of the event for the individual, not notability of the group overall. A player's first MLB hit is almost always noted in game summaries but we don't have List of MLB players with one hit. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be an excessively long statistical list. This list is not; there are only 260 players on it.
Staxringold, you've never seen this list outside of Wikipedia? Have you checked general or baseball almanacs to see whether this list is in there? (I hope this doesn't sound patronizing – that's not my intent. It's an honest question.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really haven't. And remember, listing in a pure statistics source (baseball-reference, for example, lists the top 1000 in career hits which goes to 1146) does not meet the qualifications for WP:RS and WP:GNG. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In keeping with the spirit of what User:A Stop at Willoughby is trying to promote, I'd have less of a problem of keeping an article that was titled, for example, List of Major League Baseball career hit leaders whose title did not put undue notability to an arbitrary number like 2,000, but whose content was implicitly limited to a number that was manageable (and most likely round e.g. 50, 100, etc to again avoid undue significance or uproar from a reader whose favorite player gets slighted). —Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters does and in some ways I think that list is even worse than this one. It is merely a direct clone of the baseball-reference table and has no particular notability. Nobody cares, knows, or discusses who is 473rd all time in HRs, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article that keeps track of it. That's the definition of NOTSTATS, a non-notable statistical tracking better left to the likes of B-R. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then there really is no reason to keep this article as anyone can go to List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters to find hitters with 2000 hits, especially since there is no notable text that can be added here about the 2000 hit club. This still leaves open the general question of that to do with generic "leader" lists that applies to not only to baseball articles but also to other sports. —Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratched above. I didnt realize Staxringold pointed to a home run list, not a hit list.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ASaWilloughby. NOTSTAT doesn't apply, by its own terms, and there's no logical deletion rationale. "A is not as notable as B" isn't recognized grounds for deletion; if it were, virtually nothing could survive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel NOTSTAT absolutely applies. A listing of statistics alone is, by NOTSTAT, not what Wikipedia is for. The event must have independent notability. My argument, as I said above to Muboshgu, is that merely sometimes being noted in game summaries does not establish notability for the club or we would need List of MLB players with one hit, List of MLB players with one home run, List of MLB players with 100 hits, etc, etc, etc. The group has to be notable for the group to have an article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list allows readers to get an understanding about baseball history and watch players achieve milestones. There aren't too many people on this list. Many of the people who make this list are in the Hall of Fame. It serves as a portal to allow readers to find out about other great legends of MLB. Without it, we are limited to the select few in the 3,000 hit club. Arnabdas (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then they can read Major League Baseball All-Century Team, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, or List of Major League Baseball retired numbers. Having notable members does not make an arbitrary group notable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though that is true, having people climb up the list makes it a reference tool that the others do not. "Derek Jeter just passed Frank Robinson on the hit list...so who is Frank Robinson? Let me read about him." It's a valuable portal that the other lists you mentioned wouldn't necessarily bring because of the dynamic nature of this list. Arnabdas (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#STATS, the article does not " contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." Without such limitations, there are hundreds to thousands of lists that could be created that while factually correct, are not notable. Sources of the 2,000 hit club have not been found that discuss indepth the 2,000 hit club as a whole, and need to go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage of a single sentence of a passing mention of the "milestone" by an individual. Otherwise, such an occurrence seems WP:Run-of-the-mill. —Bagumba (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I forgot about ROUTINE. It's the perfect policy link to explain my point (that an article which says "John Smith recorded his 2000th hit Tuesday" doesn't establish notability for this list as a whole). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This certainly can't provide a basis for deletion. The way to address the problem of lacking "sufficient explanatory text" would be to provide sufficient text, not to delete the article. The !vote doesn't claim that such text can't be written, and therefore fails in terms of deletion policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the editor who wrote the vote, let me clarify that I looked at the sources and do not believe that the supporting text can be written without WP:OR to prop up its notability. I suppose an AfD where the argument for deletion was lack of independent resources could be counter-argued that it didnt say independent resources couldn't be found. Note to self to be more explicit. —Bagumba (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the quote in WP:NOT#STATS says it all. Besides 2000 is arbitrary, why not 2200 or 2500. 3,000 hit club deserves a list because it is highly notable and heavily reported by the media. So, 3000 is not arbitrary. And its existence doesn't violate WP:NOT#STATS.—Chris!_c/t 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just like what Muboshgu said, there are tons of these lists. Saves, wins, homers, hits, strikeouts, WHIP, total bases, triples, doubles, stolen bases, walks, walks allowed, games started, games finished, etc. We would have to delete all of them... Obviously, I'm a big editor of these articles and therefore want to keep them, but that's for personal reasons. Anyway, it's a "big can of worms". Jonathansuh (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a can of worms that needs opening. Outside of the 3,000 hit club, 3,000 strikeout club, 300 win club, 500 home run club, 30-30 club, 40-40 club, List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game, and other "clubs" with external notability I see no establishing whatsoever of notability outside of WP:ROUTINE. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply. Each statistical page has been, and always will be, a case by case basis for its merits. This is not the discussion to bring up other baseball stats pages. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I'm glad Staxringold nominated this article alone and not all at once. They can be considered case by case, but all other than the "clubs" (300 wins, 500 HRs, 3000 hits) are vulnerable for their own AfDs, whether this one is closed as keep or delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hear the NOTSTATS argument, but I think of this like a template for organizing these biographies. Sure, lists of players with 1 hit or some other number of hits might not be useful, but 2,000 is a very reasonable cut off, and it needs a barometer. Its not even that long. If this article would be removed, would a list of active players by number of hits be reasonable?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are easy tests for that. WP:N and WP:GNG. I have yet to see anyone bring up a source which lists 2000 as a notable hit grouping. If this type of list is left to stand then there is literally no limit on the number of potential lists. 3000 hit club is an already existing, featured quality, heavily discussed by 3rd party sources list of baseball players by career hits. If this is left to stand then why not List of Major League Baseball players with 2001 hits, List of Major League Baseball players with 2002 hits, List of Major League Baseball players with 2003 hits, List of Major League Baseball players with 2004 hits, etc, etc? The use of arbitrary cutoffs makes sense for dynamic lists with a large/undefined number of members (such as List of highest paid Major League Baseball players). We already have a clearly defined career hits list (3000 hit club), however, that covers this subject. This is just meaningless, unnecessary, WP:NOTSTATS violating listcruft. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one:[16]. Rlendog (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources, presented without any judgment, as I am still undecided: [17][18][19][20][21] That last one is from 1949. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second source from NT Times says "Maybe 2,000 hits is not a huge accomplishment in baseball." I dont think anyone questions notability of 3000. At a generic sports stat level, while one could argue that one article on the list of leaders of a stat might be notable (throwing aside what the cutoff point is), someone needs to come up with a good argument for me to support two lists on the same stat, hits. —Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the arguments, Stax is completely right. As these lists are, they are list cruft and should be deleted. The only way I could change my mind is if this article is rewritten as 2000 hit club with narrative and sourcing. Similarly, maybe we can revisit 600 home run club, which is just as arbitrary a cutoff not covering what 500 home run club covers in a proper way, and yet survived an AfD last year. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a list of those with the most career hits in major league baseball is certainly a notable list. Why 2000? Can't answer that--BUT that is an "editing" issue (and, of course, an "article renaming" issue) but not an issue of deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notable list for MLB hit leaders already exists. It is called 3,000 hit club. This page is a completely unnecessary, completely unnotable extension of that list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently it's not "completely" unnotable as you say--6 editors in this discussion believe it to be notable while 3 do not. While I understand that you believe it to be unnotable, to state that is it "completely" unnotable is putting unddue weight on your arguments and position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I've enjoyed the irony in the argument that 2000 hits is arbitrary but 3000 hits is some gold standard, there is generally substantive media coverage when player get their 2000th hit. There isn't for their 2200th, or their 1987th, etc. It's a milestone that is deemed notable by media coverage, despite that it doesn't guarantee Baseball hall of fame admission (which though argued earlier, really has no bearing on the notability of this list). matt91486 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the dozenth time, WP:ROUTINE. The event of an individual player reaching 2000 hits gets noted in media reports, but the group itself has no notability. The clubs that have been listed satisfy WP:N because the group itself (such as the 3000 hit club) gets coverage from outside sources. The position you are arguing completely ignores the difference between notability of an event (reaching 2000 hits) and notability of all people who have achieved that moment. As I've said, someone's first ML hit is always noted in media reports, where is List of Major League Baseball players with one hit. Ditto for 100. And 500. And 1000. And usually 1500 and certainly 2500. If we allow collections of notable events where the collection itself is not notable then we will be able to double the size of Wikipedia purely with rehashing statistical group lists like this over and over again. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, arbitrary cutoff lines have their place in lists where no other reasonable organizer exists. I take far less issue with a list like this for... Say career saves leaders because you need some limiter (you can't list every pitcher in history with a save) and no natural one exists from third-party sources. But with hits there is 3,000 hit club. With home runs there is 500 home run club. With wins there is 300 win club, etc. Going beyond those groups clearly set as notable by outside sourcing is turning WP:NOT#STATS on it's head. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON There's no need to keep repeating arguments already made.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, but as an AFD with clear implications for a great many articles I would hope some of the many keep voters would answer my question/point rather than similarly repeating the same point and voting Keep. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the small number of people at the 2000 hit threshold compared to the overall number of players who have participated in baseball, I think it's obvious that coverage of this topic is not routine relative to day to day baseball coverage. It might happen every time a player reaches the mark, but that doesn't make it routine coverage. Routine coverage is a game box score and recap; milestones generally do not result in routine coverage of a player's career but something more. matt91486 (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping count of a statistic for a few hundred people sounds pretty WP:ROUTINE to me. Especially since the article provides no context as to why 2000 hits means anything. As Stax said, why not set the cutoff at 2500, or 1500, or 2250? We have sites like Fangraphs, B Ref, the Cube, etc., for simply keeping count. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, Wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs (see WP:5P). As for the reason behind setting a cutoff at 2,000 hits – at the risk of stating the obvious, I suppose it's because 2,000 is more of a nice, round number than the others you've listed. I know that doesn't make it less arbitrary according to your interpretation, but still... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As some of the delete !voters acknowledge, reaching 2000 hits is a milestone that is often recognized when a player reaches it. As such, it makes a valid list delimiter under WP:LSC. I could see a problem if this list was too long, but at 260 I don't think it is. Nor is this a WP:NOTSTATS issue, any more than a list of players with 3000 hits would be. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an accomplishment, sure, but so is 1000 hits and we don't have a page for that, even though a player gets press for his 1000th hit. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They get a lot more press for 2000 hits than for 1000 hits, and 2000 begins to get used in HOF discussions (especially defensive positions), whereas 1000 hits does not. And 1000 hits would encompass so many players as to make the list meaningless, whereas 2000 is a manageable size. Effectively, this list provides the all time hits leaders, using the 2000 mark (which is an amount that gets press attention) as an appropriate cutoff. Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no sourcing establishing, for example, your claim that 2000 hits is a line used in HoF discussions. That's the point, this list is both an arbitrary cutoff and duplicates (in it's goal) what an article of established notability (3000 hit club) does. Certainly, like 30-30 club and 40-40 club if they both had sufficient notability there'd be a reason for both of them. I see no such notability established in this article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is not an arbitrary cutoff, because numerous sources remark on when a player gets their 2000th hit, and being a member of the 2000 hit club (or falling just short, such as Carl Furillo or Tony Oliva) is often mentioned in obituaries and other summaries of a player's career or discussions of whether they belong or not in the Hall of Fame. Not the 2253 hit club or the 1961 hit club, but the 2000 hit club. It is a factor in the Bill James Hall of Fame monitor [22], which I suppose can be dismissed as just Bill James' opinion, but a widely published and discussed one. And it gets used as a factor in supporting hall of fame candidacies of players at defensive positions (for example, this article on Gary Carter's candidacy [23]; I recall it also being support for Ozzie Smith not being solely a defensive specialist in his HOF debates). Rlendog (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here is an article discussing Jorge Posada's potential HOF candidacy in terms of whether or not he will reach 2000 hits. [24] Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to this OP of yours, there is a ton that makes 3000 a better cutoff than 2000. It's discussed in third party sources. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that reaching 3000 hits is more impressive than reaching 2000 hits. I don't know that that makes it a better cutoff. We could use 4000 hits and have a list of 2. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a better way to say this is that 3000 hits is absolutely a more notable accomplishment than 2000 hits, and of course would be an appropriate delimiter for a list. But that does not mean that 2000 hits is not notable enough to be an appropriate delimiter for a list. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does mean that there's no "We need this as an arbitrary cutoff" justification, because we already have an established cutoff (3000) for a career hits leaders list. If 2000 is a notable line, establish the notability. That's all I'm asking. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseball is a very special game encompassing players now from all over the world, and the reason it *is* special is because of the statistics cited, discussions and debate on who was the better player or team in the major leagues. For those who say just go to BB-ref.com or The Cube or Fangraphs, they don't realize that most casual fans don't know about those websites or actually want to go that deeply into the statistics angle. Wikipedia may not be an almanac (as one user mentioned), but it *is* an encyclopedia and should be given the appropriate encompassing treatment as one. Katydidit (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3,000 hit club article already exists and is notable from a WP:GNG perspective because sources talk about its significance as a standard of hitting and as a Hall of Fame indicator, and its members as a whole. Coverage of 2000 is mostly a WP:ROUTINE sentence that a player passed the milestone. Be clear that 3000 is not an arbitrary limit proposed by editors when its notability is derived from reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the 3,000 hit club is notable. But attaining 2000 hits is notable as well, as demonstrated by the fact that it makes the news pretty much whenever a player reaches it. And, it gets discussed as a notable accomplishment in discussing players' careers, including Hall of Fame discussions. Or here is an article using the accomplishment of 2000 hits as a reason to assess the players' career, including his place in history and his hall of fame chances. [25] It is hardly a WP:ROUTINE accomplishment. And the fact that it gets such coverage indicates that it is not a arbitrary cutoff, but a legitimate one. Otherwise, the accomplishment would not be covered whenever it happens - does getting into the 1769 hit club ever get coverage like the 2000 hit club? Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, an article on 2,500 hit would be justified based purely on passing references in articles found in Google. People have a fixation on numbers ending in zeros, but its a dangerous precedent to equate that with notability if the sources dont spend more than a sentence each talking about it. —Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 2500 hit article would not be a problem if it wasn't redundant with the 2000 hit article. Rlendog (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. These lists (anything HR related with 500 HRC, hit related with 3k hits, etc) are just redundant listings of stats without independent notability. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 2000 hits article is not redundant with a 3000 hits article because there are players with 2000 hits but not 3000. And a 3000 hits article is not redundant with a 2000 hits article because there is more to say about the 3000 hits level (e.g., near automatic HOF selection, etc.). But I don't think there is anything special to be said about 2500 hits that would not be redundant to 2000. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this AfD is not closed? Good, cause I still think it should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That is not a legitimate reason, and you don't give any reasons why. Katydidit (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2000 hits simply isn't a notable milestone in baseball. The "magic numbers" wehn talking about HoF inclusion has been 3000 hits and 500 hrs. Sorry, no one talks about 2000 other than maybe a nice "congrats" graphic on the center-field board when it happens. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The magic numbers for the HoF have been 3000 hits and 500 hrs, true. But the rest just isn't true, as I demonstrated in my response to your post below. Rlendog (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite true, as what you've scraped up is, at best, trivial. Note that your Baseball Digest 2,000 hit table appears alongside other trivial, statistical errata. We're not about to create articles for "Most hits without a World Series appearance" or "1,000 hits for different teams". This is why we have WP:NOT#STATS, to protect the project from becoming a random stat repository. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000 hit list is not trivial at all. The fact that the source filled the bottom of the last page of the main list by including some short, potentially interesting, list of related topics (such as a few players who split their 2000 hits by getting 1000 each on different teams) doesn't make the main list "trivial." Rlendog (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 2000 hits is not a notable milestone. ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While 3,000 hits is the more notable stat, 2,000 is notable as well. BUC (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reliable source that supports that claim? For 3,000 hits we have pretty strong support via places like the Baseball Almanac, the Baseball Hall of Fame. I fail to see comparable recognition for for 2,000 hits being an actual milestone. Newspapers will probably note when their hometown heroes reach that plateau, just as they no doubt do for 1,000 and 500, but it simply doesn't have the same cachet as 3,000. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes like I said before, 3,000 is more notable, but 2,000 is notable as well, there are plenty of news reports on players getting 2,000 hits. BUC (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - One off mentions in news articles don't mean the group is notable. It means its notable for the individual, but that's not the same as a "2,000 hit club". – Muboshgu (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Newspapers will probably note when their hometown heroes reach that plateau." Except that newpapers don't just recognize hometown heroes. Here is an article in the New York Times about a Seattle player reaching 2000 hits.[26] And here is an article in the USA Today, hardly a "hometown" paper, doing a full story on Todd Helton reaching 2000 hits.[27] And here is CBS doing a story on Magglio Ordonez reaching 2000 hits.[28] Further, here is the 2007 Baseball Almanac noting the players that reached 2000 hits in the prior season [29] - not 1000 hits or 1500 hits, but 2000 hits.

