Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 7

< 6 May	8 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Hope[edit]

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

I see absolutely no indication of importance or notability in this article. Not a single source and its an orphan since February 2009. BelloWello (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added "Adventist" to a Google News archive search to filter out false positives, and was not able to find any discussion in reliable sources of this Seventh Day Adventist missionary program. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heini Vatnsdal[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Vodafonedeildin. However, the Faroese league is not fully pro and therefore insufficient to grant notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests he meets the GNG yet. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:44, 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. If the content is in dispute that should be resolved through normal dispute resolution. Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ladha[edit]

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

Definatly does not belong on Wikipedia, WP:SOAP Jangofett287 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to an earlier version. Ladha is apparently a place in South Waziristan, Pakistan. However, some time ago, an editor or editors began using this article to report alleged false claims in Greg Mortenson's book Three Cups of Tea (apparently months before such false claims were publicized in the mainstream U.S. media). By now, such discussion has taken over the entire article. I would revert back to this version from December 2009 if it were up to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the current version is OK, and inhabited places are presumed notable and worthy of articles. Responsible editors should monitor the article to keep out original research pertaining to Greg Mortenson or anything else. Deletion is the wrong response to such problems. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above --Reference Desker (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and speedy close but keep an eye on the article Article is now fine, notable and got a source but, as above, editors should keep an eye on Ladha for any WP:OR about Three Cups of Tea. Doh5678 Talk 19:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The western world is lacking in information about places like Ladha in Pakistan, and this is a useful and convenient way for someone who hears about Ladha to quickly look it up in Wikipedia. There is surely much more history to Ladha than a couble of bombings, so this article serves as a useful stub. Wxidea (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armel (singer)[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR either. J04n(talk page) 21:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims in the article do not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Pburka (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable singer, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Keb25 (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to have only been a backup-singer and a bit-part actor. No coverage to meet WP:GNG and no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC or WP:ENT. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:58, 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 merge to American Idiot. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Like a Hand Grenade[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "Non-notable film: According to the article, screened only once, for ~500 people and 'It has been reported that the movie would be released on DVD but as of 2011, no news has been announced if this is, in fact, true.' Only source is a Green Day fan site." Reason given for removal was "Page should remain up because it was a featured film that was shown in a theater. Its not like it was a private film shown to 3 people in a basement. It was a feature film shown in a theater and it still might make it to DVD." The length of the film and how many people saw it makes little difference: As usual, the threshold for inclusion (per policy) is not merely that something exists, but that it has received coverage in reliable third-party sources. The likelihood of a film that was only screened once for 500 fans receiving significant coverage from multiple third-party sources is slim to nil. Whether it "still might make it to DVD" is completely irrelevant: If/when it does, maybe then it'll receive the secondary source coverage necessary to justify an encyclopedia article about it. Our notability thresholds are based on the existence of source coverage, not whether such coverage may exist at some undetermined point in the future. IllaZilla (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some references. This one is certainly significant coverage. Pburka (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 sources were added. The one linked above does give some detailed coverage, but the other one mentions the subject only in passing, in a parenthetical; the article itself is about an entirely different film by the same director. The details given in the second source might be appropriate to add to American Idiot (see my comment below). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also ok with User:IllaZilla's proposal to merge to American Idiot. Pburka (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting my remark. I said that if the result of this AfD is a "merge" consensus, then the appropriate target would be American Idiot rather than Green Day. I'm still in favor of deletion (which is why I AfD'd it in the first place). There's only 1 source giving significant coverage, it would be quite simple to write a couple of sentences in American Idiot and cite that source. A merge would be unnecessary, as the majority of the content in this article is unsourced and there are only a couple sentences' info worth carrying over. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Day#Related projects. While the reference cited by Pburka is relevant coverage, this film for some reason has not been distributed to the public, but just to an invited audience for a one-time showing. If more sources become available, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a merge is the end result, then I think a more appropriate target would be American Idiot, since the film is about the making of that album. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 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) 00:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Idiot as a logical target.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because the film was never released, too little of the information in the article is notable for a merge to be merited. One or two sentences within American Idiot should be sufficient to cover everything notable about the film.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:21, 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Might not be a good movie, but it's a real and credible movie. Unlike books, there's a relatively finite number of movies because of the high production expenses, and it is more useful for wikipedia to be a reference of movies (even those with limited, one night release) than to exclude them. It is ok to merge with another article. Wxidea (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all films were notable by definition, the article WP:NF wouldn't exist.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It's real" and "It's useful" do not address the issues of notability and sourcing explained in the nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a good deal of secondary source coverage from WP:RS multiple references. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. There are only 3 sources cited. As explained above, 1 is a Green Day fansite and thus doesn't pass our reliable source criteria, and another mentions the subject only in passing (seriously, it mentions it once, in a parenthetical). There is only 1 source that gives significant coverage and meets the reliability threshold. The topic would be better served by using that source to add a short paragraph in the American Idiot article. I seriously don't see how you can claim that "there is a good deal of secondary source coverage from multiple references". --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Idiot. Not necessarily notable on its own, and will probably work better with American Idiot. We can use the latimesblog source provided by Pburka to provide a source. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 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. Single "keep" opinion does not address the primary issue of notability. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ioan Popa (romanian writer)[edit]

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

The subject lacks coverage in multiple published secondary sources. Moreover, I can find no evidence that any of the WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF criteria are met. From the five links provided, Popa (and beware, there are many Ioan Popas running around) is mentioned in just two. This one is a sale page for his books, and obviously not a reliable (or quotable) source. This one is the Tismăneanu Report, and while it's interesting that one of his works is cited in one footnote of the report's 666 pages, that doesn't imply significant coverage of Popa.

Furthermore, I should note that while there's no reason to believe any of this article's claims, given that they're unsourced, I would note that they don't always show notability in any case. For instance, he's allegedly a member of the Writers' Union, but it has previously been noted that membership is no big deal, and no substantive factor toward a writer's notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was made based from the Romanian Wikipedia version: [1]. Although I will point out that the references/sources used seem to be the same.Calaka (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first glance, I had this guy pegged for another Popa (from Transylvania), who is somewhat notable. (Mind you, his name, surname and the combination of both may be shared with some hundreds of thousands of Romanians.) For now, this is an aufully written piece of (self-)promotion, and the few bites of it that are verifiable are also irrelevant. Coverage in multiple independent sources? Not asserted so far. Dahn (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Completed the translation of the article from romanian to english. I've added the bibliography that was used to build this article and recomendations from some well known people. I hope the last modifications bring more light into this article and also that it will be excluded from deletion. Valy3D 23:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completed some minor grammar modifications for a more accurate translation. Having the full bibliography used to build this article, the citation of sources, books published and Critical Appreciations added to the article I think it's safe to say that this article should be removed from the Articles for deletion list. Valy3D 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've done some modifications on the translations of the book titles and some other minor adjustments in the article. I hope that there are no more problems with the article. Also I see that lately nobody but me commented about this article so unless someone finds other thins wrong with this article I will remove the deletion header. Valy3D 09:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has to go through the seven-day process before the deletion header can be removed. Lugnuts (talk) 09:52, 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) 04:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary M. Collins[edit]

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

For one, Collins fails WP:POLITICIAN. He does sit on the Republican Party's Baltimore committee (in a city where no more than 10% of residents vote Republican), but that's not an especially significant position. For another, the sourcing is quite poor. Of the six links provided, five barely mention him, and one of them is a blog, which is not a reliable source. The sixth is a longer article and is about him, but it's from a local paper (one-quarter the circulation of the Baltimore Sun, which tellingly makes no mention of him), and one article in a local paper hardly makes for the "multiple published secondary sources" demanded by WP:BIO. The press loves putting out "really young politician" stories once in a while, but neither Collins' position nor his level of coverage rise to an encyclopedic level. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Biruitorul as he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even sure what the GOP Baltimore Committee is. Does not pass WP:Politician. One of the articles goes decently in depth about him, but I don't think it quite rises to the level of passing WP:GNG given that the position isn't a government position. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as he's only run for office one and hasn't been newsworthy for anything outside of the election, that would make this article a WP:BLP1E. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:11, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eromo Egbejule[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google hits is not the sole indicator of notability, and entrepreneurship and boldness should not be held against him. It's tough to get started as a writer or community organizer in Nigeria, so that should be considered. What might be trivial to accomplish in a western city is more notable in Nigeria. He seems to be a credible writer. It is helpful when wikipedia has biographies of people like this. Article could use editing, though. Wxidea (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Nothing you have said indicates a reason to keep. How has this article established notability via Wikipedia guidelines? If hie is such a renown entrepreneur there should be sufficient support for this article; however, that does not appear to be the case. ttonyb (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews, fails WP:BIO. Looks like a promotional resume. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike the 'Gunvald Strøm-Walseng' AfD, where I disagree with LibStar, and think he's erring too far on the side of rejecting a possibly notable 60-years-dead barrister; here we have a young Nigerian, in the Internet age, without much written. If this sniffs too much of a 'promotional resume' to LibStar and ttonyb (I have a more charitable read), then I feel comfortable changing my vote to Neutral. No harm will come if it takes a few years before Eromo is notable enough by Wikipedia criteria to set up a page for himself or some notable venture he starts. Wxidea (talk) 19:34, 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 speedy delete. 20:18, 11 May 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Aerial Manx" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:Sideshowmanx and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerial Manx.) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Manx[edit]