Of course, 2000 hits is not as notable as 3000 hits. But few if any baseball players are not as notable as Babe Ruth - that doesn't make those players non-notable from a Wikipedia standpoint. Sure there are fewer lists of players with 2000 hits than 3000 hits. But here is an independent reliable source with a list of players with 2000 hits (see page 80).[30] And here is an article from Baseball Digest that refers to it as a "noteworthy milestone" and "an accomplishment that carries with it the stamp of greatness."[31]. Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, newspapers mentioning individual players doesnt' establish notability for "2000 hits" itself. Find something along the lines of the HoF or the Almanac, then some of these keep calls might actually be legitimate; at the moment, they aren't much more than vague hand-waves with an empty WP:ITSNOTABLE basis. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the Hall of Fame is not as likely to have a table on 2000 hits like they do on 3000 hits, given that 3000 hits has long been regarded as conferring "automatic" hall of fame status. But that argument is like saying that "Tom Glavine" isn't notable until he has a Hall of Fame plaque. And I am not sure why the Baseball Digest list is not "along the lines" of the Almanac list. And the newspaper articles I linked to are not "newspapers mentioning individual players," they are full length articles about the players in question specifically reaching the 2000 hit milestone. And I explicitly avoided hometown newspapers. Multiple full length articles in reliable sources do establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 6 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this debate been relisted? It has already gone on for over two weeks and received more participation than the typical AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is a pretty clear "no consensus" situation, and there are no important policy matters to settle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Therefore, if there is 'no consensus', there is not sufficient reason to delete an article unless it does reach the consensus level. Keeping should be the default condition on a page, unless a clear consensus is reached to delete it. Katydidit (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single keep argument does anything more than "I saw a newspaper mention a player's 2,000th hit" or "there's not many on the list" (some weird variant of WP:NOHARM. 2000 is arbitrary, a nice, shiny round number. 3000, in baseball lore, is the "sweet spot". In order to be kept, 2,000 doesn't have to be shown to be as notable as 3,000, it has to be shown to simply be sufficiently notable on its own merits. And apart from one listing amidst other highly-trivial lists in one Baseball Digest issue noted earlier, 2,000 doesn't collectively get the reliable source treatment that we require. An admin with some balls to evaluate arguments (hopefully) won't take the cop-out of a NC. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not I saw a newspaper mention a player's 2,000th hit," but rather newspapers keep writing entire pesky articles about players getting their 2000th hit. Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once again, that ones not make the collective itself notable. Let's look at a thousand hits;
      - Shannon Stewart
      - Stan Musial
      - Carl Crawford
      - Jeff Bagwell
      - Jason Giambi
      - Dan Driessen
      - Nomah
      - Joe Girardi
        On the basis of the above, is there sufficient grounds for List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 hits? Tarc (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        From a pure notability standpoint, very possibly. But I would not advocate that on practical grounds. Rlendog (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Individual event notability does not make their collection notable. Individual mayoral elections draw coverage in the news but we do not have List of mayoral elections. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure we do. For example, New York City mayoral elections. And of course, the newspaper articles aren't the only source of notability for this topic. We went around in circles on some of the others under my keep !vote above (e.g., some use in Hall of Fame discussions) and there is the Baseball Digest list I linked to above, for example. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Right. We have them where they are notable. That's the point. Find more sources that establish the notability of the 2000 hit club, not the notability of an individual player hitting 2k. 3,000 hit club is New York City mayoral elections. This list is List of mayoral elections with some arbitrary cutoff (like all cities with 100k< population). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I opposed the relisting. This should have been closed as delete per WP:NOT#STATS.—Chris!_c/t 21:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The many articles that refer to a 2000 hit "club" implies that the collection, e.g., the club, is notable, i.e., [32], [33], [34], [35], [mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090606]. 20:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  - Here is another explicit list of players with 2000 hits. Rlendog (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I reviewed this to see if I could come up with a way to close this properly, but I'm having difficulty. One issue that came up for me that I don't see anyone has mentioned is this... Right now the article is really only a list of players. I compared similar articles, such as the articles for 3,000 hits or 500 home runs. Those articles are more than simply lists, they talk about the achievement itself and its importance. My question is this; is there any potential for expanding this article to the extent that the other articles are? If not, I think it should go. Not because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but because to me that differentiates a true article from WP:NOTSTATS. -- Atama頭 21:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this can't be expanded to the extent of the 3000 hits or 500 HR pages. Sure, it could be expanded from what it is to talk about what it means to have 2000 hits in a career, with some of the sources that have been provided in this AfD. However, that is really more WP:ROUTINE coverage of them reaching 2000 hits and doesn't give the same perspective as an article referencing 3000 hits, because in the world of baseball statistics, 2000 hits is nice, but 3000 hits is the holy grail. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per BUC. Does not conflict with WP:NOT#STATS. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you figure? This whole page is an excessive listing of stats. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is your personal opinion of what you label as 'excessive'. To you, anything in addition to a listing of hitters with 3,000 hits or 500 home runs is considered 'excessive statistics'. Which isn't necessarily true, as many other users have attested. Katydidit (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's excessive because this article is entirely comprised of statistics without any context, and the sources provided fail to give it sufficient context to prevent it from being excessive. I'm sorry that other users aren't familiar with policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Everyone seems to agree that 2000 points is quite arbitrary. A list of the 100 players with most hits might make sense though. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment evidently not--nine editors have posted here and seem to disagree... so therefore "everyone" does not seem to agree. Your statement is putting undue weight on your argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2000 hits is too arbitrary, but top 100 is also too arbitrary. 3000 hits is where the notability is at. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Top 100 lists are very common, and although fundamentally just as arbitrary as any number, I think most people wouldn't feel that way. See Category:Top_lists --OpenFuture (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as statistics are encyclopedic. --143.105.11.99 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If all stats are encyclopedic, we'd have List of Major League Baseball players with at least one hit. We don't. Stats without context of notability are not encyclopedic, they are excessive. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep because your argument doesn't make any sense. We don't keep a page of statistics on players with minor numbers of hits or comparable ones in other categories. They have to be meaningful, and the 2,000 hits level is the first one that is meaningful and noteworthy. Whether or not a player makes the HoF with 2,000+ hits or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and is a red herring thrown out by users biased against any baseball listings outside of very small known HoF levels such as 3,000 hits or 500 home runs. 2,000 hits is also not the same as having a list of 1,000 or 1,500 hits as those levels are very common to those who have played less than 10 years. You can't say the same for those players with 2,000 hits because the average number of hits per year would then be 200 or close to that number, which is rare and noteworthy. Katydidit (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It makes perfect sense and you've not responded to it but instead a straw man. Of course if notability is established for the 2000 hit club this article should exists. Throughout this article's entire history AND this AFD, however, no one has done that. No one has produced sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG that center on the overall grouping. This list does duplicate, in purpose, what 3000 hits does. It lists career hits leaders. If you can establish notability for this grouping in addition then great, keep it, but until such notability is established it is just an arbitrarily defined secondary listing of statistics. As has been said (and ignored by keep voters) the only time arbitrarily limited lists are allowable is where no established limitation exists. That is not the case for career hits, strikeouts, wins, or home run leader lists, which have well established career clubs. If a secondary grouping also draws focus there is a reason for a secondary list. If not, then not. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You claim that throughout this article's entire history AND this AFD no one has established notability for the 2000 hit club. There have been multiple independent sources showing lists of players with 2000+ hits (one of which was attacked on the spurious grounds that the publisher included some subsidiary lists to fill out the space at the bottom of the page), numerous references to players joining the "2000 hit club", sources discussing 2000 hits as a factor in some players' Hall of Fame candidacies, and other sources stating that 2000 hits is a noteworthy milestone. I respect your opinion that all this doesn't make the milestone notable, but there is nonetheless plenty of evidence to support the opposite conclusion. Rlendog (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Essentially all the sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage of an individual achievement, not notability of the group overall. As has repeatedly been said every game summary notes a player's first MLB hit, but we do not have List of MLB players with one hit or List of MLB players' first major league hit. At best there are a few (17, 19, 20 above) that use the term 2000 hit-club as a way of describing that individual milestone. This is the purpose of NOTSTATS and ROUTINE, if every statistical mark described in game summaries warranted a Wikipedia article we'd have about 50 billion of these lists. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the key point here, and I just want to repeat it for emphasis: 2000 career hits is an individual milestone, and based on that, is insufficient for its own page. 3000 career hits puts you in a select group with unquestionable notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not routine coverage. A player's first hit generally is routine coverage. It is a sentence within a game summary stating that player x got his 1st MLB hit. But the references that have been demonstrated for 2000 hits have been full length articles about the player reaching 2000 hits, many (and what is listed here is just a small sampling as you well know - I'll provide more if that is what is needed) refer to a 2000 hit "club." Hardly routine coverage. And there are the independent lists of players with 2000+ hits, and the other coverage noted in my post above as well. And no one is arguing that 3000 career hits doesn't put you in a select group with unquestionable notability. Just that 2000 hits puts you in a select group with plenty of notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that it's not routine coverage in the context of the individual. That's why it should be mentioned at the player's page. I feel that in the context of say, how many players have achieved 2000+ hits in their career, it is routine, because it's not talked about in that manner. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just noting that I only relisted it because the day got archived without this being closed, so it would have went unnoticed forever. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was for the best. When I saw it close as keep, I was quite dismayed, because the issues in this AfD hadn't been hammered out. Some more third party reviewers could be helpful here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This list is valuable as it helps readers understand the history of baseball and how present players compare to stars of the past. As a player moves up, it allows the reader to read about players he just passed. For example, "Derek Jeter just passed Frank Robinson. Who was he? Let me read about him..." and it thus allows the reader to get greater knowledge about the game and its greatness. This is not a list to delete. Arnabdas (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - You're objecting to everything listed at WP:NOT#STATS. -- Atama頭 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To see that Derek Jeter passed Frank Robinson you have to memorize the list and it's order first, so you can notice the difference. Few people will do that, so that argument doesn't make any sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again, WP:ILIKEIT. Personally enjoying an article does not make it notable or right for Wikipedia inclusion. I read any number of pages on Baseball-Reference that I find immensely interesting that have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Quite honestly the first entry for my auto-complete when I start typing in B-R is this page. Incredibly interesting (to me), but absolutely 100% violative of NOTSTATS and the other various policies listed at this AFD. Ditto for this list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand OpenFuture's comment. The whole point of having this list is to NOT memorize something. It's to find out more about an important aspect of the game. It's a portal. People can quote all sorts of WP guidelines as that is what guidelines are for-to guide us to decisions, but the point we have to ask ourselves objectively is that does this serve a purpose in an encyclopedia to help people understand the topic of baseball better. As a portal, it clearly does IMO. Arnabdas (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenFuture was responding to your scenario that someone could use the list of stats to figure out that Derek Jeter had just passed Frank Robinson in terms of hits. To do that, of course, someone would have to memorize the list, then at a later date read the list again and notice that Jeter had just passed Robinson. In other words, you're attributing uses to this list of stats that aren't really feasible. If the article included evaluation of the list, for example if it pointed out that Jeter had just been raised in the rankings, then maybe your scenario would be plausible but that kind of analysis can't be included in a list that includes hundreds of people. Objectively, does this article serve a purpose to help people understand the topic of baseball better? Of course not. It's a list of people with more than 2,000 hits, and that's all. There is nothing that is being given to the reader to help them understand baseball. I feel that you're coming at this from a perspective of someone who enjoys baseball stats, but that interest doesn't fall in line with the scope of the Wikipedia project. -- Atama頭 16:20, 12 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) 04:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Sirianni[edit]

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

The subject appears to be notable only through local sources and is not nationally recognized. The references point to such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesley M. Curtus (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - The only coverage is essentially that of a local artist. The most significant work is a veteran memorial in Tonawanda. I don't see that this would satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:16, 15 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) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Stine[edit]

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

Appears to fail both WP:Academic and WP:Creative. Perhaps in the future she will be notable but there are no reliable sources establishing notability at this point in time. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stine has published three major books of poetry, has received fellowships from Stanford University and The Poetry Foundation. That’s about as notable as contemporary poets get. -JKApoet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkapoet (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC) — Jkapoet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as WP:PROF goes, gscholar counts unimpressive, subject is a PhD candidate. Few such are notable, and never for academic reasons. As far as being a poet goes, I do not see significant coverage by critics of her body of work, on a quick scan through Gnews. Of course, am willing to correct if sources are forthcoming. Ray^Talk 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raca shqiptare neper shekuj[edit]

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

This is an unsourced essay, in Romanian. Was refused speedy delete. Translate at http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRaca_shqiptare_neper_shekuj Dennis Brown (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- correction, that might be Albanian, I used autodetect. Regardless, an essay without sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced essay. I agree with the latter comment that the article is in Albanian. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - unsourced essay that is likely WP:POV and WP:OR. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy was declined because the speedy criterion was incorrect. WP:CSD#A2 was used, but no article on this topic exists in the Albanian Wikipedia. The article was speedied merely for being in a foreign language, which is specifically exempted from the speedy deletion process. As I don't speak Albanian, I'll defer to others on the validity of deleting this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point that the article does reference to this WP article, although the content is much shorter. If speedy deletion doesn't apply then I think a minimal analysis of the subject and content needs to be provided by someone for others to !vote - frankieMR (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that others actually need to translate it for themselves, or don't !vote. That article can be translated via [36] Dennis Brown (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  A link to a Google translation is in the This article needs translation box, and Google translation is enough to dismiss it. Andreas ^(T) 20:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The second link was to the OTHER article (for CSD). As nom, yeah, I knew the first one already existed ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Thanks, I had totally forgotten about Google translation. The content of both articles is certainly not the same, and as Andreas said it is clear we can dismiss this one, unless some miraculous cleanup is afoot - frankieMR (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced essay, the footnote is an internal reference to sq wikipedia. Andreas ^(T) 20:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that this article has previously been uploaded with a different title, Ismail oruqi, and then speedily deleted (A7). I found this by putting parts of the text into Google, but this might expire as there is no cached version. An administrator with restore priviledges shoudl test this. Andreas ^(T) 20:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked, and the article Ismail oruqi was substantially the same as this article. However, that one was created under an incorrect title -- User:Ismail oruqi was the creator of both articles, and his naming the other one after himself was presumably an error. The current title, which translates as "Albanian race throughout the centuries", at least appears to reflect the content of the article. The problem with this article is that it is unsourced, not in English, and appears to be redundant to some existing articles such as Albanians, Origin of the Albanians, and History of Albania which are sourced and in English. Even if this article were translated, the lack of sourcing and redundancy would seem to point towards deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - frankieMR (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Snow Delete. Looks like a cut and paste job. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google translation comes up with an essay on the Albanian race and its struggles throughout the centuries. Unsourced OR essay, probably with personal POV too. De728631 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curry and West Buildings[edit]

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

Non-notable building(s?). A Google search provided no in depth coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see the notability of the building. CrossTempleJay talk 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appears to be some local coverage about the conversion of these buildings into condominium lofts. Such conversions are not unusual. The buildings appear to be located within the South Broad Street Historic District but are not NRHP listed buildings. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steffne[edit]

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

BLP that fails general notability requirements. Being 19, an having authored some flash games as a sole source of notability is probably WP:TOOSOON. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks GHits and GNEWs of substance. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:00, 6 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) 14:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed the article qualifies for WP:TOOSOON, her works have not significantly impacted the gaming world yet. She may have done a lot a 19 years but no award worthy of note has even be given her yet. CrossTempleJay · talk 16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:20, 12 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 kept under criterion 1. Discussion about a possible merger is an editorial matter best suited for the respective article talk pages. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Geronimo name controversy[edit]

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

The page was blanked by another user : see this diff. Let us hear more community voices on whether these contents should be kept or deleted. I think this topic is important enough. So I am in favor of keeping. Teofilo talk 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep having a separate article enables to include it as an item of category:Native American topics. Teofilo talk 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that a merge would be ill advised given the size of the main article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per criterion #1. Nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion and has in fact advocated a "keep" position. The article talk page or even RfC would be a more appropriate forum for this type of discussion. Even if such a discussion were to result in a consensus that a separate article is not needed, a redirect would be better than outright deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no argument has been advanced for deletion. --John (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; same reasons as Dr. Blofeld and Teofilo
Merge into Death of Osama bin Laden. There really isn't that much here for a real article.--RaptorHunter (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep without having actually reviewed the subject since nom is in favor of keeping. Unless another deletion rationale is presented, this is just WP:POINT - frankieMR (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Remember remember the sixth of May, the naming treason and bungle. - I know of no reason, the naming treason should ever be forgot. Seriously though, this is somewhat notable and should be kept and the nominator is of course advocating the keep (undoubtedly to reinforce the article being here, which is good). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dante's Ascension[edit]

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

Deprodded. I can't see any real assertion of notability; it appears to be mostly promotional, as evident in its tone. It's also entirely unreferenced, which says something. Seegoon (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for '"Dante's Ascension"', '"Dante's Ascension" tribune', and '"Dante's Ascension" herald' turns up no reliable sources to prove notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks evidence that notability guideline is satisfied. Edison (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search did not bring up any award the group has won, no any notable achievement. The article fails to help in that direction too as there are no references to follow.-- CrossTempleJay talk 16:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't appear to be any coverage in reliable sources on which to base an article. Band doesn't yet satisfy any criterion of WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my searches have also failed to reveal anything that asserts notability per WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Shactman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of coverage other than CNBC website. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Anchor assignment on a major news network, several regional Emmies and other awards. Lots of major news stories by him, lots of mentions in press about the media, not finding much by way of in depth stories ABOUT him rather than BY him, other than press releases by CNBC. Edison (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He indeed may have not won a national or international award but 3 regional emmies are credit to his personality. Third party reference added to it should just may the references stronger.-- CrossTempleJay talk 16:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable source added and regional awards.--TM 19:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic reiki[edit]

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

Topic has not received significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources WP:N. The references provided should not be considered independent: see WP:FRINGE. Articles on therapies should give due weight to peer-reviewed journals. PROD contested by an employee of mPowr, the publisher of this particular pseudoscience. Marasmusine (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mainly because of nominator's points and possibly even speedy as at least the first part of the text is copy-pasted from an online source. I'll check the other sections as well and if they're all copyvio, I'll tag this for copyvio-speedy - otherwise, I'll just remove the copyvio sections. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's done - only the last section doesn't seem to be copied from an online source. However, it fails to adequately explain the subject and is even a bit promotional, so I'm in favour of deletion. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. As we all know, Celts have an intuitive understanding of this sort of thing, because they're one with nature just like Native Americans, and they also have the advantage of better whisky. At any rate, the article made little sense with the copyvio sections still in it, and makes no sense after they're removed. Original research, promoting one group's theory, and borderline patent nonsense: The concept of different facets of Ki and how they all interrelate is a profound evolution in perspective for many and has facilitated the creation of several different methodologies, from Reiki NRG, to the Realm Mastery of Celtic Reiki and even elements of the business and personal development system, The Key! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. 05:56, 7 May 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Night at the Hotel (Dark Space)" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night at the Hotel (Dark Space), more at User talk:Whose Line is it Anyway?) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night at the Hotel (Dark Space)[edit]

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

A YouTube video episode with no indication of notability. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? How do I do that? Whose Line is it Anyway? (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" refers to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. – Athaenara ✉ 05:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADD: I'd like to include the following, related articles with the same reason in this AfD:

The Invasion (Dark Space)
World's End (Dark Space)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dark Space episodes. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. There is no credible indication of importance whatsoever. Meph^talk 04:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- True, I momentarily forgot that YouTube videos are web content eligible under A7. Zakhalesh (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "List of Dark Space episodes" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dark Space episodes.) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dark Space episodes[edit]

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

List of episodes from a YouTube video series with no indication of notability. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. Certainly fails WP:GNG. Meph^talk 04:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, I forgot that YouTube videos are web content eligible under A7. It has been done already I see. Zakhalesh (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph L. Kennedy[edit]

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

Minor party candidate for US Senate special election, receiving 1% of the vote. ~~WP:ONEEVENT~~ WP:BLP1E applies, and this biography fails WP:POLITICIAN. Should delete or merge to United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Wikipedia is weaker for merging away and deleting biographical material about active politicians, but I realize mine is a minority view. Still: it is better to have this biography than to lose this biography. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (Selective merge) Per WP:POLITICIAN. Minor party candidates do not get automatic notability for a stand-alone article. So far he has gotten news coverage for this stunt candidacy, using the Kennedy name in Massachusetts and still with 1% of the vote, so fails notability per WP:BLP1E even if there was a bit of news coverage. Edison (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN, no evidence that the fellow meets any element of WP:BIO or passes WP:BLP1E. When WP:NOT is rewritten to allow indiscriminate gathering of information, then it would indeed be acceptable to include every possible biography of everyone verifiable on Earth ... but that's not the way Wikipedia works. Ravenswing 23:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. SOXROX (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine election coverage plus a slight extra for the famous though unconnected last name. Unless they did something exceptional to garner sustained coverage in reliable sources, failed political candidates generally do not get Wikipedia articles. As a one-percenter, not even worth a redirect to any race/district article. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point the only coverage I could find was for one unsuccessful run, so I guess this is BLP1E. No prejudice toward re-creation if he does something else to get in the news. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010.--TM 15:48, 13 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) 04:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G-box Network[edit]

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

Secondary sources for this topic are trivial at best. Fails verification and notability (WP:V, WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 13:13, 6 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) Marasmusine (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No referencing and no notability asserted. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:19, 12 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Transformers reboot[edit]

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

I cannot find any info on the net about this 2013 transformers movie. Suggest it be created when more in known. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 12:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One source found discussing it in vague terms, but there's not enough for an article yet. WP:CRYSTAL all the way. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hammer time. I mean WP:NFF.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the stub as waaaaaaaaay WP:TOOSOON. 07:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete. All the articles basically say the same thing: That Bay will most likely not direct it, that there will surely be a reboot (based on the one single comment made by Hasbro's CEO), and that no other information is available with the third film not even released yet - frankieMR (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Koukotsikas[edit]

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

This person is only mentioned in a speech of a politician, and speeches of politicians are not reliable sources, nor they are enough to prove the notability of people. Couldn't find any reliable sources for Alexia and Grigoris Koukotsikas, there are no reliable sources for Grigoris Koukotsikas either. Furthermore, no hits other than Wikipedia for "Alexia Koukotsikas". Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references are not just quoting speeches of politicians. There are 10 references. Are they not enough for you? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not individually notable. Politicians raise the case of individuals they represent all the time, and sadly there are many thousands of people who are displaced and unable to return to an area where they once lived because of political or other circumstances. So although she probably exists, and the facts given about her may be true, they do not make her notable. To be so she would have to have done something notable in her own right and be written about for it - for example if she had led a prominent campaign for a right to return. --AJHingston (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. There are many references in the Greek language that confirm notability when checking for alternate spellings of her surname. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the first look, Ριζοκάρπασον and Typos.com.cy do not look like reliable sources. And still it is not confirmed by reliable, non-Greek or non-politician sources, unlike Eleni Foka. Moreover, I wonder whether any further information can be found on this person, as AJHingston has said. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have criticised two references. There are now ten references in total. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E.Also lacking demonstration of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources as required by WP:N. Also per WP:NOTNEWS, even if the politician's speech was echoed by the newspapers for a news cycle. Getting mentioned by a politician does not demonstrate notability. Known only for being displaced from one's home? Not notable. Edison (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a number of sources since you made your recommendation. Moreover, not just known for being displaced from her home. She was a schoolteacher, one of only three schoolteachers at the only school for the Greek community in Northern Cyprus, who were prevented from returning to the school that they teach at by the occupation regime. Moreover how does this article offend WP:BLP1E as there are more than enough references backing up the stub content in the article? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cypriot Financial Mirror newspaper has recorded that as recently as September 2008, the government of Northern Cyprus has prevented schoolteachers from returning to the primary school in Rizokarpaso. This is not about Koukotsikas. Those references are unreliable as I can see. Rizokarpason.com is a commercial website, and as it says "For a free Rizokarpaso", its obvious POV can be seen at the very first place. Makarios Drousiotis is not a reliable source either, and he even says "The enslaved at Karpas", his POV is obvious. Typos.com.cy also looks like an unreliable source in this case. And this article is still against WP:BLP1E, Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. This person is only in the context of one single event, the couple did not take the issue to the ECHR etc., and this event was reported in the news, naturally, but was not covered so widely. And being a schoolteacher does not make someone notable. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of only three Greek primary schoolteachers who is prevented from teaching at the only Greek community primary school by a Turkish occupation government is notable. The Financial Mirror article shows that the problem that this teacher suffered was not an isolated incident and is relevant. Rizokarpason.com is not a commercial website (it is a community website using a .com domain name) and it displays photographs of Alexia Koukotsikas and her husband. You claim that Typos.com.cy "also looks like an unreliable source" (that is POV). Makarios Drousiotis is a professional journalist, who has been quoted many times on Wikipedia, and he is perfectly within his rights in calling the people of Rizokarpaso enslaved since they have continuously suffered under the occupation regime (including censorship of what schoolbooks that they could use, including unvoluntary slave labor see Human rights in Northern Cyprus, and the population of Rizokarpaso which was 20,000 after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus has dwindled down to a couple of hundred because of the restrictions and hardships inflicted upon them by the Turkish occupation government, which has discriminated against them to force them to leave the occupied territory. The issue was raised at the European Parliament and has been translated in to all European languages. Moreover, his wife is also a teacher at the same school and was also prevented from returning to the Rizokarpaso enclave thus preventing the "right of education" to Greek Cypriot schoolchildren in occupied northern Cyprus. How is this article against WP:BLP1E all content is referenced to the nth degree? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think that most of the sources in this article are reliable, and your claims are not enough to prove that they are reliable, at least neutral. And I really do not think that these two articles can be expanded more. If they are expanded, the content will be irrelevant. --Seksen (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating generalizations and you have not added anything. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. Famous for being a Greek in Northern Cyprus who was unable to return there, rather than any individual notability. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. I wish it were only about one event. This is about a Greek Cypriot school teacher (and her Greek husband) who were prevented from returning to her village and to the school that they taught at because of the Republic of Turkey's systematic policies of blockading the Right to Education for the people of Rizokarpaso. These were not the only school teachers who were prevented from returning to the village and the school. There is a list that includes Eleni Foka. She was not famous for "being a Greek in Northern Cyprus who was unable to return there" rather "she was a school teacher was was prevented from teaching by a country with extraodinarily racist, religionist, and segregational policies who deliberately kept teachers out of the only Greek-language primary school in Northern Cyprus" and this was brought to the attention of the world through the European Parliament and the media in Cyprus and in Greece who wrote some articles about it. At the time there were only 3 Greek school teachers in Northern Cyprus and Alexia and her husband were two out of the three. Turkey's deliberate policy of making it more and more difficult for people to retain their ethnic and cultural identity. The easiest way to compare Turkey is with the Borg in Star Trek ("resistance is futile", you will be assimilated by hook or by crook). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. This article is based on one event, which is when this teacher (and husband) were blockaded from reentering their village. That's one event. Details about other people are irrelevant to this specific article. You've created an article on Greek villages that remain in Northern Cyprus, and there's an article on human rights in Northern Cyprus. These pages about people who are famous for one event should be redirected to the general articles. No comment on Star Trek. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could have been suggested before this was brought in to AfD. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability is a good reason for an AfD. And this is ONEEVENT because they were just blockaded, but they did not take the issue to the ECHR or something like that. --Seksen (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way it still meets WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The event may meet GNG. The people involved certainly don't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grigoris Koukotsikas[edit]