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

While there are claim of meeting WP:Notability in the article (world records), a good faith google search is only turning up youtube videos and forum posts. Gnews, gbook and gscholar come up empty. Taking to AfD instead of prod because removal of BLP notices lead me to believe this won't be uncontroversial. Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Self-promotion by non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's a promotional autobiography. Meph^talk 18:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be good, but this is spam. Peridon (talk) 20:04, 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) 04:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secelar Claxton Ray[edit]

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

No indication in article what his notability derives from. The only independent source does not appear to actually refer to Ray by name, and without a page number, it's impossible to tell what it is sourcing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero references attesting anything beyond his existence (and even that is from non-RS genealogy sites). Tracking Barefoot Runyon doesn't mention him, contrary to its being cited as a source. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been off the Internet for almost two years, I no longer have continuous use. I am putting up about 6 Baptist articles as they relate to Clay County, Alabama. This minister had notability in Clay County as a circuit preacher and also having introduced ppoultry farming to replace cotton. I still have to place apppropriate links and I can get some more references as well. It is taken from his book and I can put in page numbers. He is in Barefoot Runyan as his name is misspelled there. Maybe you can wait till I have finished my project. You are all (past 5 years) been to quick to quash notability no matter how small. KEEP for my articles. WayneRay (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a biography of one of the article creator's family members, which is a conflict of interest. Such an article could avoid deletion if it were well-sourced and clearly indicated notability, but I don't think that this one does. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deltete subject does not seem to be notable. Article is written in a personal and biased way. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:06, 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. Owen× ☎ 14:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New New World Order (politics)[edit]

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

I am not convinced by the very subject of this page, which was created and completed just a few days ago. Although it is quite well-made on surface, and may give a favorable impression with its many sources, it gives me the impression of being an original research - or should I say an original synthesis - made up with elements which are certainly relevant on articles like soft power, multilateralism, New world order (politics), Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration et al.

Searches on google books and google scholar were inconclusive about the notability of such a concept, and its relation with the foreign policy of the current American administration.

True, several authors have been using the expression "New new world order", but they have done so at different times, on different contexts, and in different assessments of american foreign policy.

IMHO, this looks very much like a WP:FORK and WP:Original research, basing itself on actual sourced facts, patched together under the umbrella of a non-notable concept and glossed over with a scholarly appearance. I think the term should be mentioned in New world order (politics), to stress the variations of that latter concept, but nothing more.

I may add that I also proposed for deletion the French version of this article on wp:fr. The result was a clear consensus for deletion, despite a campaign of abuse and personal attacks by an IP which may or may not have belonged to the (apparently bilingual) article's creator. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see above. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own googling indicates that where this term is used, it is generally as a headline, and almost never in the body of a text. You would expect that if this were an established concept, it would often appear in the body of text, most likely with capital letters (as in the Wiki article). It's just not used that way. It's easy to be swayed by the academic appearance of the article but I agree that it doesn't have the requisite substance yet.Asnac (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like POV-pushing to me, aggregating unrelated events and quotes in some kind of high falutin' original research. Enlisting here Ibn Khaldun as well as Arnold J. Toynbee may appear as creative editing, but doesn't really help. More specifically, I fail to perceive a single, consistent, well-defined concept behind this phrase of "New, New World Order". --Azurfrog (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same as above - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be synth and OR. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 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. Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Wells (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN criteria for notability Dennis Brown (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I can think of a number of people who have been on the Gainesville City Commission, and are much better known, who don't have WP articles. -- Donald Albury 23:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were a city the size of San Diego or Dallas, than its city commissioners would probably be inherently notable. But, it's not. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:30, 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. Rlendog (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox World[edit]

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

Neologism and fork of various other articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not exactly sourced (the one source is just the whole book, and Hooker doesn't really seem to have any concept of "the Orthodox World"). I'm assuming this is just original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think that the "Orthodox World" exists as such. Natkabrown (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should have an article on the general concept of Orthodox Christian civilization, but this one is not really helpful since it seems to be one person's opinions. BigJim707 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be just an original research. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:55, 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 Kris Joseph, delete others. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Brennan-McBride[edit]

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

I am nominating this article, as well as the others listed here, for some/all of the following reasons (which apply to all of these articles): None of them pass notability criteria for college athletes; the American Basketball Association (in its present incarnation) is not a notable league to be playing in if it's the basis for the article's notability; these were all created en masse by a rabid Syracuse basketball fan (User:GoCuse44) thinking that playing for Syracuse = inherent notability (it certainly doesn't); every one of these articles' references are only either Syracuse University school newspapers/blogs or routine coverage; last but not least, they're all abandoned articles (i.e. GoCuse44 created them in a spree, and no significant content has been added to them in literally 2+ years...which also might signify all of these being unwatched BLPs, opening a whole new can of worms). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Jrcla2 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jrcla2 (talk) 19:38, 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/DeShaun Williams. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kris Joseph, Delete others - Kris Joseph probably meets notability standards based on news coverage. He was a preseason All-American in many publications last year, was on the preseason Wooden/Naismith watch lists and is returning for his senior year where he will be a high-profile player on a perennial top 25 team. The others are scrubs and should be deleted. Rikster2 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: per nom. As far as Joseph is concerned, being on a preseason watch list does not confer presumptive notability, nor does the premise that he might be prominent next season; were he, for instance, to suffer a career-ending injury between now and October, he wouldn't be a high-profile anything, the very reason WP:CRYSTAL exists. Ravenswing 21:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Disagree on Joseph - he's one of Syracuse's top players and was on one of the All-Big East teams last year. There is media coverage that comes with this, such as this, this, this, this, this, and this. And that's without linking game reports, where Joseph features prominently because he's a top player on a top team. Seriously, he's one of the best returning players in arguably the best conference. He gets plenty of media coverage and meets notability that way. After being involved in AfD debates for the likes of Leslie McDonald, JaMychal Green and Jon Leuer (all of whom passed), I think Joseph is at least in the same vein given his and Syracuse's high profile in the media. I bring up next season because it always seems silly to me to delete a relatively fleshed-out article only for the subject to blow up a few months later. But even looking at today, he meets notability on the basis of significant media coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joseph He is a legit NBA prospect. I could find plenty of media coverage on Joseph the player. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:57, 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. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballistic Bonbon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reasoning: Article has no reliable sources listed, and so the notability of this game is not established. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prod. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:33, 7 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) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - had a search, but could not find secondary sources for this one. Marasmusine (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Marasmusine --Veyneru (talk) 15:05, 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) 04:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Nelson[edit]

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

Delete (as nom) Pastor of non-notable church, unsourced BLP, Google News brings up many articles but they refer to others who share same name. Even if this was notable, it would require a complete rewrite. BelloWello (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nelson has been pastor for 20 years at the Pioneer Memorial Church on the campus of Andrews University which is the oldest SDA University. It is also the home of the SDA seminary. Nelson's sermons are broadcast around the world each week. These are all notable among the global SDA community. Yes the article does need sources added, but most articles are works in progress. Inthbegocr (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Inthbegocr, and welcome to Wikipedia! All those facts that you noted are interesting, but they do not show notability. Please review the notability guidelines, as much as I or you may like Nelson, the man is not notable for wikipedia purposes. You need him to have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which wouldn't allow the Adventist-owned publications either. BelloWello (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi BW and Inthbegocr, Nelson has authored over a dozen books. His work has been translated into several languages. He has had his Net sermons broadcast around the world. If Nelson was a secular author and of such accomplishments, lets say, in politics, he would easily meet the notability criteria. Sometimes we may think that being notable among 10 million people in a church organization has no standing outside the church, but that is not necessarily so. I don't view Nelson as highly notable, but I think his accomplishments pass the minimum standard for notability. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that topic meets WP:BIO or of third-party coverage. Being a pastor of a strategic location, or writing books does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria unless these activities have garnered significant reliable third party coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Type "Dwight K. Nelson" into google, and it is easy to see that Christian stations broadcast his sermons. Religious publications interview him and publish his articles. He is the pastor of a notable church in his notabile denomination. He has 5 published books. And if you type him into news google archives his speaking tours get covered in general newspapers, like the Providence Journal and Worcester Gazette. The article needs improvement, but the pastor is notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And which notability guideline does all that satisfy? bW 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has made significant contributions through his sermons, his leadership in SDA evangelistic series, his pastoring for over 25 years one of the key churches in the denomination, his role as a professor teaching classes at the SDA Theological Seminary, etc. Bello, the points Casaubon made all fulfill several notability guidelines such as his academic contributions, books ,etc. Fountainviewkid 19:40, 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. Relisting is unlikely to generate notability. Owen× ☎ 17:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery Records Inc.[edit]