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

This person is only mentioned in a speech of a politician, and speeches of politicians are not reliable sources, nor they are enough to prove the notability of people. Couldn't find any reliable sources on the topic, enough to prove the notability. Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See above for his wife Alexia --AJHingston (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. There are many references in the Greek language media that confirm notability when checking for alternate spellings of his surname. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still it is not confirmed by reliable, non-Greek or non-politician sources, unlike Eleni Foka. Moreover, I wonder whether any further information can be found on this person, as AJHingston has said. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't 10 references enough for you? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are there two articles? Edison (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also lacks demonstration of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, as required by WP:N. Also delete per WP:NOTNEWS, even if the politician's speech was echoed by the newspapers for a news cycle. Getting mentioned by a politician does not demonstrate notability. Known only for being displaced from one's home? Not notable. Edison (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a number of sources since you made your recommendation. Moreover, not just known for being displaced from his home. He was a schoolteacher, one of only three schoolteachers at the only school for the Greek community in Northern Cyprus, who was prevented from returning to the school that they teach at by the occupation regime. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cypriot Financial Mirror newspaper has recorded that as recently as September 2008, the government of Northern Cyprus has prevented schoolteachers from returning to the primary school in Rizokarpaso. This is not about Koukotsikas. Those references are unreliable as I can see. Rizokarpason.com is a commercial website, and as it says "For a free Rizokarpaso", its obvious POV can be seen at the very first place. Makarios Drousiotis is not a reliable source either, and he even says "The enslaved at Karpas", his POV is obvious. Typos.com.cy also looks like an unreliable source in this case. And this article is still against WP:BLP1E, Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. This person is only in the context of one single event, the couple did not take the issue to the ECHR etc., and this event was reported in the news, naturally, but was not covered so widely. And being a schoolteacher does not make someone notable. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of only three Greek primary schoolteachers who is prevented from teaching at the only Greek community primary school by a Turkish occupation government is notable. The Financial Mirror article shows that the problem that this teacher suffered was not an isolated incident and is relevant. Rizokarpason.com is not a commercial website (it is a community website using a .com domain name). You claim that Typos.com.cy "also looks like an unreliable source" (that is POV). Makarios Drousiotis is a professional journalist and he is perfectly within his rights in calling the people of Rizokarpos enslaved since they have continuously suffered under the occupation regime (including censorship of what schoolbooks that they could use, including unvoluntary slave labor see Human rights in Northern Cyprus, and the population of Rizokarpaso which was 20,000 after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 has dwindled down to a couple of hundred because of the restrictions and hardships inflicted upon them the Turkish occupation government, which has discriminated against them to force them to leave the occupied territory. The issue was raised at the European Parliament and has been translated in to all European languages. Moreover, his wife is also a teacher at the same school and was also prevented from returning to the Rizokarpaso enclave thus preventing the "right of education" to Greek Cypriot schoolchildren in occupied northern Cyprus. What happened to this school teacher and his wife, who is also a schoolteacher, cannot be described as a single event since Turkey has systematically prevented Greek schoolteachers from going to Rizokarpaso in order to assimilate what is left of the Greek population. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Cause may be just, the injustice may be terrible, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox to argue for one's cause if there is a lack of secondary reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lack of secondary reliable and independent sources and easily meets WP:GNG. I am not soapboxing and you have failed to explain why you think WP:BLP1E applies. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge content to Enclaved Greek Cypriots, and do the same thing for Eleni Foka and Alexia Koukotsikas. I agree with Edison that WP:BLP1E applies. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses. Even Seksen agrees that Eleni Foka meets WP:GNG and is entitled to her own article. She's been interviewed on Sky television about how she was treated when she crossed the border and about the court case at the European Court of Human Rights. There are ten times more references and sources concerning Eleni Foka than the Koukotsikas. You should reconsider your recommendation. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Re: The issues raised by WP:BLP1E are Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) [which it most certainly is]; Verifiability (WP:V) (which it most certainly has) and there is No original research WP:NOR. So where are the Koukotsikas articles falling foul of WP:BLP1E. Please be specific. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think that most of the sources in this article are reliable, and your claims are not enough to prove that they are reliable, at least neutral. And I really do not think that these two articles can be expanded more. If they are expanded, the content will be irrelevant. And Eleni Foka seems to have 19 times more sources than the Koukotsikas, in which there are the Parliament of the UK and the ECHR, so she seems to be more likaly to be notable than the Koukotsikas, although I have not had a detailed look at that issue. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seksen, your comment has not added anything to this "Redirect and Merge" discussion and you are repeating comments that you have already made. I would like to contribute the following. Since the content of the Alexia Koukotsikas and Grigoris Koukotsikas articles are almost identical I would like to suggest that the two are merged in to one Alexia and Grigoris Koukotsikas article. I would have done this myself if you had not rushed in to AfD when I started writing these articles. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. Famous for being a Greek in Northern Cyprus who was unable to return there, rather than any individual notability. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Chipmunkdavis above in Alexia Koukotsikas AfD. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of my response: This person is famous for a single event. Article should redirect to a general article, eg Human rights in Northern Cyprus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As in "not delete"; whether it should be merged to the parent company is not totally clear from this discussion but can be discussed on its talk page. Sandstein 09:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brewers Fayre[edit]

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

Non notable pub restaurant subsidiary of Whitbread, fails WP:CORP. Most references supplied are about the parent company, mentioning this chain in passing. Contested PROD. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I read WP:CORP differently, and I would incline to keep. Brewers Fayre is a well known brand and a significant player in the market. However, as it is a wholly owned subsidiary Whitbreads do not choose to disclose information about the activities of Brewers Fayre independently of the rest of their restaurants and it tends to be bundled in with their hotels as well in the financial reports. Reliable sources will aways be difficult. Wikipedia is a fuller source of information about this and other Whitbread activities than the official Whitbread and subsidiary sites and any other easily findable sources on the internet. Rather than delete and see useful information lost, which Whitbreads would evidently be happy about, I would rather it stayed with a tag for sources. Alternatively merge with Whitbread, but if that is done for each division of the group it could end up too long an article. --AJHingston (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of references to this chain in Google Books. Worst case is just merger to Whitbread — there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just how many of those "references" are substantial coverage? Answer - none, they are listings in directories or passing mentions in lists of Whitbread owned businesses. Please familiarise yourself with the concepts of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I do think we will all have read them. But a similar argument has been deployed recently over a subsidiary with turnover of around 8 billion euros, and common sense has to prevail. Although Brewers Fayre is a very much smaller outfit there is a point where it becomes possible to judge with confidence that it is large or otherwise significant enough to qualify, and that over the 30 years of existance reliable information will have been created about it. And things like company reports and accounts can be used as sources because they are statutorily regulated and audited, but a fair bit of work would be required to unearth the material.. --AJHingston (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Whitbread. This article is in a better state than Taylor Walker Pubs because it does actually manage to say something other than a sales pitch. However, it's ambigous as to whether this is sufficiently seperate from Whitbread to be worth a separate article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mergye to Whitbread. Thy ærticle dost not provyde a ræson why yonder olde pubbe is notyble independent of its parent companie. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:08, 14 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) 07:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Choir Practice[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BAND and can find no sources to prove notability in accordance with WP:GNG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The group has been featured on CBC Radio 3, has multiple notable members, and notability can be demonstrated through sourcing such as this story in The Province, this story in The Leader-Post, this review in The Georgia Straight, this review in The StarPhoenix, a story in the Austin American Statesman (March 6, 2008; page T10) from when they played SXSW, some charting like this in Edmonton, which demonstrates airplay at other radio stations too. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You couldn't have tried very hard to find sources. In addition to Paul Erik's sources, there's an Allmusic bio, Allmusic review, and exclaim. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Paul Erik's sources and meeting WP:N criteria. Information for nominators and taggers is available on the revised page at WP:NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some of the citations noted above to the article. Why haven't any of the contributors done this? It is Snowing? Argolin (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fagul Rusului River[edit]

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

Minor tributary. Zero reliable sources in English, be it on the web, on Google scholar, or Google books. I cannot read Romanian so I cannot establish if there are any sources in that language. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Geographical features such as rivers are generally considered notable and there does seem to be some significant coverage found on the web [37] --Oakshade (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<keep> According to prevailing rules all rivers are considered notable. Sources for geographic features are generally maps, not books. The river can be found on all detailed maps of the area.Afil (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the GNG? I believe that has to be applied first, and maps don't seem to be stated directly. Also (not to overly debate semantics), it is a tributary and not a main river. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have my reservations about a project that's created articles about more than 8,000 rivers of Romania, most of which are indeed pretty minor, but I don't think it makes sense to single out this particular river. A wider discussion might be helpful, but let's not pick just one for elimination. And this isn't a case of WP:WAX, either: the exact same arguments could be applied to Aluza River, Amara River, Arefu River, Argintul River, Argova River, and on and on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it via the random article tool, so I was not aware of the sheer number of minor rivers (and some may even be as small as streams). I would like to participate in that discussion, if it takes place. However, we could set precedent with what we do here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator is right to question the standalone notability of this particular river, and I think the utliamte solution would be to merge such entries on the tributaries into the more notable river of the basin (in this case, Topliţa River). But this would require a more in-depth discussion, I believe. Perhaps a mass nomination? Dahn (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A mass nomination would probably be best. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural withdrawal, if possible. I have started an RFC at the article's talk page, and if deleted said RFC will not be able to reach a consensus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Walker Pubs[edit]

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

Non notable pub chain, PROD declined by admin as "unsure", fails WP:CORP Jezhotwells (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The chain is well known in the UK. But the descriptions of individual pubs should be deleted - probably copyvios anyway. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the question is how does it meet the criteria of WP:CORP? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Punch Taverns until someone wants to improve this. I'm sure a chain of 106 pubs in notable, but the whole article is such a complete spamvert the only thing worth preserving is the first sentence. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect would be a good outcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assertion of non-notability is unsupported by evidence and is false. See The Brewing Industry, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference is to a London brewery called Taylor, Walker and Co, which ceased operations in 1960 and changed its name to Ind Coope (East Anglia) in 1960. Taylor Walker Pubs is one of many pub-cos owned by Punch taverns. What we are looking for is evidence of the notability of Taylor Walker Pubs, not spurious statements like "The assertion of non-notability is unsupported by evidence and is false." Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then Ind Coope became Allied Breweries which then became Carlsberg Tetley which then licensed the brand to Punch which now claims continuity back to 1730. This is all well documented by numerous sources so there is no case for deletion and your assertions otherwise still lack any evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to be able to distinguish between a brewery, which is a place beer is made, and a chain of pub / restaurants which is where beer and food are consumed. It is clearly not possible to prove that any subject is not notable, but the lack of any reliable sources for the notability of Taylor Walker Pubs indicates that this pub chain is not notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breweries commonly had chains of tied pubs to sell their beer and both the brewery sites and pubs would be subject to merger, development and closure in the course of business and corporate development. We have nearly 300 years of history to document here. Our editing policy is to take this material and develop it further. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this argument is that there is next to no connection between the historic brewery and the modern brand of pubs. All that happened is that a modern pub chain acquired the brand name of a defunct company. The historic brewery is probably notable, but that information belongs in an article about that brewery. Anyway, in my opinion that's not really the issue. Taylor Walker Pubs can probably qualify as notable simply down to its size - the problem is that the content is so ad-ridden there is nothing worth preserving at the moment. If you or anyone else wants to rescue this I'll be happy to reconsider. (Brewers Fayre is an example of an article that I !voted and keep/merge because of a suitable amount of non-ad content.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial reforms in India[edit]

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

This article was prodded, and the article creator removed the prod saying "Its an important topic, article need to be improved instead of deleting". The problem is, this article actually cannot be improved, because its entirely a POV--note that the very first line reads "Judiciary of India needs judicial reforms for speedy disposal of cases and ensuring accountability." This article exists to advocate for judicial reform, not to document it. Yes, it is conceivable that an article with this title might exist again in the future, but it wouldn't have any of the content. Until such time as someone wants to create such an article, this WP:NPOV and WP:OR article needs to be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the biggest social issue of present times in India. 1.21 billion people are being affected. Sometimes it takes life time to get justice in India. Search google http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Judicial+reforms+in+India to find the importance of the issue. You may improve the article or contents. Thanks. (Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment: The only way to improve the article is to start over from the very beginning. There is nothing neutral in this article, and there is nothing that is documented other than a desire (on your part, and I am sure on the part of many Indians) for change. That's an advocacy article, not a neutral WP article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Weak keep~~ The first sentence of the article - Judiciary of India needs judicial reforms for speedy disposal of cases and ensuring accountability, totally changes the purpose of the article, if the reforms are needed then the title cannot be about the reforms in Indians Judiciary since they have not been done yet. A re-writing of the the article is warranted.CrossTempleJay 09:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' This was intended as one of many POV forks. Put relevant content in Judiciary of India. No need for a merge, since there's nothing of value here. Normally, we don't delete something that could be improved. Maybe an article could work in this title. However, User:Maheshkumaryadav has been creating a slew of POV forks, it's simply not possible to totally rewrite all of these into something fair and balanced. It's best to simply delete them, and when somebody wants to write a new version, nothing stops them. If we keep all this topic variances, we're going to have POV forks that are never cleaned up, because they lack the required community attention. --142.59.100.126 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay to advance a POV: India needs judicial reforms... Nothing to merge to Judiciary of India. This doesn't document an actual reform movement but rather advocates reform to solve an array of problems. Carrite (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not exist as an independent topic. Wikipedia should not be used to advance personal opinions and essays (the op-ed page of a newspaper is probably a better place). --rgpk (comment) 20:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ESSAY. These are just views.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon going through the article a second time, I see a lot of things that it falls short of. Opinions are not encyclopedic. CrossTempleJay 09:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or incubate subject to re-creation later per WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:HAMMER - while everything may be true, it is not yet a notable political or legal issue. I'm sure it could be sourced later with bar association reports, editorials, cartoons, legal commentary, etc. It's just such a mess that it can't be fixed in the next seven days. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the changes I made which remove the unreferenced and POV stuff. I think it is our refusal to try and trim the POV stuff from the articles which is getting in our way here. At the very least, now it looks like any of the various stubs we get that are unbalanced and incomplete, but somewhere to start from, Sadads (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/ Merge with Judiciary of India Per Sadads. This is definitely within encyclopedic topic guidelines and I think has the potential to be a good article. Judiciary of India article is diabolical though, like most Indian topics.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Judges Assets Bill (which i created a while ago). Judicial activism has been a cause for concern in India for a while and there has been attempts to reform Indian judiciary as can be seen by the Bill. i dont think it ever became law though. regardless, it is a notable topic. --CarTick (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV essay. It also includes some copyvios, - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after I removed all the copyvios, the article was reduced to one line: "Recent journalism in India has been calling for judicial reforms in Judiciary of India to ensure speedy disposal of cases and accountability." Not really enough to merit an article. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 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) 04:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction of the National Broadband Network[edit]