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

Are they notable? Yet? I don't think so and the text doesn't seem to support the notion... delete - UtherSRG (talk) UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comprehensively fails WP:COMPANY. It has zero independent coverage in reliable sources, apart from a brief mention in La Provincia di Como, the local newspaper in Como, Italy, the hometown of Simone Tomassini, a partner in the company and its only notable (although barely so) artist. The rest of the links in the "Press" section are to self-published, blog-like Italian sites with press-releases and publicity "interviews" with Tomassini and another singer, both of whose records are being released this month. Even there, the label gets only a brief or no mention See also WP:MUSICBIO re "a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." Despite the claims in the article, there is no evidence that this company was founded in 2006. Its releases started in late 2010 and there is no evidence it existed before then. Their web site is still under construction. This article is a piece of blatant self-promotion and the plethora of red links in the article promises more to come. Voceditenore (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete we are still in the process of editing. The philosophy behind the company is different from any approach seen on the market, being completely for the musicians and against the majors. And is thanks to the fact that a well known singer is involved that we will have the possibility to be the change that the music industry needs in order to support musicians and not just executives from the majors. Please give us the chance to explain it.Simonetarantino (talk) 9:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article to promote the company. Keb25 (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few weeks - I'm in favor of giving them 1-2 weeks to clearly explain notability, as they are new to Wikipedia authoring. If they can dig up some non-local press coverage, or otherwise explain why they are notable, then keep. If they ignore this, or just add marketing filler, then delete. But just because they didn't understand about notability does not mean they should be immediately slammed down. Wxidea (talk) 17:14, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randall D. Isaac[edit]

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

Delete (as nom) per failing WP:ACADEMIC. All the citations from independent/reliable are trivial and do not prove notability. BelloWello (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously the author of the article tried really hard to find sources. As the other "voter" said they are not very substantial. In one he is just quoted as a spokesperson for his employer. On the other hand I am a little offended to learn that WP articles are being awarded to recognize successful professors. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing really to indicate that he meets any of the criteria of WP:PROF and insufficient coverage to make it worth while to try to press the issue (or make a WP:GNG argument). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think being a VP and frequent spokesman for IBM is really enough — the articles I can find quote him on various IBM discoveries, but don't really go into any depth on his particular role in those discoveries, which I think we'd need to use them in WP:GNG. And as for his creationism, he's name-checked for it in USA Today [2], but again without any of the detail about his activities as a creationist that I think would be needed to support notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and questions: As a result of some searching - Randall Isaac became the director of the ASA [3], (although I don't know when). He has been an ASA fellow since 1996 (same source). There is a Wikipedia article on the ASA here. If this is a notable organization, and since he is an ASA fellow, and current or former director this could indicate notability? For example, if he became president of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society, or president of the Optical Society of America this person would be considered notable. Does the ASA merit equal notability? Here is the web site [4]. Does this organization try to maintain a balance between science and religion? I might have more later. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is mention of some of his accomplishments during his career [5] - the 64MB DRAM project, "first successful introduction of copper wiring to computer chips", "research vice president of systems, technology, and science", "world wide responsibility for the research division's strategy in the areas of physical sciences and technology", and "first experimental gigahertz CMOS microprocessor".
He is contributing author IEEE Solid State Society News; Winter 2008; Volume 13, Number 1; (page 45) for the overall story of the DRAM industry since its beginnings in 1970, and the reasons for its success [6]. This also has some of his biography on page 49. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is listed on Google Scholar: as RD Isaac [7], and for Randall Isaac [8]. (RD Isaac has a lot more hits). Apparently he authored another article here [9]. It looks like he may have contributed to some books [10] ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it appears the above information provides evidence of notability, and that this person merits inclusion in Wikipedia. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of evidence of technological achievements revealed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 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. Owen× ☎ 17:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hung's adjustment[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary coverage of this algorithm to warrant an article. I believe to this to be essentially original research, as there is no explicit reference to it in the secondary sources used. A member of WikiProject Computer Science has the same opinion - see here. There are also serious problems with the article in that it does not contain any explanation of the context, and uses jargon which is unfamiliar to most. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main source of this theory is put in the reference, namely "Invention of segmentation algorithms based on BCFCM and segmentation application". You may refer to page 5 to 6 of the technical paper. This is a paper published by my PhD supervisor. The paper was published by the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering of the University of Hong Kong. This thesis has gained approval from the board of review of the university. This is a cross field research of Statistics, Applied Math and Computer science. The jargon used are common in the field of Fuzzy C means study. The most used jargon is the "bias estimation", you may refer wiki for this field. Cpkex0102 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpkex0102 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting the quality of the research, I simply do not believe that Hung's adjustment has received significant coverage in secondary sources. See WP:N. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The common criteria for scientific research here is significant coverage by peer-reviewed and third-party publications. I see neither here; the non-reviewed publication by the university clearly does not qualify! It is neither significant nor peer-reviewed nor independent, and the sole related publication apparently. --93.104.74.33 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No direct third party coverage at all and even the intro is almost entirely incomprehensible to those outside of the field. Doddy Wuid (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, as none of the sources are reliable independent ones.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as a possible non-notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. scholar:"Hung's Adjustment" not found any--Shizhao (talk) 03:48, 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. Owen× ☎ 17:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan M. Portis[edit]

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

Delete (as nom) per WP:ACADEMIC with no indication of importance. BelloWello (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC) BelloWello (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:PROF#C1 (many highly cited papers in Google Scholar) and #C3 (fellow of APS and AAAS). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obituary identifies him as founding father of electron magnetic resonance. Mighty cites on GS. Did the nominator look at these? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep: whilst the topic most probably is notable, you would not realise it from this inadequate WP:RESUME -- which I suspect does that topic a severe injustice (making me wonder if having no article at all would be preferable to its current state). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article would certainly benefit from expansion by someone with physics background, but it is clear that the subject is notable. In particular, being an elected fellow of APS and AAAS certainly qualifies to pass WP:PROF#C3. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per above. Ray^Talk 19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rooma Mehra[edit]

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

The notability criteria are not addressed unambiguously nor are verifiable for this article. On investigation, the majority of the sources quoted are self published as are the books referenced (Sagar are listed as a printers rather than a publishing house and "Writers Workshop" does not appear to be a recognized publisher). Her work has been on display in locations such as the Open Palm Court, however an examination of their website shows little in the way of selectivity for having an exhibition there. Her work as a journalist has no evidence of notability such as awards or significant impact on other writers. Her poetry appears self published and non-notable. Her artwork has won no notable awards. A potential claim of being in a notable permanent collection seems dubious, there is one link for the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi, however this is to one object with no description apart from "Mehra, Rooma" which could be one of her self published books in their library or an artwork that has never been on permanent display. All other exhibitions appear to be temporary or private commercial galleries and with no evidence of significant impact. Since creation over two years ago, many links and claims have been added which have not unambiguously demonstrated notability, improvement in the near future is unlikely and so I am raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This vanity-press writer fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First, the article needs extensive cleanup and addressing the issues tagged so far. It's so ugly that I can't focus on what's there. That having been said, it is remotely possible that she's notable as an artist, but this is too difficult to tell. I would tag it for "rescue", but I only do that if I would be reasonably certain of success, of which I am not here. So I am on the fence. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still have not seen any improvement in the past few days. 'Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Wikipedians! I am still a novice here and humbly request help in cleaning up this article. I request keeping the article because the notability criteria is addressed by 34,600 and has 3067 fans on Facebook if that is of any consequence. Kritik1 (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google Test is a flawed rationale, particularly for self-publicists. A closer look at Google Scholar shows no matches at all, and an search on Google News shows 5 matches, 4 of which are written by Mehra and the 5th is a non-notable mention in a fund-raising exhibition. Fæ (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some cleaning up and keep. Salvadore1956 (talk) 08:48, 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 redirect. Rlendog (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Wind Advisory[edit]

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

NN dicdef. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am user Billim1. I don't want this article to be deleted. There is such thing as a "lake wind advisory" and I think it can survive having its own article. Only if trusted people can add more information to it. I just put the article up. Like I said, it still needs more work. So keep the article. Although if that doesn't work, than merge a majority of the given information to an appropriate article. Thank you. Billim1 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little issued warning; a small craft advisory is issued more for wind events on the Great Lakes than this. Possibly redirect there if sources can be found. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to small craft advisory as possible search term (along with alt caps), where the topic is already mentioned. -Atmoz (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ok to delete, as covered in the small craft advisory. Recommend keeping the redirect. Wxidea (talk) 17:18, 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 speedily deleted as an advertisement. The article was filled with nothing but promotional language. -- Atama頭 17:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kid richmond[edit]

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

Declining speedy to allow time for discussion. Autobiography of a (NN?) stuntperson. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found and added to the article. Also Uther, I completed the nom by replacing the speedy tag with an AFD header. :) ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TW must have messed up. Thanks for the fix. I listed as AFD because I wasn't sure if the existing links in the article constitute enough verifiable notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about this stunt performer. He is mentioned in a couple of articles about stunt dirving: NY Times, Virginian-Pilot. But that's not significant. I also checked IMDB and there is no indication of any awards or other significant recognition for his stunt work. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azizul Huq[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, could not find any third-party sources that were actually about him. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I performed a quick Google and couldn't find anything either. Ray^Talk 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Elahl[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, could find no third-party sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found one good source online, but appears not to be terribly notable as either a model or singer. I'll look for more. Bearian (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried again, but can't find a lot. Not worth a rescue attempt. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 17:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IT Expenditure Taxonomy[edit]

The IT expenditure is an important matter for many organizations, a well-documented IT expenditure taxonomy would be very useful for people who are dealing with the matter. I would like to suggest to keep this page for further development. By Nian-Shing Chen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.26.39 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