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

I listed this for deletion as there already is an article about the National Broadband Network itself where a section on its construction exists/ should exist. Any new content should simply be put there. --Rmarsden (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the NBN will be the single largest infrastructure in Australia's history, of which the construction will last for at least 10 years. The text already in the article just scratches the surface on the construction so far, let alone in 10 years time. Keeping in mind the National Broadband Network article is just over 32k now, even without the expansion of the operation and network design sections are done, when more detailed plans about the network and pricing is known later this year. — [d'oh] 13:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the value of having one article about the NBN and one about the NBN construction separately? --Rmarsden (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUMMARY. — [d'oh] 23:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't meet the notability criterion in said policy. Construction of the NBN is using stock standard methods.--Rmarsden (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article should be merged with the existing one. There is indeed no need to create a difference article about only the construction. It should not be deleted but its content should just be added to the existing one. CrossTempleJay talk 09:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Merge--Rmarsden (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the NBN have a spin-off article for just the construction? World Trade Center, a pipeline in Alaska and Mount Rushmore has one, why is the NBN excluded? — [d'oh] 10:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided. Is there something special about the construction process of this project? If so keep, if not merge. Obviously the finished project will be remarkable. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although FTTH networks have been rollout before, it has never been on this scale and not in a country with low population density. — [d'oh] 12:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tending towards merge then since those will also be the remarkable aspects of the network as well as its construction. If there are new processes introduced in the construction then that would deserve an article, but if the process will only be different from other projects because of the scale then merge. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. National Broadband Network is already quite large and it will get larger as the NBN begins to be used more widely. Thus a spin-off article on its construction seems reasonable. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems a perfectly viable topic for an article, and would be too much detail if merged into the NBN article Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can tell, d'oh is attempting to get the NBN article to FA, so I think we can agree he's doing this in a genuine attempt to help the reader's understanding of the NBN. This article has only been around for a few days, so give d'oh a chance to flesh it out some more. If in a few months or a year, you still don't think this is a suitable stand-alone topic, then take the article to WP:PM. Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Borderline fancruft and trivia collection; once you take the trivia out, the useful stuff can be merged. NBN Co Limited can be merged into the main article as well. Miracle Pen (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid spin-off about a topic on which there is more than enough material to sustain a separate article. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems a perfectly viable topic for an article, and the rollout of NBN is only going to get bigger and bigger. The article will end up having a section for each state, and spin off pages as it is a bit of a political football. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suspect that over the next decade of construction there will be too much info for a single article. Given the huge task and the different facets (fibre, satellite, wireless) I think a dedicated article is warranted. --124.149.36.82 (talk) 07:51, 13 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) 07:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharnya Yoshihara[edit]

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

WP:N--Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this JPOP music artist. Might've missed stuff through the language barrier, though. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Page needs to be improved by content and they should have verifiability.-- CrossTempleJay talk 10:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 17:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Keb25 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched in Japanese, but couldn't find any reliable sources, just lots of Facebook, Myspace, and blog entries. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:20, 13 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 Martin Stern, Jr.. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Stern[edit]

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

Only has one link on the disambig. page. Wilbysuffolk talk 05:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Stern, Jr.. Seems to be a reasonable search phrase. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I've just improved it) A valid entry and valid see also had been deleted. Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The entry is a redlink and I doubt people would look for Richard Martin Stern by typing Martin Stern. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- CrossTempleJay talk 09:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Red link entry is valid on disambiguation page. If deleted, Martin Stern, Jr. should have a hatnote to the writer's article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martin Stern, Jr.. In the absence of an article, I've tagged Martin Stern, Jr. with {{Distinguish2}}, reading thus: Not to be confused with The Adventures of Aggie writer Martin Stern. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Bongwarrior as G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. — Bility (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

મધુબાલા ભરતકાલા[edit]

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

I am nominating this page for deletion, because I created this article and now I have read wikipedia's policy and founds that the previous subject is non notable.That's all. Luckylikke (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Kumar[edit]

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

Deprodded page on assistant prof at MIT. No doubt promising, but there are about 2 million university professors in the world, and he does not pass WP:PROF. Single digit h-index. Abductive (reasoning) 04:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:PROF. CrossTempleJay talk 09:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree he does not appear to meet the criteria. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Kumar is a common name. Input from mathematicians needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He has some papers with quite high citation counts for their recency and their field, and in very good journals (e.g. Annals), but these are all with Henry Cohn, a more well-established mathematician. According to MathSciNet the two papers MR2427457 and MR1900858 are the only ones (other than his Ph.D. thesis) that he has that are not with Cohn, and I don't think they're as high profile as the rest of his portfolio. So while he's on an excellent trajectory, I think it's still too early in his career for him to have demonstrated independent impact of the type that WP:PROF#C1 requires. And I think none of the other WP:PROF criteria is even plausible. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I might add, by way of comment, extraordinarily impressive trajectory. Ray^Talk 17:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Miller[edit]

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

Deprodded page on a mathematics graduate student who won some student awards. Past results from AfDs shows that such student awards are not sufficient for notability, certainly not enough to pass WP:PROF. Most importantly, the page does not (and cannot) point to any contributions or discoveries she made that would warrent an encylopedia article. Abductive (reasoning) 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:PROF the individual must have won a national or international award, this is clearly stated in the article - "In 2004 she became the first girl to win a gold medal for the United States team in the International Mathematical Olympiad". The article passed WP:PROF. It should be kept.-- CrossTempleJay talk 09:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:PROF explicitly excludes student awards, and this is consistent with how it has been applied in the past. It does not work as the basis for a keep vote in this case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteCertainly a promising graduate student, but come back in a few years when there are more substantial accomplishments. WP:PROF looks for more distinguished achievements than winning a student competition, which is not the "highly prestigious academic award or honor" required.See the section of WP:PROF which lists the Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, or the MacArthur Award. Note the section which says "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." No evidence the person is a major force in the field, with widespread influence, or academic accomplishments at all comparable to being a "Distinguished Professor." Edison (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the well stated arguments above, the article completely lacks references that establish notability. They're all essentially primary sources. I've searched for secondary news coverage of her, and can find nothing. So, this page needs to go. Vertigo Acid (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable enough to be listed in a general reference encyclopedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge She is named-checked here, for example, and there seem to be plenty more sources which demonstrate that she has been noticed. Worst case is therefore merger into some list of maths olympians and so, per our editing policy, there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To merge trivial biographical details to one of our list articles would seem to place far too much emphasis on a single participant. I don't really see this as a desirable or even realistic option. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We basically have a notability precedent in situations like this one only for multiple wins of the Putnam, e.g. see this and this. The strongest claim here seems to be Miller's gold at IOM, but in the way that event is conducted, there actually is not a single gold, but many. Moreover, Miller seems to be the first American woman to win gold, not the first woman. I think the above assessment is basically correct – this is very far short of our traditional notability threshold for maths people. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Student awards are not relevant for WP:PROF and she's too junior to have attained the impact necessary for WP:PROF#C1, so we have to rely on WP:GNG instead. But I've found and added some sources to the article that I think should be sufficient for GNG: two in-depth articles in Wired and a local newspaper, and a name-check in the New York Times. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That Moldavian guy had extensive coverage on his gov't website, which beats Wired if you put things in (national) perspective. She gets written about because "Math is doing great in the USA". Tijfo098 (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderstone (card game)[edit]

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

Non-notable game by non-notable designer. Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the game and designer are not yet famous doesn't mean the game shouldn't have a page. This is a real game with several expansions out already and it has been nominated for an award. As a stub, this page needs some work, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. J1776 (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- reply - We don't have articles on things that might become notable someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This game seems notable enough in the present to garner a nomination for an award and multiple expansions to the base game? What standard is being used to determine 'notability'?J1776 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The game and its expansions are notable enough to have also been reviewed by the Dice Tower [38][39][40] J1776 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep from google news there are some wired blog sources [41], A game review seems to acknowledge it added "some new innovations" [42] and a few minor reviews [43] [44] [45]. As this is the main game, I think the nomination although a minor award and non-commercial web reviews are sufficient for a board game.Tetron76 (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Sources above, plus 2010 JoTa - Best Card Game (Critic/Audience) award, plus and IAR keep for its BGG ranking. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award winning game, translated into multiple languages. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutable Realms[edit]

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

Article was tagged orphan in Feb 2009. Sole claims to fame for this ex-company was that they allegedly (and unsourcedly) were planning to release a game, which they never did and that they invented a computer gaming term which has no wikipedia entry. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:53, 29 April 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) 07:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. A short-lived company with a proposed product that never actually came out. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Christian College[edit]

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

Universities are rarely deleted, even unaccredited ones, but.. it's hard to find information on this university, let alone reliable sources. Most of the content appears to come from a a blog post in 2009. The small building it's in has a different title on it- I can't read it, perhaps it says Western Theological Seminary?

Given the lack of reliable sources or any sources outside of the abandoned blog, I'm of the opinion this should be deleted. Universities are rarely deleted, but this appears to be a religious adult education center masquerading as a college. tedder (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally I would be for most secondary/post-secondary schools, this school does not appear to have, nor ever had, any accreditation (see http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/ and the article text). As such I believe the school fails WP:GNG. OSborn^arf_contribs. 05:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes the very low bar of verifiability, per THEIR HOMEPAGE, which notes they are awarding Bachelors' Degrees. Whether they are accredited is neither here nor there, just like whether a High School is accredited is neither here nor there. If it is a degree-granting institution, it should be in. This does not mean that the article does not need improvement; clearly it does. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Western Theological Seminary" is an alternate name for the institution, it seems. Here is the address they list: 1001 East Rosecrans Boulevard, Compton/East Rancho Dominguez, CA. Carrite (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, per Google Earth. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, keep in mind wn.com is a mirror of Wikipedia, not an official homepage. It comes up frequently in deletion discussions and leads to WP:CIRCULAR. tedder (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unaccredited "Colleges," even those with "perhaps ca. 120 enrollment," do not enjoy the de facto automatic or inherent notability given to real colleges which are accredited by respected accrediting bodies. No sources cited to satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG, the notability guidelines. Edison (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to look up the college, but I found almost nothing. The college doesn't have a website, which is very strange. It seems like a phantom operation. Wefihe (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. While this college does appear to exist, the current text was taken largely from a posting on a blog which, even if it really was authorized by the college, was abandoned by the college after only eight postings. If proper sources could be found, I could support keeping the article, but so far I don't think there are enough to support the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laird Macintosh[edit]

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

Delete - permanent stub for a non-notable performer. Does not meet notability guidelines in general or the specific entertainment guideline. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - there's quite an impressive credit list on IMDB. I don't know whether this fulfills WP:NACTOR statement 'Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions'Asnac (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at IMDB before nominating and honestly the credits aren't impressive. I don't see leading roles or much beyond parts like "Agent #3", "Doctor" and "Boyfriend". None of his roles appear to rise to the level of significance contemplated by NACTOR. I doubt anyone thinking of, say, Hannah Montana is going to have fond memories of Macintosh's one-off role as "Agent Kaplon" or that his single-episode appearance as "Mitch Crawford" on CSI: Miami attracted any critical or popular attention. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I were to go soley by filmography, he it is a weak keep. He WP:GNGs adequately.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this person? Because all I'm finding are mentions in conjunction with some project or others along the lines of "Treasure Hunters is hosted by Laird Macintosh". Harley Hudson (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While most of his credit list is unimpressive, I think the combination of hosting one broadcast network reality series and being a member of the Groundlings should be enough to satisfy WP:ENT. And his recurring gig on Leno's prime time show was memorably awful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Administration Miranda-warning proposal[edit]

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

Deprodded page on a proposal, which seems to have been an off the cuff remark by AG Holder in a TV interview. In any case, the page is a WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:COATRACK with no secondary sources making the same claims. Abductive (reasoning) 03:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miranda Warning#Public safety exception without a redirect. Although this may need to be recreated later on if it actually is a proposal, an off-hand comment is not enough for its own article. If it is considered important, two lines in the main article is more than enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A month ago I would have said delete, but now either a weak keep or a merger would be appropriate, as it seems to be an important change in legal policy. Lawyers are talking about this; it was a heated debate in my college's faculty room. I'd like to hear from others before doing anything drastic with this attempted article here. Comments anyone? Bearian (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject regards an off-handed comment by Holder, which is not policy, and not worthy of its own article. If a policy is created, we can always create a new article on the subject. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, strange though that may be for a legal article. If this becomes a cogent policy proposal, an article would absolutely be appropriate -but we're not there yet. Anything about this proposal that doesn't yet exist would be speculation at best. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with delete. The nom and arguments have convinced me. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 12 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 Laundry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry machine[edit]

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

Not a dab page and not necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is scope in Wikipedia for an article or even two about the mechanisation of clothes laundering domestically and commercially, which arguably had a considerable impact on women's lives and contributed to freeing them to work outside the home. That would cover a good deal more than the modern concepts of washing machine and dryer. For example, in the first half of the last century most homes would have possessed what in England was called a mangle, for squeezing out the water before hanging clothes to dry. And for those who could afford it, commercial laundries provided mechanised labour saving solutions before they became available to most households. This article title is not well suited for that and a list of this sort is of no value to users. --AJHingston (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While "laundry machine" is not a neologism, having been around for over a hundred years. It is an obsolete term of the type that is formed in English when technology is new. I agree with AJHingston that this is not a useful disambiguation. While not a model, the existing Laundry article picks up the kind of slack that this short ist would address. --Bejnar (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary disambig. page. Keb25 (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two topics, neither primary. I'm unclear as to where the delete votes would have readers who enter "laundry machine" end up. If it's deleted, they'd end up at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=laundry+machine&fulltext=1, which would be less useful than the disambiguation page. If it should be a stubbed article for the group of machines that are laundry machines, that's fine too, but that's a reworking, not a deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Washing machine or Laundry. A dryer is not generally considered to be a laundry machine. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a list at the bottom of Laundry which includes both of these and others. They are also introduced in the article. P.S. In the USA these machines are called "washers and dryers" not "laundry machines."Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Laundry. The current Laundry article has the same information, and although I doubt laundry machine is a plausible search term, there's an average of 10 hits a day that may find a redirect useful. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Caledon,_Ontario#Organizations and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downey's Farm Market & Estate Winery[edit]

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

Not clear how it might be able to meet notability guidelines. Written with promotional sounding language. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Response to RadioFan: It was never my intention to use promotional sounding language, this will be removed immediately. I recognize your concerns regarding the article, however I do strongly believe that the article is notable in that it provides an important insight into the agritourism industry, a business sector that is currently growing and gaining increased awareness from the public. Residents in rural areas are concerned over the future of the area - as the city of Toronto expands northwards, rural towns in Ontario are being encroached upon for the land. Residents look for ways to protect the land; agritourism is one answer as it provides the opportunity to not only profit off of the land but also educate people on the importance of providing services like this. --Hgwiazda (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need not respond to me, this is an open discussion that all editors are welcome to participate in. Thanks for looking at the language but the biggest concern here is whether or not this subject can meet notability guidelines for businesses. --RadioFan (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Keep a mention of it at Caledon,_Ontario#Attractions. I'm surprised the WP:WINE regulars haven't opined yet, but I would say they would agree this doesn't meet notability standards.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Kensington warehouse fire[edit]

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

Deprodded page on five-alarm fire that didn't kill anybody, and with no lasting consequences. Abductive (reasoning) 03:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable event, appears to be a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and per failure to satisfy WP:N. Wikipedia is not a mirror or archive of every happening which was covered by some local newspaper. Edison (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine news. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just local news, and more than likely intended to be a coatrack for a biased discussion of local politics. Peacock (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Philadelphia Fire Department. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dara-I-Pech District. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dara-I-Pech[edit]

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

Delete and Redirect to Dara-I-Pech District. This article was created as one of a large series of identical, near-empty stubs created by User:Dr. Blofeld on places in Afghanistan. Sadly, the database used to create these stubs is not really reliable, and there is no other evidence that a place with this name really exists (the district exists). In less than 24 hours, this "place" had two different names before this one (Darreh-ye Pich and Darreh-I-Pech), was the capital of the district[46], was equated with Mano Gai (the actual capital of the district)[47], before settling at the current situation where it is no longer the capital and no longer the same as Mano Gai, but actually 10 km away from it.

Sadly, apart from the source used to create these stubs, no reliable sources are available to actually confirm that Dara-I-Pech is really a village, and not only the name of the district. No maps showing the village have been found. To give you an idea of how reliable the geographic names database is, just check what they give for the United States, where you have populated places like A and K, which list smack in the middle of Bountiful, Utah [48]; or A Country Place, which is supposedly located in Lakewood (CDP), New Jersey [49]. This database cannot be used to create articles on populated places without proper checking. The other sources given in the article don't establish that there is a village with this name (and not just a region, and a river called Pech Dara (or Peche River) as well). Further searches also didn't return any reliable sources that removed this doubt. Google does give many hits, but this is caused by the large number of commercial websites that also use the same database as their source. Looking for "A Sherton" in Google will give you similar results[50], even though it is just a "place" in the database which is actually a misspelling for Asherton, at the exact same location.[51] Fram (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You clearly have little idea about Afghanistan and places do you. Why do you think the district got its name "Dara-I-Pech District". Because the districts are generally always named after the traditional capital. This is verifiable and the village shows up on google maps visibly (although the coords need tweaking slightly to the north which I've done. Dara-I-Pech and Mano Gai are clearly visible on google maps as separate settlements which both exist. I suggest you take this issue with my "sub stubs" stubs elsewhere. As for dual main towns, this is common in Afghanistan. Samangan for instance is also widely known as Aibak and even Aibak District and province but Aibak is a suburb of Samangan and they lie in very close proximity. Actually I generally have very good experience of geonames identifying real settlements which appear on google maps and it is far from an unreliable source as you suggest. The database was clearly drawn up and settlements identified for a reason. Of course articles need further sources to be written fully but as a stub I think its fine initially. I actually prefer starting articles in the way I started Gwebin for instance but I also find creating them as stubs makes it easier to be expanded upon at a later date. If you've got a problem with them, expand them yourself or just move onto something else. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This is verifiable" with a link to the clearly unreliable geographic.org? Have you even read the nomination? Apart from that: "If you've got a problem with them, expand them yourself or just move onto something else." is not how Wikipedia works: if I have a problem that the info in a certain article, and the very reason that a separate article exists, is unverifiable (in reliable sources), then I don't move on to something else, I nominate it for deletion. Your speedy keep boils down to "I know better, but I can't be bothered to actually give one reliable source to support my statement". Fram (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. The settlement clearly exists as it can be seen on a satellite zoom. However, indeed articles need multiple reliable sources to write about them. So given that sources cannot be found about this particularly place as an actual village for some reason, even if it is highly likely it does exist, then a redirect is fine. The infoformation which was given anyway was more suitable to the district article. A belligerent AFD is really not necessary as I agree with you mostly that creating them without further sources is not a good idea. I really don't like your conflicting attitude over this. Discuss it with me please. Also, why do you think I called for a ban on falling rain if I wasn't sympathetic to your views on mass generated content using databases?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a settlement close to the location given. We have no idea what its name is. As can be seen in the examples above, even for American places, this info is highly unreliable. Considering that Dara-I-Pech simply means "Valley of the Pech", there is no reason to believe that this district has been named after a specific village (I can't rule it out, but I see no reason to believe this). And that a belligerent AfD is not necessary and a redirect would do; well, I did redirect the article, which you undid and where you said on my talk: "Please DO NOT redirect Dara-I-Pech. It is clearly a settlement. If you have a problem with its existence as a village take it to AFD.♦ " You can hardly blame me for this... Fram (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't, but I also did say I am far more sympathetic to you view about this that you might think and agree its certain;y not the best way to create content. The reason why I decided to go ahead with this is because a] we have them listed in the missing encyclopedic articles ready and dabbed in other pages for starting. b] Anomie had downloaded the coordinates to add to them afterwards and then they can be looked at and expanded. c] I tested at least a two dozen settlements prior to the run using geonames as an initial source and found them to identify real settlements which were mentioned in historical gazeteers. So don't paint me as some ignorant fool who is clueless how to build content. I found enough settlements which wer eincluded in geonames and also mentioned in other sources like Alishang to make me think the stub run was worthwhile. I know it is best to start each article individally with geonames as a start and other sources in google books or whatever to support it and is what I much prefer, but when we are missing sheer content it becomes far too tedious to be able to start every article in such a way. As for me being lazy, well, that's hilarious. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I call you "lazy"? Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Your speedy keep boils down to "I know better, but I can't be bothered to actually give one reliable source to support my statement". " If that isn't implying I am idle and lazy then I don't know what is.. You really think I can't be bothered?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, either you couldn't find one, or you couldn't be bothered to present it. I assumed that you would never propose a "speedy keep" for an article where you couldn't find a reliable source, so the only remaining reason was that in this case, you couldn't be bothered. Fram (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true I'd neither have bothered creating it or have added some historical info related to the district.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

geographic.org say they're getting their data from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and you can query their database directly here. I can't find Dara-I-Pech or any of the synonyms in it and the closest I can get is Darah-ye Pēch. Since this is listed as a stream rather than a populated place and the co-ordinates are very close I'm pretty sure this entry is for the Peche River. 'Delete and redirect per nom unless there is any further evidence this place exists. Hut 8.5 14:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of X Universe races[edit]

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

Completely unsourced since creation in 2007, fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Too extensive and unsourced to merge into X (game series), though a bare list of the races could probably be made verifiable and mentioned there. Sandstein 06:27, 29 April 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) 07:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: with nothing to WP:verify notability. Nothing against mentioning these at the main series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in accordance with WP:Writing about fiction and WP:Notability. Should be summarized at X (game series). Marasmusine (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layalina Productions, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable organization Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply search the Google News archive with the word "Layalina" and you will see in depth coverage in the New York Times and USA Today describing this film production company supported by many U.S. government officials of both major parties to produce films about the U.S. for broadcast in the Arab world. Cullen328 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interestingly, the Board of Directors of this production company have names that are all blue-linked. It doesn't appear to be a fly-by-night operation. And as Cullen states, a quick Google News search pulls up many articles on this company, including, I note, one from USA Today. If this Associated Press article is correct, "The company, Layalina Productions Inc., has a board that boasts such names as former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker III and former U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton" and is "backed by a string of Washington heavyweights - Republicans and Democrats - including former President George H.W. Bush". I appreciate that the nominator took this article to AFD, because this article needs some work, but even though the article needs some attention, this subject is notable. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- correction - some of the Directors are blue-linked; some aren't. Don't conflate the actual board of directors and the "Board of Counselors", which appears to be mostly honorary. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; only six of the eight board members have articles (the other two should as well, but that can be remedied, given time). But I think you're missing the point of my rationale: USA Today and Associated Press articles discuss this production company, discuss the fact that it's supported by D.C. politicians and other notables. Reliable sources that are independent of the subject directly discuss the subject of this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy delete, as this was an organisation producing television programs, which is a claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material already in the article shows that it is notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete but most of the "keep" !voters really didn't give a reason to keep it either. Perhaps the "Threshhold" series this is part of might be notable enough for an article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stalk[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK redirect to Janet Morris reverted hence this AFD. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am having trouble finding more than one mention in Google Books ([52]). Perhaps some web mentions or reviews can be found? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen a number of references about this book/series, and will add them to the article within the week. I admit it's not as notable as other books, and it might be reasonable to consolidate the trilogy of which it's a part, into one page. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I could not find any references to the book. The other problem is the the article fails to shed any light on its notability making it hard to know anything more about it. If nothing more can be done about it, then it should be deleted. CrossTempleJay talk 09:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but monitor. It definitely needs fleshed out. It looks like fans are putting her stuff up, but not full articles. I messaged a couple that they should construct a better article before posting, to avoid this type of issue.Mzmadmike (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Can[edit]

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

A decent amount of reliable sources can be found with a quick Google search, but the topic itself doesn't seem to be notable enough. A redirect to Cougar Town may be more appropriate. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable game. Found only one mention at Google News Archive in a source which might not satisfy WP:RS. Wikipedia is not for every game someone makes up. Edison (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged.

The Wall (song)[edit]

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

Not yet released. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yuck (band). The album has been released, so the single does not fit under WP:CRYSTAL, but notability is not yet established. Eauhomme (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect: Just heard these guys on the radio for the 1st time earlier this week, debut album recently was released. Their singles are not going to be notable at this point unless they chart.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi's Kimia (film)[edit]

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

Not yet released. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that this movie has not been released yet, is not a valid reason to delete it, since you find several movies (not released yet) that are presented in wikipedia. However, the article needs major revisions and improvements. DrPhosphorus (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buckley Petawabano[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. imdb can only confirm 1 major acting role. whilst only 2 gnews hits [53] which for someone living in Canada is very low to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person, no significant acting role. Keb25 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho House (Music)[edit]

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

Self-created and self-christened genre of music with no properly sourced indication of notability. Wikipedia does not need an article about every individual word some underground musician with three fans on Myspace comes up with to encapsulate how unique their music is compared to everybody else's; we only need articles about genres of music which are actually talked about in real music media. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:OR. The artists named appear to be in the Fidget House genre. The purported inventor, DJ L. Magnifico, has no article. Google searching by "Psycho House" Magnifico yields 66 hits. Abductive (reasoning) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with abductive on this one. Unsourced OR. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jux[edit]

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

Unremarkable website/builder. Sources given are primary or one blog, searching for sources finds unrelated hits only and nothing to verify notability. Would appear to fail WP:WEB or GNG if you like. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted.metcalfe (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Added reference to trusted Educator blog. Yes, searches are somewhat noisy because the 3-letter word "jux" is common - short for "just", german for fun.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though according to WP:WEB, there should have been multiple publications about the site (a criteria JUX.com is lacking), it serves as a reference from WP's web content. It should be kept. CrossTempleJay talk 09:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above observations nowhere near enough indication of notability, with the two independent refs being very light coverage in blogs (or at least I think as one's not in English). That someone finds it a useful reference is not a criteria to keep.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If supersources are found later the article can be recreated/restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 13 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) 04:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Youth Festival Central Judging results for display-marching bands[edit]

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

Although the Singapore Youth Festival is notable, I cannot see how a list of the results of particular competitions within the festival is notable in any way. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Singapore Youth Festival Central Judging results for Chinese orchestra to this AFD as well. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Singapore Youth Festival Central Judging results for display/marching bands? All that is showing up on the AfD page is marching bands. It doesn't seem that AfD responds well to subpages. bd2412 T 19:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. ~~Trying to fix that now.~~ Fixed by renaming the page. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Besides being the author of the pages, allow me to just point out that a google search of "SYF Central Judging" alone produces 19,700 hits, without trying the various possible permutations. Not that it is the best way to assess notability, but it is inherently more difficult to cite notability for a list as compared to the main subject the list is contributing to. The Singapore Youth Festival is an annual national event in Singapore held since the 1960s, and the Central Judging segment for performing arts groups is just one part of it, but on its own, it already involves all schools from the primary to the pre-university level in the country involving thousands of people. And one of my motives for creating the page is partly due to the official site's tendency to remove their online results for older years, forcing people to check past results offline. My ultimate aim is to search for those older results in the national libraries and build up the lists accordingly for the benefit of thousands who otherwise do not have ready assess to such information. I was also partly inspired by lists such as this.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice work on the page. A couple of those thousands of Google hits turned into footnoted sources here would go far in demonstrating notability. Speaking for myself, I have no strong worries about the piece as it sits, but sourcing would be nice. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and is on a non-notable topic; winners of some high school contest. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. The listing of winners of every youth competition in the world is outside the scope of what belongs in an encyclopedia, and contrary to the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Edison (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount&Musket: Battalion[edit]

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

Non-notable game mod. Disputed prod and I don't think A7 can apply to video games, so I figured I'd turf it here. Kevin (talk) 20:45, 22 April 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) 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not verify through reliable secondary sources. If a source can be located, consider summarizing at Mount&Blade instead of a separate article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kgorman, pardon? this mod is one of the most popular mods on mount and blade warband, oh and the mod is on mount and blade: WARBAND, not the first mount and blade— Preceding unsigned comment added by 33rd rec john (talk • contribs)
Thanks for clarifying. We can redirect and summarize at Mount&Blade: Warband, then, if someone can find one piece of verification from a reliable secondary source. Marasmusine (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. no indication of significance slakr^\ talk / 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARHAX.studio[edit]