NN essay. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would request that you allow the page to remain to allow further development. It can be reviewed on a periodic basis to ensure it meets Wikipedia's rules. The reason for its creation is that there is a gap in the literature regarding the classification of IT expenditures. This entry is creating a practical taxonomy to provide guidance in this area. It is intended to develop the page through discussion and review by subject matter experts. By initiating the page it will allow for the development of the taxonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrs13 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title could be altered to read An IT Expenditure Taxonomy, making it less definitive. - Brian Stewart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrs13 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support keeping this article open. The concepts mentioned in this article have not yet received full exposure and therefore having this article developed would very much contribute to the area. Thanks, Kinshuk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.185.65 (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please retain this article. The core idea is still evolving and has the potential to become the much needed standard that bridges the government, academic, industry, and stakeholder perception on classification of IT expenditure. Vive Kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vive.kumar (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An essay of original research: Due to its unique nature, Information Technology (IT) investment and expenditure is often at odds with traditional accounting guidelines. IT capital expenditures can be problematic due to their shorter life cycles and proportionately higher sustainability costs, particularly when compared to more mainstream capital items, such as land, buildings, or heavy equipment. Wikipedia is not for getting "full exposure" for new ideas to fix a "gap in the literature", or helping them evolve their "potential to become the much needed standard". Making it "less definitive" is an even worse idea, and tends to suggest that this article is at minimum premature. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 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. Owen× ☎ 17:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Lucas[edit]

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

Promotional page for a musician who mistakes Wikipedia for Myspace. Unsourced and a google search finds no clear evidence of notability per WP:BAND. If it is nonetheless kept, it should be stubbed. Sandstein 15:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing some of the more coherent text from the article, because is a copyvio from [11]. Sandstein 15:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Musamies (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, seems like an A7 case to me. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I am sympathetic and an inclusionist, this artist come nowhere close to being notable, per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. I searched several pages of Ghits/news and found nothing that was nontrivial, sourceable, and relevant. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Berian, I too couldn't find anything to satisfy notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:12, 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. Owen× ☎ 14:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New New World Order (politics)[edit]

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

I am not convinced by the very subject of this page, which was created and completed just a few days ago. Although it is quite well-made on surface, and may give a favorable impression with its many sources, it gives me the impression of being an original research - or should I say an original synthesis - made up with elements which are certainly relevant on articles like soft power, multilateralism, New world order (politics), Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration et al.

Searches on google books and google scholar were inconclusive about the notability of such a concept, and its relation with the foreign policy of the current American administration.

True, several authors have been using the expression "New new world order", but they have done so at different times, on different contexts, and in different assessments of american foreign policy.

IMHO, this looks very much like a WP:FORK and WP:Original research, basing itself on actual sourced facts, patched together under the umbrella of a non-notable concept and glossed over with a scholarly appearance. I think the term should be mentioned in New world order (politics), to stress the variations of that latter concept, but nothing more.

I may add that I also proposed for deletion the French version of this article on wp:fr. The result was a clear consensus for deletion, despite a campaign of abuse and personal attacks by an IP which may or may not have belonged to the (apparently bilingual) article's creator. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see above. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own googling indicates that where this term is used, it is generally as a headline, and almost never in the body of a text. You would expect that if this were an established concept, it would often appear in the body of text, most likely with capital letters (as in the Wiki article). It's just not used that way. It's easy to be swayed by the academic appearance of the article but I agree that it doesn't have the requisite substance yet.Asnac (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like POV-pushing to me, aggregating unrelated events and quotes in some kind of high falutin' original research. Enlisting here Ibn Khaldun as well as Arnold J. Toynbee may appear as creative editing, but doesn't really help. More specifically, I fail to perceive a single, consistent, well-defined concept behind this phrase of "New, New World Order". --Azurfrog (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same as above - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be synth and OR. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 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. The BLP/black-sheep principle is unfounded in policy, and the "keep" opinions point to more than sufficient material for this specific family that cannot be amply captured in the Middleton (name) dab page. I ignored the issue of whether or not the page was created as a disruptive fork, as the author's motivation is irrelevant to this discussion. As for repeating the content of individual bio pages, this can be left for discussion as a content dispute on this and the bio pages. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton family[edit]

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

There are enough people who are inclined to agree to delete this Middleton family article, but to keep the other articles like Pippa Middleton, James William Middleton and Carole Middleton as seperate articles. Already an informal voting was started for deletion at Talk:Middleton family, but that has to be formalized with a proper AfD. An earlier fist deletion procedure was not performed properly and executed and declined in a short time by only two persons (with both the same point of view); there was no proper time or room for others to decide.