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

Contested PROD; studio fails WP:CORP. Article has no references and I couldn't find any significant coverage in secondary sources. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete does not meet WP:CORP, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. soft deletion given low participation Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Montgomery (radio host)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. He's a WP:LOCAL radio personality in Memphis. He hosts a call-in show about computers; I suspect he's not even particularly well known in Memphis. I've added a reference, but I don't think he passes WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cross-referencing the source provided in the article and WREC's programming schedule, his show occurs during a paid programming block, which means it's brokered programming paid for out of the subject's pocket and not subject to WREC's editorial control. No notability then, just like many of the other computer hosts who have to buy infomercial time to get their show on. Nate • (chatter) 10:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pennelope Jimenez[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Has received some coverage outside playboy, but could use more. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has now come to my attention that the nominator made this nomination in violation of a still active topic ban [54]. As such this should also be a Procedural Keep. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:58, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 03:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. I am not opposed to "mass deletion nominations of groups of articles with similar subjects which have the same notability problems. Edison (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this editor is banned from BLP editing, yet nominated over 100 BLPs for deletion.[55].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:11, 14 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} 15:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Hajek[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:05, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteRedirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Refs in article do not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this editor is banned from BLP editing, yet nominated over 100 BLPs for deletion.[56].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [57]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no way we should keep this article referenced, and referencable, only to playboy. No news articles, book mentions, awards or anything apart from being a centerfold in a magazine. Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy St. George[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 00:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1982. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:28, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 03:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. No inherent notability just from being a Playmate, and no independent and reliable sources cited. Edison (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this editor is banned from BLP editing, yet nominated over 100 BLPs for deletion.[58].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [59]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playmate of the month, makeup artist, claimed by a plastic surgery site as an entreprenuer, attended a comic convention and was photographed. I can see this information but little of it from reliable sources. Noone cares to write about her extensively and there is grossy insufficient material to support a biographical article - Peripitus (Talk) 12:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Sanches[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 00:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Playmate of the Year award satisfies PORNBIO, whether it is a strategic commercial decision or not. Google news hits reveals various reliable sources that cover the subject to satisfy WP:BASIC, the depth that goes beyond just trivial. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Playmate of the Year is not an award. What did you find on gnews that qualifies as non-trivial coverage about the subject? --Damiens.rf 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That dog don't hunt. From that google news search, Dallas Morning News May 19, 1996, May 4, 1996, New York Daily News - Feb 29, 1996. BTW, I don't read a "playmatehood" exception to the GNG or BASIC. What qualifies as trivia is discussed in note 6 of WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trivial coverage is excluded. It does not support notability. Per GNG. --Damiens.rf 20:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable by virtue of being a Playmate, and I can't find any significant coverage of her in reliable sources. By the way, 'delete' here means 'delete', not 'merge & redirect to a list', for the reasons given by Dekkapai above - if a person is non-notable, we shouldn't have an article on them at all. Merging to a list doesn't affect the lack of notability. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, also playmate of the year.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:46, 5 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, Baseball Watcher 03:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [60]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:46, 14 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} 15:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Guerri[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1983. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this editor is banned from BLP editing, yet nominated over 100 BLPs for deletion.[61].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [62]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the significant reliable coverage to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Mullen[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1977. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:42, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 02:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this editor is banned from BLP editing, yet nominated over 100 BLPs for deletion.[63].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [64]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:48, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Hope[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable, even if you play the clarinet for the Army. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:01, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this editor is banned from BLP editing, yet nominated over 100 BLPs for deletion.[65].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [66]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:48, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Hubby[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:01, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this editor is banned from BLP editing, yet nominated over 100 BLPs for deletion.[67].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [68]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:49, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mardi Jacquet[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1980. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:00, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this editor is banned from BLP editing, yet nominated over 100 BLPs for deletion.[69].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [70]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:49, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Jensen[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1978. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:58, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Marriage to Criss was actually well-covered. Almost every comment above is a cut and paste due to mass nom.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [71]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:50, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krista Kelly[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this editor is banned from BLP editing, yet nominated over 100 BLPs for deletion.[72].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [73]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:50, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venice Kong[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1985. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:55, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [74]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep without prejudice to renomination because not a single !vote is on substance of this individual. Some of the playmate AfDs actually have individualized discussion, this one does not.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lavoie[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [75]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:51, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Lee[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. At most, it gives you minor roles on James Bond's movie. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has a number of TV and movie credits, so is notable above & beyond Playboy. Tabercil (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to imdb, her acting career was
  1. movie: - A very minimal appearance on James Bond's License to Kill. (the greatest moment of her actress career);
  2. movie: - The sexual thriller Snapdragon (again, a minor role);
  3. tv movies: - She was Reporter #1 in one tv-movie and Mrs. Dance in another (minor appearances);
  4. tv series: - She had two one-episode characters in two different tv series.
- That's all. Does it brings her some notability? --Damiens.rf 12:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1988. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. There might be enough coverage of her Bond girl role out there to justify an independent article, but imdb claims alone aren't sufficient, and I don't see enough evidence of RS coverage so far. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [76]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:52, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Lee (model)[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1996. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:53, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [77]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:52, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luann Lee[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news hits over several decades, seem to clearly establish notability, being a playmate is not a criteria for deletion of otherwise notable people. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [78] and so it should also be a procedural keep. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:53, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Long[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize its products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zip news articles, book mentions, or any independant writing about her I can find. clearly fails to meet any of our requirements for writing a neutral and verifiable article - Peripitus (Talk) 09:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1988. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the time it took to write that you could have done what I did: searched for references, found none, and come to the conclusion that the article is unsustainable. Peripitus (Talk) 10:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Need help with math? Ten minutes to write the above, then ONE FULL HOUR to paste it approximately 100 times into all the cut-and-paste deletion nominations churned out in one hour by a single editor. It takes more like 15 minutes to properly research and write up a challenge defense, which is what you seem to think I should have done 100 times. That would take TWENTY-FIVE HOURS to fight the IDON'TLIKEIT cut-and-paste challenges of this week, over Playboy models this time, Frats and Sororities last time, who knows what the fuck next. As if I've got nothing better to do than defend shit I ultimately don't care about other than the PRINCIPLE of stopping these automated mass annihilation attempts. Believe it or not, I'm here to write articles, not defend stupid shit that some people are cheating the process to eliminate because THEY DON'T LIKE IT. This crap has GOT TO BE STOPPED. It is disrespectful to the authors of the articles. It is disrespectful of the process at AfD. It is disrespectful of Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for spending 15 seconds of your time to share your opinion, by the way. Carrite (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see references exist in the australian press to her, if you weed out incorrect hits, e.g., [79]. Australian papers are not as well covered on google news as US papers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We need non-trivial coverage. What you show is actually less than trivial mentions. I see references such as that exists to my grandma as well (seriously). We have not evidence this person is not an ordinary girl. --Damiens.rf 20:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Month was your grandma a playmate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.89.10 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't knew her. --Damiens.rf 10:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do to vet the article before this mass nomination? Your uncivil behavior astounds me.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:52, 5 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Coverage is minimal - trivial - topless model - redirect to the list. Off2riorob (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [80]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason, related to the article, that we should keep it ? - Peripitus (Talk) 22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just my concern that the members of this batch of 100+ articles have not received the individual attention they would have if they had been nominated normally, and that someone may have found justification to keep the article. However, I do not have a specific aurgument for keeping those particular one of the batch, other then that this one has more information in the article that makes her sound more likely to be notable, but that is already mentioned above. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:34, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fawna MacLaren[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite and absolute disinterest in editors in forming consensus to delete these articles. OF course, any deletions are going to merge exact same content into list articles. Its ridiculous waste of AfD time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [81]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:59, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Marie[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [82]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:59, 14 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} 03:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Jeán Marteen[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:48, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [83]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:59, 14 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} 03:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Mays[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1983. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:48, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [84]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:58, 14 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} 03:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denise McConnell[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1979. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: totally unremarkable and not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.190.81 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with HW. Fascinating news coverage about how she's a detective and how cops were stalking her info[85], but that can be mentioned in the redirected article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:47, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [86]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:57, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breann McGregor[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cyber Girl of the Year. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy online model who won a Playboy online poll. No independent notability; cited film roles are negligible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT merge. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:47, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [87]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:57, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helle Michaelsen[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1988. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:46, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [88]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:57, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Michelle[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy "special editions" model, which is by consensus not even a substantial factor in establishing notability. Claimed film roles all appear to be insignificant, and I don't even see a reliable source identifying the actress and the model, who use different professional surnames. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:45, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [89]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:57, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Noel[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 01:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [90]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:57, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alesha Oreskovich[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google news search reveals consistent coverage by the SP Times since 1989 when she was an aspiring model before she was associated with Playboy. No playmatehood exception to GNG or WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 01:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [91]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing in policy that suggests this person should have a wikipedia biography. Off2riorob (talk) 09:11, 14 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 List of Playboy Playmates of 1983. not sure about the NA relist but the consensus is clear and this article doesn't meet N or any subordinate guidelines ot preserve it and the argument under BEFORE is essentially irrelevant to the notability guidelines. Redirect after deletion as plausible search term to the list Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carina Persson[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1983. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:NACTOR -- "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:36, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 01:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Peterson[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1980. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:36, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 01:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [92]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:56, 14 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. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban^{[clarification needed]}. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Price[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Barely enough of a non-Playmate career to justify a discrete article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - X is a stuntperson and associated producer of some minor TV programs. I don't get any sort of obvious notability from those Hullaballoo. I can find no news articles about here in either of these professions under a variety of name combinations. No reliable sources have cared to write about her so what is there to support an article ? - Peripitus (Talk) 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:CREATIVE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:35, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 01:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [93]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:55, 14 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} 03:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divini Rae[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough coverage for an individual article. Epbr123 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No playmatehood exception for GNG or BASIC. Google news search reveals articles about her in New York Post (about her fictionalised Memoir that upset Playboy ) and the Anchorage Daily News. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:34, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of meeting GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [94]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:55, 14 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 List of Playboy Playmates of 1977. not quite sure about the NA relist but the consensus is pretty clear - the opposition to deletion based on BEFORE overlooks the fact that contributors have confirmed a fruitless search for sources and a specific ntoability guide is cited in the nom and not refuted. Therefore the article does not pass the GNG and gets deleted. I am also redirecting as this is clearly a plausible search term. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virve Reid[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1977. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:33, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 01:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Richards[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:32, 4 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, Baseball Watcher 01:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [95]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its amazing that we let editors like that continue to edit.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:14, 14 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} 03:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Richmond[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1988. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1988. No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, and many of these AfDs are not succeeding.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a reason to to have a biography on Laura Richmond.

The preceding unsigned comment was posted by the deletion nominator.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would point out that both Carrite's lengthy spiel & Milowent's endorsement of it fail WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY -- the issue is not whether the nominator dotted all "i"s and crossed all "t"s (a point that in any case they cover only speculatively), but whether the article establishes WP:Notability -- a topic that they fail to address. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So its a minor technicality when an editor is banned from editing BLPs in any way, and nominates a 100+ BLPs for deletion? The noms were abusive and disruptive, and there's no basis for knowing the nom was ever good in the first place, but i know many of them were not based on their closes.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [96]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some searching I can find nothing substantive written about her anywhere reliable. Far too little material to support a verifyable article which, having read, gives no hint that I've missed anything - Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyvio from [97] - the whole article was copied from this blog, thus easier to rebuild it from scratch. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jannat Abad Qom[edit]

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

The content of this article seems to be copied entirely from here. The article is not referenced, aside from a single external link which the contents are copied from. Jncraton (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: since you brought it to AfD, I asked Dr. Blofeld if they have any means of verifying the information (that is, the existence of the village)--basically, if it exists it's notable. Had you asked for speedy deletion for copyvio, that would have been another matter. That can still be done, of course, but for now we're here--where notability means something stays. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a clear copyright violation, and I have tagged it as such for a speedy deletion. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that worked pretty quickly! Drmies (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. The nominator brought up mostly issues of WP:NPOV which can be addressed in the talk page, without deleting the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Slutwalk[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. While I personally appreciate the cause taken up by the subject of this article, the article as it stands right now is a major violation of NPOV. The article subject may meet notability requirements, but I believe it is so hopelessly POV that an NPOV article can only be achieved by blowing it up and starting over. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite, then assess - Otherwise, delete. CycloneGU (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom admits its a notable topic, and is correct. There are reliable sources cited. Article may be stubbed or rewritten to eliminate OR and essay-like features. I will do it myself before the nomination period expires if no-one gets to it first. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main subject of the article doesn't show the sort of coverage required to avoid a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Much of the article is essentially originial research/synthesis and advocacy, intended to demonstrate the significance of the problem the article subject attempts to address. Whatever the merits of the cause involved, this just isn't an encyclopedic article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kuyabribri and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's rationales. [email protected] (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed most of the WP:OR and WP:COATRACK material. What is left is well sourced and I believe avoids WP:1E because other such demonstrations are reported planned, so this is more of a protest movement than a random news event which happened one day. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but consider move to Slutwalk as the phenomenon spreads: see [98] [99] [100] [101]). Notability seems well confirmed: geographic scope and persistence of coverage seem on their way). The POV and essay issues are substantial but not grounds for deletion; the final essay-style section is fundamentally about the motivations and arguments of the protesters which can be attributed rather than stated as a fact, or pulled where it is undue weight for an article about the protest itself.--Carwil (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Slutwalk. The original slutwalk in Toronto received some coverage, but would have been just a news item if that is all that had happened. However, this has spread from Toronto with other cities also holding such events, and garnering coverage in the media raising this beyond just a news event. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The march was covered by the CBC, check out footnote 1. I don't think POV is the issue here, although possibly NOTNEWS comes into play. If this was a one-off demonstration, probably not inclusion-worthy in my book; if it is an annual event, probably it is. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Slutwalk. Has sufficient coverage to establish notability, but it's happening in more than one city. Significant societal topic: women responding to police and judges claiming that a man is not responsible for raping a woman who dresses in a sexy manner. (Is the Taliban the source of a significant number of judges and police officers in Canada?). Edison (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Largely as noted by others, move to SlutWalk (universally reported in CamelCase, so that should be retained), with the Toronto material serving as background and history. Coverage of these protests has now been picked up by at least MSNBC (via the Associated Press). Cleanup and editorial issues do not appear fatal to the ability to sustain an article on the topic. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Slutwalk and Keep. This has received enough coverage from reliable sources over a lasting period of time that we can say it's not just a flash-in-the-pan news story, but a notable event/movement. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to SlutWalk or Slutwalk. It's notable enough for a BBC article [102], and is spawning multiple events. Onanoff (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account of the multitude of sources. I have no opinion about the renaming, and besides, the article name is out of scope for a deletion discussion, and can be attended to after the deletion discussion has concluded. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just saw a video about this at USA Today, and came to Wikipedia for more info. The video was actually covering a Slutwalk that took place in Boston, but I added the link as a ref to this article. I just found another link at Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/slutwalk-united-states-city_n_851725.html) that links to Slutwalks in other North American cities, and which also mentions Slutwalks in cities elsewhere around the globe. MSNBC has covered the subject as well. This should help establish that the subject is in fact notable enough for a Wikipedia article. However, I think either the title of the article should be changed simply to "Slutwalk", or another article should be created under that title which is about the phenomenon as a whole.Adrigon (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to SlutWalk. This is getting multiple articles in BBC, NYT, etc and its notability is therefore established. We don't need a separate article for each city, though. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 20:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with previous statement. This has taken off and it is far more than froth.Robertforsythe
As a result of the major cleanup that has happened on this article since I opened this AfD, I withdraw this nomination, as my original rationale of advocacy/hopeless POV no longer apply. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is major; even if it doesn't become a regular event like other protest marches on which we have articles, its geographical scope more than qualifies it to pass WP:EVENT. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 11 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) 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bradley[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the GNG. Possible spam/COI, as the same editor has repeatedly created an article on the company Mr Bradley heads up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RESUME. CycloneGU (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only on WP:RESUME but also WP:COI and particularly WP:PROMOTION issues and fact that he doesn't meet GNG despite doing lot's of plugging for himself online.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources provided. Even if everything in the article were true and verified, his accomplishments do not seem to add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 13 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) 04:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Sepe[edit]