This Middleton family page should be deleted for several reasons: 1) The information on this page is mainly a copy of the other pages like Pippa Middleton and Carole Middleton, 2) the other pages are notable enough to exist at their own, but the existence of this page at its own does not also add extra usefulness or information to Wikipedia, and 3) the Middleton family page itself should be deleted because the Middleton family as such as a House or Family is not notable enough. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as explained above. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Stricken duplicate !vote. It's understood that the nominator wants the material deleted.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The question is whether the family is notable, not any individual member of it. The risk is that the article becomes a series of biographies of people not notable enough for their own separate articles cobbled together into one page. What I would expect is a general article about the family history etc, with individual members mentioned as appropriate within that history - and, perhaps, small subsections devoted to the more notable family members as an addendum. That concern aside, the family does appear to be notable. It is now linked to the House of Windsor. This is relevant and sufficient now, but consider also that the union is expected to result on the birth of a future monarch whose heritage will then include the Middleton family. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem to prohibit that assumption, saying "individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place": it would obviously be notable and we have reliable sources confirming the couple intention to have children, eg the BBC. Furthmore, we have good, reliable, sources to populate this article and further attest to the notability of the family: the BBC for example (note also the links there to that article's sources), Channel 4, etc. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought the point of this article was that it offered a reasonable compromise to the deletion debates over James Middleton, Carole Middleton, Pippa Middleton and even, at one point, the family dog(!). Those deletion arguments largely rest on the fact that, other than being the Queen's inlaws, they are not themselves notable enough for individual articles (mainly being party-planners and cake manufacturers), but the family as a whole, as the Windsor family's in-laws, do merit their own article as the potential future lineage of the British Royal Family (and plenty of news articles, TV documentaries and probably books will provide sourcing about their family background, etc). The reason this article hasn't been expanded or improved since creation is because other editors have been told to wait until those debates have been resolved, and some have actively removed content here under the pretext of the CC licence. As can be seen looking through the edit history, a speedy-keep AFD, a proposed deletion and a speedy deletion notice have both already been rejected on this article under the advice to wait until the debates on the other family members have been concluded, should the decisions there reach a consensus for merging here; it's a pity this AFD couldn't have waited until those have resolved. If those are unanimously kept, then this should perhaps be renominated. Also, the talk page question about "are we going to have an article on the Spencer family" is a bit spurious, as there is one, started back in 2002. Yes, they're an old aristocratic family, but then didn't all aristocratic families gain their positions through royal connections? Bob talk 13:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, which per our more recent custom and practice isn't quite the same as "keep". I'm unconvinced that it's necessary to have an article for the Middleton Family, but what is needed is something in this space, for two reasons. First, deleting it would leave a redlink that encourages an inexperienced editor to create an article with this title; we need to be less naive than that. Second, a navigational feature of some kind would be helpful to our end-users. Personally I think that what's called for here is not an article, but a WP:SETINDEX.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ (see below) as with first nomination as the discussion about James' article is still ongoing, and discussion about the merit of this article depends heavily on whether the other is kept or not - frankieMR (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that first AfD was a result of a withdrawn nomination. The argument for a speedy keep still stands though - frankieMR (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfD for James was closed as keep - frankieMR (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Make your minds up frankly. All of the weak arguments that were made for keeping the articles on Pippa or James etc, can be applied to the family just as easily. The reliabilty, depth and significance of the coverage is exactly the same. You cannot very well argue that pieces which have one or two paragraphs in them about the individual people, but are essentially about the wedding, show that they are notable, and then argue the complete opposite for the topic of the family. And there have been just as many pieces treating the family as the sole topic, if not more, than has been offered up to support the atrocoius biographies for Pippa and others. Infact, the topic of the extended family was the subject of at least one, maybe more, television documentary series in the UK in the run up to the wedding. People must be bloody seeing things if they think Pippa has had whole documentary series on her as a notable topic. Anyway, as has been mentioned, the whole point of closing that first Afd early was because this article was being considered as a merge target in other Afds, so why was it filed again when one of them is still live? MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Middleton (name). The article has been created as a disruptive content fork. It has some scope as a useful search term but should not be used as a compendium of individual biographies because these would tend to violate WP:BLP by associating the doings of separate family members together even when they are independent. There tend to be black sheep in large families and it would be improper to taint separate biographies with such associations. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the "disruptive" argument - it's not like it's pushing a particular POV, and it's quite referenced fairly thoroughly. I've had a look through the BLP guidelines again, but can't find a statement which advises against a family article. Elsewhere, we do have articles which act as family histories; Family of Barack Obama is a good example where many of the relations have their own indivisual articles, but the article on the family acts to tie them together. After all, her parents are probably not individually notable, but as the family of HRH, they are. Bob talk 22:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The family of Barack Obama is an excellent example — a reductio ad absurdum. Amongst the numerous relations of Barack Obama such as Elvis Presley and Wild Bill Hickok, it lists Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles. Now that the Middletons are related to the royal family too, we just need one large article which merges it all together so we can see what relation Obama is to Pippa and what relation James is to Brad Pitt. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Pippa Middleton#Ancestry. Your black sheep theory is your own invention frankly. People intent on manufacturing notability where there is none will make absurd edits wherever frankly. The problem is not the title of the article, but their complete lack of clue generally. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent sources like this: "Gary Goldsmith, regarded as the "black sheep" of the Middleton family, is expected to attend ...". There's lots more this stuff out there and the family of Barack Obama case shows that every scrap of information will be put into an open-ended article of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you invented the theory that BLP prevents the creation of family articles on the basis that 'black sheep' might be added. The state of the articles on Pippa & James Middleton are already cast iron proof that there are plenty of editors here who will indeed collect and present "every scrap of information" they can find which merely mentions their name. The laughable biography on Pippa Middleton is already as open ended as documenting her ancestry back to 1530, and documenting what her mother's business activities were in detail while she was still in pre-school, and a whole bunch of other trivia. All on the premise that coverage=notability. And for those factoids, all from primary sources or tabloids. Documenting who her uncle is in her 'biography' would seem quite normal in comparison, especially as this titbit has at least been noticed in a reliable source. In that clueless environment, BLP violations are going to occur wherever, and the adding of who her uncle is by some editors, is going to happen whether she is included on Wikipedia alone or as part of a family. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source I cited does not even mention Pippa and so would not support inclusion of this black sheep in her BLP. But if we are writing about the Middleton family in a general way then this source would be acceptable. This is the essential difference - that writing about the family rather than particular individuals opens the door to unpleasant associations of family members by juxtaposition, even if they have never met. This is contrary to WP:SYN and so quite unacceptable in a BLP. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the James Middleton article just spent four hours on the Main Page with a DYK hook about Jame's Hello! cake job, supported by a reference to a Daily Mail "story" with the headline "How many MORE skeletons in Kate Middleton's closet?". I think that proves my point. Crap articles on non-notable people are always going to attract clueless people who think that citing that sort of fact to that sort of source is remotely acceptable for a BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Infact, holy shit, it was you who nommed it to DYK, and that piece of crap source was what was supporting the fact you chose when you did so! And you're claiming to be sticking up for BLP in here? Unbeleivable. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep comments related to content, not contributors please. Bob talk 00:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I will not. This user is citing a concern for BLPs in this Afd, while being the primary source of a massive great BLP violation on the James Middleton article, due to the fact that despite his claims in that Afd, it seems expecting coverage of a subject to be reliable, let alone in depth, which he insisted did exist, and asserted it would be disruption and a violation of core policy to claim otherwise, is an impossible task, even in situations where he wants to display that sort of content on the Main Page as some of our best work. 6 hours that garbage was on the Main Page. 6 goddam hours. So no, you know what you can do with 'comment on content' in this case frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, he was cooking cupcakes - a great model for young adult males to cook everywhere (maybe rather than sitting on their proverbials in front of a computer screen...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was terrible, terrible damage done to wikipedia! A cake baking male for "6 goddam hours" is as good a reason for behaving disruptive and getting personal as any. We should write a new policy: "If Mick has made his point noone is allowed to express any other opinion." Punishment for doing otherwise: Dozens of longish repetitive rants from Mick including some "holy shits", "goddams" and, of course several "f***s". Have a nice day, Adornix (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the cakes got burnt...six hours is a long time in the oven....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of jokes and sarcasm can make up for the fact that you don't seem to realise what the actual issue is with posting a DTK linked to that garbage of a reference on the Main Page for 6 hours. You want to be able to express your opinion and have it count? Read WP:BLP, figure it out, and get a clue. MickMacNee (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With Carole, Pippa, James, and the other lesser-known Middletons (no Otto), as well as a blurb about Catherine. We do keep family articles, and even genealogy is acceptable for certain people, generally royalty. Personally, I think the lesser-known Middletons as a family are more notable than the individuals. This is a very contentious subject; every single Middleton article has been AFD'd for notability at least once, except for Catherine. Keeping a list like this would deal with those notability problems without losing the information. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The family has now become notable. Portillo (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middleton (name) per Colonel Warden. This page, "Middleton family", seems to be intended to include the core family of Kate Middleton (parents, brother and sister), but it could well prove to spread in other directions, taking in grandparents, great-grandparents, &c. The existence of the page has been argued elsewhere as justifying the merging of articles on some of the core five, whether they are notable or not. For all I know, all five may now be notable, but please let's not muddy the waters with this collective article. Notable people deserve their own page, non-notable people no more than a mention in articles on other subjects, without a redlink. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This family is patently notable. They even have letters patent to prove it.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only 'notable' member of this family is Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with GoodDay's conclusion, we can note that two afds have found Pippa M. notable, too. The jury is still out on James M. None of this seems to me to have much of a bearing on the Middleton family page. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Middletons are clearly notable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middleton (name) per Moonraker2. The AfD on James was closed as keep, so this article serves no purpose now. Middleton (Name) oughta be the landing point for the surname and let it take the user to the individual's article - frankieMR (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't see the purpose of this article as I explained in the introduction. Furthermore, the information at the page is primarily copying and pasting from the other separate pages, which now most of them are closed as keep. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Middleton (name) or delete. The good-faith purpose of creating this was to merge the lesser Middleton's (Pippa James and Carol) into one article. I still believe that would be for the best as much of the information is repeated, however the community has decided to keep the independent articles, making this redundant.--Scott Mac 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, since then this has become a fairly reasonable article in its own right with information about heritage, etc (albeit duplicating information from elsewhere). The consensus on the Carole Middleton page was that it should merge here (11-5), so this article is now fulfilling the task of being about the two parents, for whom most of their lives have run the same party supplies business, and their "issue", to use the lineage term. Bob talk 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather bizarre that the Carole Elizabeth Middleton‎ page is deleted to be merged with the Middleton family page, particularly if considered that the other pages were all evaluated as keep as separate pages. She is more notable then her son James William Middleton, but instead his page is keep and hers as merge. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The closure of the AfD for James William Middleton (which just occurred yesterday) only means that the article will not be deleted. It does not mean that it cannot still be merged and redirected, just as happened with Carole Elizabeth Middleton. In fact, the closing administrator mentioned that there were arguments made in favor of merger and the fact that the article is "kept" does not preclude further discussions on the article talk page. There should now be a discussion of merging the "James" article into this article about the family, and I think it should be merged. In fact, if someone wants to be really bold, I think the "James" article could be merged without additional discussion, because you are correct: If there is no separate "Carole" article, there should be no separate "James" article. But I am not that bold. Neutron (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; as the immediate family of a future Queen media interest is high - we have a nice spread of material from multiple independant sources satisfying the GNG. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The family is obviously notable.CallawayRox (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the family as a whole is at least marginally notable. This article is also a better alternative than separate articles on every family member (who are not independently notable except for the Duchess herself), and if this article did not exist, all of them would probably end up with their own articles. As it is, the father does not have a separate article, the mother's article has just been redirected and merged into this article, and the same may soon happen with the "James" article (see my comment above.) Unfortunately, it looks like the "Pippa" article is not going anywhere, but it's better to have one article too many than four articles too many. Neutron (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unmerge family to individual articles I wrote an article for Michael Middleton that was promptly vandalised like basically every other article I write. Flying Fische (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly WP:SIGCOV and the family is unlikely to disappear soon. One single family article is better than the individual ones.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge James Middleton♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a parent article, whether or not there are articles on the individuals. notable and mentioned in independent sources Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 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) 05:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Point (film)[edit]

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

Film not notable as per WP:NF. There was a Prod in 2009 but this was removed - current version is essentially the same as the one that had the Prod. Asnac (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC) To give a bit more info: the grounds of the prod were "This article is about a film that does not meet notability. The claim to notability appear to be two awards at a minor film festival. References in consist of a college paper item, and link to the film festival site. Neither of which establish notability." No reason was given for the removal of the prod.Asnac (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the notes from the nominator above, there is this local piece. But taken as a whole, this still does not meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 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. Closing early, per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 02:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 868[edit]

WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS. Yet another one... Diego Grez (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane crash in poor country . . . who gives a shit? Nutmegger (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Act like a grownup.—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plane crash with fatalities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslotte (talk • contribs)

Fatalities =! Notability Diego Grez (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Kslotte that this appears to pass both the WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH.—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This starts to get annoying when every-time a airliner crashes, there is an afd template on the article an hour later. This is a fatal aircrash, that definitly meets WP:N.-Marcusmax(speak) 15:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Scheduled airliner flight. Crash. Fatalities => Keep (Gabinho^>:) 16:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, worst accident ever for this type of aircraft. Widespread news coverage, enough to pass GNG. C628 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AIRCRASH- William 16:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I give a shit. Marcus Qwertyus 16:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Airliner accident with fatalities with Indonesia major domestic airline. This is the frist time a Xian MA60 has had a major loss with fatalities. Lee Bytheway (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2011
Snowball keep - Whilst a number of fatalities doesn't guarantee notability, the high number of fatalities for the size of the aircraft adds considerable weight to the case for notabilty. Passes WP:AIRCRASH with ease. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While you are at it, why don't you nominate Osama bin Laden's page as well? Michael5046 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deadliest crash of the type is just about a credible claim. Not that it's a particularly large fleet even. Although I see the article doesn't even assert that claim to notability yet. I suppose we are just taking this on trust. AIRCRASH is an essay, and even if it wasn't, it most certainly does not mandate creating a separate entry on Wikipedia for every fatal airliner crash that makes the news. And neither does the GNG, which is as always, just a presumption of notability. This is an encyclopoedia, not a database or a post-2006 news archive, and this is the exact class of article which is expected to have some credible claim to lasting significance or historical relevance beyond 'it happened'. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First deadly accident on a commercial flight of the type and thus will prove to be of historical interest... L.tak (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSummary of information all in one place will help those searching for Merpati and MA60 information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.236.0 (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MMN--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:34, 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 Speedy Delete per G3. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gus the Australian Minister[edit]