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

This is a nomination requested by Vic49 (talk) on my talk page. I previously removed his proposed deletion template, after noticing that there was a previous AfD discussion, here. I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other on deleting or keeping this article, I just didn't think a prod was appropriate. Kevin (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sepe is not notable. The references for Angelo Sepe, have to do with his involvement in the Lufthansa heist, murders he was involved in following the heist and his murder. The Lufthansa heist article contains this important information about him as a member of the heist team (Lufthansa heist#Planning and execution), murders he committed (Lufthansa heist#Violent deaths of heist associates) and his murder. The mentioning of Sepe in that article is sufficient enough; it covers the important information about him. If the article is to be kept a lot of the information needs to be removed; the Family history & lineage, and Personal life section have no inline citations to prove any of this information is real. The other sections need to be rewritten with references. --Vic49 (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BIO. also noticed he passed his first AFD. Though many years ago it indicates notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sepe falls into the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators section, he is only known for the one event of the Lufthansa heist and is incorporate in that article already. --Vic49 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PERP, and WP:ONEVENT, it's been over 5 years since the last AfD so long lasting notability can now be determined. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Does not meet standard of notability for Crime victims and perpetrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkina Faso (talk • contribs) 06:56, 5 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) 01:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Since this is a procedural nom and the article has survived a previous AFD, a little more discussion would be helpful in determining if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment from the original passed AFD says it all in my opinion, Not very many Google hits, but deffinately notable and verifiable. He was a part of the Lufthansa heist (which happened way back in 1978 - likely why so few Google hits). From the article: "About $5 million in cash and $850,000 in jewelry was stolen from the Lufthansa airlines cargo terminal, making it the largest cash robbery in U.S. history. Largest cash robbery in US history, deserving a Wikipedia article. He also passes WP:BIO as I earlier stated. My Keep stands.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if Sepe did this all individually it would make him notable but he is a member of a team that did it, individual notability is not established. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still, stand with Delete. Sepe does not pass WP:Bio Crime, if a crime individual is known for one event he should be incorporated into a lead article which is the Lufthansa heist; Sepe is already mentioned throughout the Lufthansa heist article. --Vic49 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ONEVENT applies, and the matter is more properly covered in Lufthansa heist article. As above, does not pass WP:PERP --Whiteguru (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zenaida Darunday[edit]

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

No significant coverage in sources that can lead to writing an article about her. Moray An Par (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A reading of the sources and a perusal of Google News, Books, and Scholar suggests the nominator is correct. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Fernandez[edit]

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

I can't seem to find sources regarding him outsite the agimat website. He has one mention in a news article though. I doubt that the article falls under the 'significant coverage' requirement of WP:N, that is, if he is notable to begin with. I am not familiar with the matter so I might be biased to say that he non-notable as it might be my ignorance of the subject that speaking. Moray An Par (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid books[edit]

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

This article is not necessary. All of this information could easily be obtained from the Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) article. After all, there is not a "List of Harry Potter books" or "List of A Series of Unfortunate Events books" page. Why should this be any different? Alphius 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) for the reason cited above. Alphius 04:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Merge. It is clearly duplicative. This article was once bigger and full of unreferenced plot summaries for the books. Removing those was the right thing to do but it left it with no real reason to exist. Its structure seems a bit better than Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) so it might not hurt to restructure the sections about the books more like this. Whether a formal merge is needed, I am unsure. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) per nom. There's no reason this should be at AfD at all. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. This should be redirected rather than totally deleted. Should someone go ahead and do it or wait until this discussion is over? Alphius 04:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. I will redirect the page to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series). Alphius 23:51, 13 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. Almost said "keep" but not quite enough participation for a BLP AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Garfein[edit]

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

~~Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, lacks significant 3rd party coverage in reliable sources. Only claim of notability is as first female cantor in a German synagogue.~~ RadioFan (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has two albums on Bari Productions, Inc. I have no idea of the size of the company, but given the specificity of the genre, it's arguably a significant label, and ought to satisfy WP:MUS criterion 5:

Sacred Chants of the Contemporary Synagogue

Golden Chants in America...Commemorating 350 Years of Jewish Music

I'd also argue that she satisfies criterion 7 of WP:MUS. There are also sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG, in my opinion. A brief search on Google gives these:

"True calling gives Rice alumnus Rebecca Garfein something to sing about", The Rice News, January 11, 2001, retrieved May 6, 2011

"Voice of a Woman: Cantor Garfein sings Weill's "Kiddush"", Jewish Heritage online, retrieved May 6, 2011

"Interview: Cantor Rebecca Garfein", Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly, February 24, 2009, retrieved May 6, 2011

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn Thanks for finding those sources. WP:MUSIC criteria 5 does allow for and artist's notability to be demonstrated through releases on an "important" independent label. Normally this is achieved through a "roster of notable artists" and a multi year history but I'm having trouble finding much info on this label to back that up. There is no wikipedia article on the company and looking at the company website, those 2 compilation albums appears to be the only products produced under this label name. I saw some of those other references as well but was unclear whether many of them met WP:RS but the PBS interview is sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO so I'll withdraw the nomination with the assumption that the good faith attempt to demonstrate notability here will be followed up by improvement of the article. The article needs a bit of work. For example, any article that starts out "is a notable" is a red flag for a subject that often isn't notable.--RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be being premature by withdrawing your AfD nomination... I suggest letting it run a bit to assertain what the consensus is on her notability.

I don't necessarily see the label as significant, and the suggestion that she may satisfy criterion 5 of WP:MUS is, as I said, arguable but it is more difficult to judge when faced with minority genres. These albums aren't compilations, by the way.

With regards to criterion 7 of WP:MUS, again difficult to judge. What I will say is that the first album I listed is number 51 on the Amazon International Folk bestsellers list, and appears to be the highest ranking example of Jewish Sacred music on that list. She's no Lady Gaga in terms of sales, but she does appear to have a following (which I suppose we ought not to find surprising, given she's played Carnegie Hall) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's an article and a mention in German 1 2 and here are two links around the interview (it was broken above) 1 2 - frankieMR (talk) 23:32, 11 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} 16:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qianpu[edit]

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

No sourcing to indicate notability. It (前埔) is an area of Siming District, not a place, and most likely consists of several communities (社区); if you question this assertion, see this link. For articles covered under WP:NC-ZH, we almost never write articles on non-official districts/areas of specific cities. The only exception I can think of is Beijing, but that is perhaps because sourcing is better –HXL's Roundtable and Record 07:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep by Spartaz (talk · contribs) at 16:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC). See here and here. The AfD script did not function properly on this page. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Elliman[edit]

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

Delete per WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist appears to have a significant body of work exhibited at significant venues across continents, sometimes in group shows but also in his own right, as shown in the links from the article (which could do with some tidying to make the references more formal). Google searches also turn up further involvements, including "Inside design now: National Design Triennial". AllyD (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But none of it meets WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:ARTIST criterion 4 and the general notability guideline. I don't understand the nominator's difficulty in understanding that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Longano[edit]

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

Not a notable individual, despite being named in a few trade publications. Music Mogul is a defunct company that never launched and now links to a dead site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJeff (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 April 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see several non-trivial (albeit not very detailed) secondary independent RS sources details various aspect of the Longano (personal and career). [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] etc. They scrape notability (he is not necessarily the subject of sources, but his related actions are) but I think he passed BIO. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources already available and those provided by Hellknowz. The new business didn't launch and still managed to generate some interest 1 2, and the coverage is extensive and very solid even when in most cases the articles' focus of interest is obviously the product/company he's involved with and not so much him - frankieMR (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came here out of interest in knowing more. This was vital in my search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.226.77 (talk) 21:12, 13 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Valenti[edit]

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

Originally create at Ignacio Valenti Lacroix where I CSd'd it. User recreated outside of the WP:DRV process. Please review. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Some of his credits can be verified through a reliable tidbit here and a tidbit there, but the main coverage that comes up through Gnews relates to a news item in which a photo of him was mistakenly used in writing about someone else - not exactly a credible claim to notability. And judging from the most blatant POV personal life section in the history of Wikipedia, it's obvious this article was written as an advertisement. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Boston-area streetcar lines. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boston-area streetcar lines/old[edit]

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

Declined speedy, as it does not meet anything at WP:CSD. Reason for speedy was: "this article is simply an "archived" version of Boston-area streetcar lines". The content on the talk page is relevant to this deletion discussion. As a procedural nominator, I am remaining neutral. — This, that, and the other (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston-area streetcar lines -- I had the impression that the old version contained elements that the "official" list of Boston area streetcar lines didn't have. Assuming I'm correct, the information from the "old version" should be saved. ----DanTD (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as recommended by DanTD. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston-area streetcar lines. Closed lines and bustituted (lines substituted by bus services) should listed on the main Boston-area lines page. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Glasson[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least 2 reliable sources has done a feature on her satisfying WP:BASIC. [108][109] Morbidthoughts (talk). No playmatehood exception for WP:BASIC exist. 21:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More sources are added. Nimuaq (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -per morbidthoughts, meets GNG barely.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [110]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:53, 14 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) 04:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shae Marks[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. It gives you minor tv appearances and some ad contracts. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acting credits probably satisfy WP:ENT and aar sufficient to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her handful of acting credits do not meet notability guidelines. Only significant role was thirteen episodes of a single-season failed TV series. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And examples of this coverage would be...? Harley Hudson (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where can we find such coverage? Is it substantial or just trivial, as expected for most playmates? Please, elaborate to support your view, otherwise it's just a vote. --Damiens.rf 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PORNBIO and ENT due to her multiple TV roles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [111]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:53, 14 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) 00:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JantaKhoj[edit]

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

Lack of relevant information and strong presence of marketing content, lack of explanations about claims, staff and operations. Moreover the article is not complete. Haribhagirath (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it really is an WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It sounds to be a public domain website and a very useful site to find many Indians. And various references show it is will be of some importance in the future in India. But I agree to the fact that it needs a cleanup. --Tall.kanna (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it has received widespread coverage in indian media, all of it seem to be of press release type and not indepth. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:58, 11 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. Owen× ☎ 09:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Shot One Kill(Album)[edit]

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

Declined prod by author without any improvement or explanation. Prod Reason was "Per WP:NALBUM "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable". Article does not meet the exceptions listed in the policy guideline." Hasteur (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - free download (not usual). Known singer.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point at the Policy statement for why this should be kept. To my understanding, just because it's free doesn't justify a inclusion of notability. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nor does being by a known singer. BabbaQ please clearly explain how it meets WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clearly fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence of charting. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reliable sources exist today about the expected release, so WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream With Me[edit]

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

As a future album without significant coverage in reliable sources, album fails notability requirements of WP:NALBUMS. Sources verify the existence and eventual release of the album, but at this time is not notable. Will it be? Probably...but that's venturing into crystalballism. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator of article - I think it can be reasonably assumed that an artist reaching #2 on the Billboard 200 has inherited notability for albums being released. Assuming good faith, this seems more like process-wonkery to me than anything else; the album will be gaining more coverage leading up to release and post-release, we have a tracklist and a store reference, that's enough. Also, here is a press release from Sony about the album, and an artist profile talking about the upcoming release, these were just found today. CycloneGU (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: with only a track listing, this upcoming release doesn't meet notability guidelines. There are seems to be very little coverage of the release online, besides coverage of her upcoming TV special of the same name. Yves (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume the TV special adds to the notability of the album; she's promoting it with the TV special. I just haven't written about it yet. CycloneGU (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep personally haven't heard of this artist but a quick search was enough to find several news sources reporting about the album release. Have now added three sources and removed the Amazon link. If that still isn't enough, CRYSTAL aside why delete when it will be recreated in less than a month's time? Userfy at worst Jebus989 ^✰ 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that changes were made to the article since the listing. Would the nominator care to revisit this? CycloneGU (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements noted. I'll leave it up to admin to determine and close. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems no one else had chimed in yet, but I agree...let's leave it to an admin. to decide. The article will be recreated in a month regardless (maybe sooner) as there will be more and more information to add over time, it's just pre-release and there isn't as much available at this point. I'm not a crystal ball user, but this might be a case I make an exception based on artist's notability. It will be a surprise if this doesn't sell well. CycloneGU (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements. As mentioned above, this will be notable if it enjoys the success that's anticipated. If Evancho has a Jobriath moment and the albums bombs... it will still be notable for that reason. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kraeutler[edit]

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

Despite some seemingly solid credentials, there are no reliable third party sources for this person. The one source in the article already is a mentioning in passing type deal. I'd also note that the article itself has severe COI issues, immaterial as that may be to the discussion, in it's present form, the article is tainted. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems clearly notable, though the article needs better referencing. Google News Archives finds 227 hits, including (among the first 10 hits alone) 4 citations at the New York Times, one at USA Today, and one at CNNMoney. Clearly, major national publications regard him as the go-to guy on the subject of home improvement, and as such he is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added several of these citations to the article. It is still overly promotional, but that can be fixed by normal editing and is not a reason for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 5 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) 00:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As nationally-recognized home improvement expert. Appears to be a public figure. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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