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

Spam Pliigi (talk) 12:09, 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) 05:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Is It Legal? episodes[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced, full of original research and unverified 'facts', no evidence of notability beyond the parent subject of the sitcom itself ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 10:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Source list, unless there are reliable sources which can be used to independently verify the information in the list. --Anthem of joy (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notwithstanding the poor current state and non-standard formatting. Episode lists of notable TV series such as this are standard split-offs from the parent article, as was noted in the first AFD for this list, which was also started by the same nom. It's disappointing to see that the list really hasn't improved much in the meantime, but it's still fixable by editing, and basic information such as the episode title, writing and directing credits, and original airdates are all verifiable. Whether the episodes are notable "beyond the parent subject of the sitcom itself" is irrelevant (to the extent that's even a coherent analysis), at least when we're not talking about articles about individual episodes. See, e.g., List of Carnivàle episodes, List of Peep Show episodes, List of Moonlighting episodes, or List of 24 episodes: all FA-class lists of episodes of which apparently none merit individual articles. Clearly the essay WP:NOTINHERITED is not a meaningful or consensus-supported argument against lists of this kind. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Postdif. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while not all lists of sitcoms are notable, this one is, because it was long-running and award-winning. A spin-off for all the episodes is reasonable. It could be sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Medlock[edit]

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

Delete. Notability not establishes in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for actors. Notability additionally not established through significant, reliable, and independent sources. Cind.amuse 05:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 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 no consensus. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Information Access Program[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits [12]. whilst one article says it's most popular for doctors that in itself does not mean it's notable for WP. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)2011 May 7[reply]

Keep I agree that most alphabet-soup state-level bureaucratic programs probably do not pass the general notability guideline. Interestingly, though, this one has been the subject of at least two studies and multiple articles in academic journals, conducted and published through the University of New South Wales' Center for Health Informatics. (Relevant links include 1 2 3 4 5.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

most of these sources are from www.chi.unsw.edu.au do we have evidence it is notable elsewhere in the health community? LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I have no personal knowledge of the field of health informatics, but my best guess is that state-level programs will primarily be studied by universities in that state, if at all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge into New South Wales Department of Health. Neutrality^talk 05:31, 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, Jujutacular ^talk 12:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)2011 May 7[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per published papers in Med. J. Aus. (e.g. 1), other journals (e.g. 2) and conference papers (3). Google news is never really the best source for assessing notability in the scientific community Jebus989 ^✰ 12:48, 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 deleted under CSD A1 (insufficient context to identify the subject of the article). It will be time to have an article on this subject if and when (a) it exists and (b) it has established notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Reality[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability, no sources, and fails WP:CRYSTAL. bonadea contributions talk 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted, because I have now officially started work on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldude816 (talk • contribs)
- Above comment moved from talk page (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Escape Reality). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 16:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no context - what is it? Also WP:CRYSTAL and lavk of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator sums this up nicely. The product isn't expected to exist for another 2-3 years and is from a non-notable company. Edward321 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 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) 10:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let it escape from Wikipedia, since it is not a reality yet (whatever it is).•••Life of Riley (T–C) 14:55, 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. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Beattie[edit]

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

Is he a notable academic? IF not, please delete per WP:Notability. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Is he notable? He certainly is with a GS h index of 26. Nominator should do WP:Before before making further nominations. An AfD nomination is not the place to ask questions, it is the place to present evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. On the face of it the BPS Fellow would seem to pass WP:PROF#C3, and the nominator has not articulated a reason to discount it. At first I thought the Spearman Medal would also be good for something but it seems to be more of a glorified postdoc. And as Xxanthippe says the citation record (e.g. three papers with over 100 citations each) is likely to be enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations support keep on WP:PROF #1. WoS query "Author=(Beattie G*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV MANCHESTER) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows around 250 citations. Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Snow Keep Clearly passes WP:PROF #1, #7. Ray^Talk 15:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would the nominator like to withdraw to avoid wasting our time further? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per WP:PROF #1 & #7. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Corruption in India. Consensus is that this is a deficient content fork. The redirect target can be changed editorially and any useful content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian black money in swiss banks[edit]

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

Delete I nominated this because it's part of a series of article, mainly POV forks, by one user, pushing a particular agenda. The danger of allowing this narrow focussed articles, is there unlikely to get attention of a range of editors to ensure neutrality. --Rob (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Violates Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a nuetral point of view. And above all, the creator is promoting an allegation that Indians may have bleack money in Swiss accounts. GaneshBhakt (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs to be improved and the forked things can be removed. The contents and the isssue is very important(Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)). —Preceding comment copied by Anthem of joy (talk • contribs) from article's talk page. [reply]

Comment: The topic is notable and many reliance sources are reporting on it. http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Indian+black+money+in+swiss+banks Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. This issue is dealt with in "corruption in India" article. Creator has a history of creating multiple pov forks--Sodabottle (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete: If there is any verified info here that isn't currently in Corruption in India that would be due there, it should be retained. This should not, though, remain as an independent article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Indian black money - this is something worth talking about, but I think we need to clean out the unsourced/opinionated positions and push it into one place, so instead of being spread out all over the place, relevant users have one place to go to clean up the work, Sadads (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge possibly into Corruption in India. Refs at Indian black money don't really even mention the term black money. One does in the title. No others that I can see. Suggesting AfD of Indian black money. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete: Qwyrxian states it well, I feel. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with above arguments. Wxidea (talk) 17:20, 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. Owen× ☎ 14:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Nyquist[edit]

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

The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). The subject is known only for a one thing: writing a single conspiracy theory book. He has zero credentials and cannot be considered a notable academic and his journalistic career consists of writing a column for world net daily, therefore he is not a notable journalist either. As to the book, it seems to fail all 5 points of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Article has been notability-tagged since 2007 and there is large number of concerns voiced on the talk page. Most of the sources used in this article are unreliable: Financialsense.com (a non-notable company website), antiwar.com and his own personal, self-published website. Nanobear (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We are not in the habit of acting as publicists for self-promoting nucleo- apocalyptic- polemicists. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be helpful for editors to not do massive changes to an article once it has been nominated. That prevents others from seeing what was there when it was nominated for deletion and, in the case of massive content removal, would seek to sway consensus to delete because nothing is left. Accordingly, I expect to revert to the point at which the AFD was filed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think it's a sign of good faith to not make major changes once an article has nominated for AfD. Removing a majority of content at that point, whether appropriate or not to the article, is not appropriate to the process—which should be the discussion of the article as it stood at nomination in case individuals have opinions to express about the sources cited, have improvements to suggest, etc. It's best we all conduct ourselves in a manner which engenders WP:AGF.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is insufficient information available about the subject and the sources used are mostly not reliable for BLPs, viz., opinion pieces by other writers. Note that his book was self-published, using "Black Forest Publishing", "Christian" "self publishing experts". TFD (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have gone thru the article and removed all arbitrary sourcing which does not establish notability for this individual, and which in fact do not even mention him by name. The guy is definitely on the fringes. After removing irrelevant material and editorial (as in WP editor) commentary, and external links spam, all that we are left with is 3 "references" which are simply links to article listings on websites he is or has been associated with (i.e. don't provide any notability for him)...we also have a single "reference" which is his own website (i.e. again doesn't help with establishing notability), and then last but not least we have a single reference to antiwar.com which contained a paragraph on WND in which the only thing that is about Nyquist is "In addition, if their columnist J.R. Nyquist is an "expert" on Russia, then I'm Henry Kissinger. But don't let this keep you away: it's well worth a daily visit." So in essence, an article on Nyquist would look like....

Jeffrey R. Nyquist is the author of a book Origins of the Fourth World War and is currently a regular geopolitical columnist for Financial Sense Online, a website run by a financial advice firm.[1] He was previously a regular columnist for WorldNetDaily from 1999 until 2001.[2] According to Henry Kissinger he is an expert on Russia.

This one is a firm delete. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The changes I have made to the article are not bad faith edits, nor are they poor form. They are edits which are backed up by policy. This edit removes information which is a rack on which one hangs their coats - the source does not mention Nyquist, it is about a fringe conspiracy theory promoted by Anatoliy Golitsyn. It may be suitable for an article on the theory (if it is notable), but it does nothing to give notability to Nyquist. This edit removes commentary on Stanislav Lunev, and an "advert" for Lunev's book. This edit removes commentary on Geoff Metcalf. Commentary is best left to individual's articles. This edit removes WP:BLP violating editorial commentary on the political stances of Justin Raimondo. This edit removes external links spam. A list of Nyquists articles are already available as references, we don't need cherry picked articles placed in external links because an editor may agree with his views. A link to his website is left in line with WP:EL. It isn't very nice for one to characterise these edits as poor form, as it is not assuming good faith on my part. It also is not necessary for an article to be in the same form it came to AfD, otherwise one wouldn't be able improve the article, and these changes, whilst they have removed some irrelevant information and commentary, are an improvement to the article. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the supposed kudos from Henry Kissinger originated, but that is CERTAINLY not something Mr. Nyquist claims himself. I don't think he's ever even MET HK, nor do I know if HK is even familiar with JRN's work and writings. JRN is no longer affiliated with WND. He writes a column for FinancialSense.com and broadcasts interviews with various persons of interest (Russian defectors, former Russian/CommBloc intelligence officers still living in Russia, Russian and former CommBloc journalists, etc.) via podcast. I know Mr. Nyquist personally and, in my humble opinion, he does very important work which should be spread far and wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.137.124 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even a notable WP:FRINGE theorist. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. I can't find any coverage of him in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:19, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving veterans of World War I[edit]

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

A 'list' that contains only one list item stops being a list and becomes an isolated piece of trivia which in this case, is already amply covered in the named person's biography article.PrussianKaiser (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Last surviving veterans of World War I". As frequently discussed on the articles talk page and, I believe, the previous nomination for deletion, the options after the last veteran has died were to either replace the current current content of the article with that I have mentioned (and rename as such) or to redirect to such an article or to redirect to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009–11. I favour the former. In the meantime, as there is still a living veteran (and 1 era-veteran) which no longer constitutes a list the article should simply be renamed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested by DerbyCountyinNZ. There has been plenty of discussion/argument on the Talk page, and the closest we have to consensus seems to be to keep this article in some form until the last one dies - so I'd go for a rename for now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per above. Clearly an encyclopedia-worthy topic. A military death count of 9.75 million in the Great Imperialist War, I learned something today... Carrite (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i think this article should be deleted when all the veterans have passed away, also it should be kept incase if anyone else comes forward claiming to be a veteran or if someone is verified as a veteran. Tony (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the last veteran dies. At that point it ought to be redirected to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. "Last surviving veterans of World War I" is a bit close to the title of that page. Hut 8.5 15:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "by country" list would not be the same as a "last to die" list, which wouldn't even include Claude Choules. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons that I have stated before- to me at least, a list can still have one entry; there remains the theoretical possibility that another veteran may emerge, and it also provides a direct, googlable answer to someone who does not know if there are any surviving veterans alive. Having said that, DerbyCountyinNZ's suggestion has a good deal of merit and I would also be happy with that. I'm baffled as to why some editors want to remove the list from Wikipedia before nature does the job for them.Moldovanmickey (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator had been indef blocked as a sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperblySpiffingPerson -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep: It's starting to look a lot like Christmas ... in any event, seeing as there are two people listed in the article, perhaps the nominator might wish to reexamine his counting. Ravenswing 14:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per DerbyCountyInNZ. After the last survivor has died, hold a new vote on what to do. --Rye1967 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Speedy snowball keep, or at least until everyone remaining on the list is dead. Then we can delete it. —Terrence and Phillip 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has been around for probably a decade, and for the sake of a few months to want to get rid of it now is just plain 'nasty.' The article has served its purpose and it is not beyond the realms of possibility another WWI veteran could be discovered. What to do then? Reinstate the page? A more sensible course of action would be to continue to let the natural evolution of the page take place and when there are no more veterans, then it will either disappear or morph into something more appropriate for that time. That time is not now.202.139.104.226 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As written previously, this article has been on wikipedia for a very long time and has a lot of people following it. Why not let it run its natural course?

Keep - why is this article even up for AfD?--BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series considered the worst[edit]

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

This appears to be pretty arbitrary synthesis, and I'm not sure it's redeemable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of albums considered the worst. Rd232 ^talk 01:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if a fair criterion is put in as to how the list is qualified. and it includes Friends. I hate that show... Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've put some work into this and I made an effort, much like List of films considered the worst, to keep this list limited to shows that have, by at least one professionally published critic, been referred to as among the worst television series ever created. This would exclude most blogs and personal opinions (after all, opinions are like ________, everyone's got one and they usually stink). Admittedly, I set the criteria pretty broad for this page, and narrowing it (as they did with the film page) may be in order. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to List of television series with notably negative reception. --Anthem of joy (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list with lots of references to back up the claim of being the worst. Lugnuts (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the title suggests it could be a hack article, this is well written, NPOV, well referenced and informative. It would be a shame to remove it. I might suggest a better title but "Notably" is a wikipedia term not nearly so common in general language usage. I like simplification that the general public would understand and an explanation of the scope of the article in the lede. List of bad television series works for me, if not as the primary name, certainly as a redirect.Trackinfo (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep name for consistency with List of movies considered the worst.Ma^t_chups 01:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that only three (excuse if I've missed one) of these programmes were not originally produced in English, and two of those three are listed based on their reception in the US. Having watched Italian and Spanish TV I can't believe that the English-speaking world produces uniquely bad TV, so this article should have a title that doesn't pretend to cover any more than anglophone programmes. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment. If you know of any other non-English programs that are contenders for the worst TV series ever, and can source them, than feel free to add them. Part of that bias is the fact that U.S. and British television series are extremely prolific in international distribution and publicize themselves very well even in countries that don't speak English. Also, keep in mind: this is the English Wikipedia, so a slant toward English-language titles is to be expected. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion criterion has been demonstrated. WP:SYN is not applicable in this case - sources are not being arbitrarily combined to produce WP:OR conclusions. It is sufficient to support the entries with reliable sources which declare the series to be the worst. This list is heavily sourced and seems well-constructed, conceivable a future WP:FL candidate, but at least the sort of quality effort we should be encouraging at WP. Dl2000 (talk) 01:20, 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. Owen× ☎ 14:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niall Prenderville[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Liam Taylor 19:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he plays for a club that is barely notable, never mind individual players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely fails both NFOOTY and GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 23:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 12:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Couple of mentions on Google News Archives in match reports, but nothing close to significant coverage. He fails the relevant notability guidelines. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:07, 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) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Heinrich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice how this article was deleted before on the very same grounds, being now qualified for WP:CSD#G4. --Damiens.rf 02:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only was Stephanie Playboy's 50th anniversary playmate [13] and has plenty of coverage to meet WP:NOTABILITY. BelloWello (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. 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. I don't believe the article is established as sufficiently identical to the version deleted 7 years ago to justify a G4, but it is very interesting to see that there had been a consensus that long ago that Playmates weren't notable for that status alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 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) 20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of news coverage per Bellowello. No playmatehood exception to GNG. If the newspapers are covering her for her playmatehood, then that's her notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bellowello didn't show any coverage about her. He just stated it exists. Restating it here is supposed to make it sound more reliable? Why not just post (here or in the article) examples of such non-trivial coverage? --Damiens.rf 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, and I verified the coverage existed by reviewing the hits through that Google news link. Other editors can go and do the same. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just like in other playmate Afds, you prefer to keep the mystery than to backup your own assertions. You have been given the chance but you thrown it away. Again. --Damiens.rf 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Naw. It's not about wanting to be mysterious. It's about the fact that I am lazy to copy and paste my reviewing workflow since you've afd'd 100 articles, and I'm going through each afd to review the coverage that does exist. The floor of WP:BASIC does state that (even) if a given source isn't enough coverage, multiple sources may add up to demonstrate notability. I've repeated that point over and over where it applies. Haven't you noticed that I'm not challenging you on every single afd you posted? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BASIC explicitly excludes trivial coverage. Being trivially mentioned in a thousand articles would not make you notable. That's right there on WP:BASIC but somehow you can only read what fits your desire to have a directory of playmates here. --Damiens.rf 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No BASIC does not explicitly exclude/disqualify anything. It acknowledges that added up trivia may not add up to notability. Note 6 clarifies the depth of coverage issue. If all of the existing coverage was just a name then of course no bio could be reliably written. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it disqualifies trivial coverage. We disagree here. --Damiens.rf 20:53, 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) 14:03, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)2011 May 7[reply]

Relisting notice. The assertion of sources has not been supported by actual citations. Please can we look at the claimed sources to reach a conclusion of whether they meet GNG? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no significant coverage. The majority of the Google News hits (about three times as many as for this Playmate, by my rough count) refer to a college athlete. Of what's left, almost all of them mention her in passing, on the order of "also on hand at the boat show/casino promotion/autograph signing were Playboy Playmates A. B, and C." There is the standard hometown paper "Local Girl Poses for Playboy" story, which doesn't make a significant contribution to notability, and a one-line mention in a short piece on a country singer she briefly dated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [14]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems plenty notable to me. And I agree automated tools should not be for mass deletions. That's an unfair burden shift to AfD editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep procedurally and substantively.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:55, 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 keep and rename to Vittra Utbildning. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vittra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is being linked to from pages related to Norse folklore, yet it appears to be blatant advertising. Could a "Vittra" page (as in the wight) be created or a new section added to the wight page and then redirected to? This page is best renamed to "Vittra AB" if at all kept. Dj0nes (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What happened here was that the article had been vandalised out of sight; I have now restored the clean version. Such Scandinavian educational companies are analogous to school districts in the US which are always kept. This article, as with US school districts, should be used as a useful repository for core facts about those of Vittra's schools which may not be individually notable. This is an international company that operates many high schools. The way forward is to expand not to delete. I have fixed the incoming links and added a hattnote to the page. No deletion reasons remain. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other/Keep - I think renaming the article is a good idea, as Vittra (the school) and Vittra (the creature in Norse folklore) are different things, and people should be able to find both. Vittra (the creature) should have the Vittra page, this could be called Vittra schools. SirShill (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, this should be moved to Vittra Utbildning or Vittra Education, the English translation. (AB is just Inc. or Corp.) Folklore subjects have priority over businesses taking their names from them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following TerriersFan's fixes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfrida[edit]

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

No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed Dudley Miles (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search for Wulfrida Ethelred on Ghits does turn up a fair few matches. The problem is that none of the hits seem to be that reliable as sources. Ultimately this comes down to whether the historians amongst us agree that Wulfrida was Ethelred's wife. Anyone know? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from the discussion page - I see I put my original comment in the wrong place.) All the sources I can find for the existence of Wulfrida are unreferenced web pages. Academic sources such as the ODNB article on Wulfrida's supposed husband Æthelred of Wessex at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8913?docPos=2 do not mention the name of his wife. The article states that Horton parish church is named after her, but according the Victoria County History at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40142#s3 it was named after Wolfrida, the mother of Edith of Wilton, who lived a century later. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete If I recall correctly, this is based on David H. Kelley's genealogical reconstruction of the descendants of AEthelred. He mentions the reference to an otherwise unidentified Queen Wulfrida (from a coin or foundation document, I don't remember), and says that since the name sounds somewhat Danish and AEthelwold had Danish support, then Wulfrida was probably his mother. I don't find her in PASE and AEthelred's entry in the Bio Dict of Dark Age Britain fails to name her, while her name doesn't pull up a match (although all I have is limited view on Google Books). Whether she existed or not is beside the point. She doesn't come anywhere close to the depth of coverage that would constitute notability. Merging would just reinforce and give undue weight to one author's speculation, that as far as I can tell hasn't been followed by anyone outside the genealogical community. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information in the article is not based on the available evidence and conflicts with other articles which do have good sources.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that, in light of the observations, the evidence is too unreliable to be reported as fact. Might have a function as a redirect to an article about the disputed genealogical reconstruction, but there doesn't seem to be an article about that, and there is too little detail in the David H. Kelley article for a redirect there to make sense at the moment. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a summary (the good work of this AfD's nominator) in Ancestry of the Godwins, perhaps about as much as it deserves (although I have long-promised to do a genealogical table that summarizes the hypotheses). A redirect could go there, but I don't know that merging any of the content would be desirable given that it is either dubious or presenting speculation as fact. Agricolae (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed a puzzling statement in the Wikipedia article on Edward the Elder. In the section on him as Ætheling, it says: "As well as his greater age and experience, Æthelwold may have had another advantage over Edward where the succession was concerned. While Alfred's wife Ealhswith is never described as queen and was never crowned, Æthelwold and Æthelhelm's mother Wulfthryth was called queen.[10]" The note is "Asser, c. 13; S 340; Yorke. Check Stafford, "King's wife"." I cannot make any sense of this. Section 13 in my copy of Asser refers to Judith's position as queen, but I cannot find any reference to Wulfthryth. A google search shows Wulfthryth as an alternative for Wulfrida on genealogical websites. Can anyone make sense of this? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now discovered the source of this statement. It is in Barbara Yorke, Edward as Ætheling, in N.J. Higham & D.H.Hill eds, Edward the Elder. On page 31 she says: "One final advantage that Æthelholm and Æthelwold may have had over Edward is that they appear to have been born to a consecrated queen. Their mother Wulfthryth only appears in one charter (S340), but there she has the title regina,..." It is curious that the name of Æthelred's wife is not mentioned in other sources such as the ODNB article on Æthelred, but maybe I should withdraw the deletion proposal and suggest instead a redirect to an article on Wulfthryth. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. She is known from one contemporary charter, and Barbara Yorke, David H. Kelley and others give her nothing but passing reference (what more could they give her without invention - the charter in question names her as Wulfthryth Regina, it does not say she is mother of anyone or founder of anything, it doesn't even specify that she was wife of the current king, AEthelred). She is still far short of the depth of coverage required to establish notability. Agricolae (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per most of the above. Wikipedia is not PASE; we don't try to have an article about every named historical person. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She doesn't have to be real to deserve an article. Any doubts in that direction do not endanger the notability of King Arthur, for example. The real problem is that she has hardly been mentioned at all, and apparently only in connection with her husband. I can see no reason why we shouldn't do it the same way. Hans Adler 10:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is actually something interesting to be said about St. Wulfrida, then of course a different article can be created under the present name. Hans Adler 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly talking about two different women, Wulfrida(Wulfthryth) supposed wife of Æthelred of Wessex, who apparently lived in the 9th century, and St Wolfrida who was the first Abbess of a Benedictine Abbey founded in Horton in 961AD [15]. Butler's Lives of the Saints talks about St Wolfrida who it seems had a liason with King Edgar, resulting in a child called Edith (Eadgyth). As far as Æthelred is concerned the AS charter S.340 has Wulfthryth regina as a witness to the charter dated 868 (S.340. Stevenson. Asser. p.201. Note 4: says this charters source is highly suspicious)[16][17]. There is plenty of provenance on St Wolfrida, Edgars concubine, so if it was rewritten on that basis it would be OK, but not as it stands for Æthelred's wife. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stevenson appears to be alone in regarding S340 as suspicious. Modern historians accept it as genuine, but disagree whether it shows that Wulfthryth was Æthelred's queen. I have put what I think can usefully be said about her in Æthelred of Wessex. I agree that the tenth century saint deserves an article but I think it should be under the name Wulfthryth, which is how her name is shown in ODNB and PASE. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that we are pretty much in agreement. Delete the Wulfrida article, any speculation about Æthelred's wife/ queen to be confined to the Æthelred page and perhaps a new article on St Wulfthryth? Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:07, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GatMalite[edit]

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

Possible hoax. An unregistered user raised the following concerns [18]: "The only proof of the GatMalite is through poorly photoshoppped images, dubious rifle listings, as well as fan made airsoft rifles/mockups. There is no proof of existence, or footage, of such a rifle functioning, nor is it acknowledged by the supposed creator of the rifle, the Knight's Armament Company." (See also the talk page.) No useful references, and Google hits for the name of the device mostly consist of copies of the Wikipedia article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COPYVIO applies as the whole article appears here --Whiteguru (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No other evidence of notability is found in news, books, scholar. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any references. The onus is on the authors to prove its notability using trusted sources. - Yk³ talk · contrib 10:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources or images in the article are from reliable sources. Ward20 (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: even if this weren't a fairly obvious hoax/copyvio, there isn't any evidence to suggest notability. There are thousands of AR-15 clones/variants in the market, and this doesn't seem to be anything special. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to be a hoax, I have found a lot of discussion about it online and folks claiming to own/sell/buying one. However, I've also found discussion that it was only ever a prototype and a lot of faked images of it. Overall, doesnt seem notable.--v/r - T P 15:14, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Sudhir Tadkodkar[edit]

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

W:N I attempted to source this academic, but could find no since of academic publishing, and the only reliable looking source [19] claims to be part Wikimirror. Additional sources welcome as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COPYVIO - This article appears here. Author appears in a list of Goan Writers, as linked above. Insufficient notability for an academic or a writer. WP:GNG is failed. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that link is a wikimirror, not a copyvio on our part, note the text at the bottom of the page. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V, to say nothing of WP:N. Ray^Talk 19:58, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shell for Windows[edit]

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

Unremarkable computer program. No indication of notability, the one reference listed is simply to a site where it can be downloaded. Fails WP:GNG. Possible COI as well. Contested PROD, contester claimed: "The software got many awards and well reviews," but I can find no evidence of this. Ravendrop 20:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather difficult to search, since the name of the software is such a common phrase (particularly 10 years before this product was introduced), bordering on a generic name. After careful searching through news and web, I don't find any interesting tid bits about this very, very new software package. Fails notability guidelines. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The program has good rating and success on two most popular software web-sites^[1]^[2]. In spite of young age of program it is not hard to find it on Google^[3]. 02:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — Windowsshell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Shell for Windows on Softpedia". Retrieved 2011-04-16.
^ "Reviews on Download.com". Retrieved 2011-04-16.
^ "Position of Shell for Windows in Google searsh". Retrieved 2011-04-16.

Comment Google search positions and download sites have never been considered reliable sources, thus not eligible to demonstrate notability. Notability is demonstrated through independent sources that are independent of the subject matter, not websites hosting the product and profiting from advertising around it. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment taking this as a grammatic phrase, the current title should redirect to windows shell or become an article covering MS Windows shell and windows shell replacement, since that's its conceptual meaning. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the program should not be considered as grammatic phrase, such as names of many other programs ( Games for Windows, Design II for Windows, FaxMail for Windows)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable 3rd party references to establish notability. As written above, download sites are not reliable references. Artice was created by an SPA, so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 13:06, 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,Sumsum2010·T·C 04:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources that I can find, although the name confounds the search. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 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. WP:NHOCKEY is relevant when it is the only source of notability, which is not the case here. Owen× ☎ 08:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Hamilton[edit]

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

Non-notable player. OHL academic award is not one of the major awards per NHOCKEY. Canada Hky (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been mentioned a number of times in Afds over the last few months as well as on the hockey project. Scholastic awards do not fall into the major award category. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There may be debate as to whether or not the Ivan Tennant Memorial Award is one of the major awards given annually by the OHL (I personally think it is), but Hamilton has demonstrated his notability in other ways. He was the first ever draft pick in Niagara IceDogs history; he played at the 2010 IIHF World U18 Championships where he was named as a top player for Team Canada; and he has also generated more than just routine sports coverage with articles such as this, this, this, and this, which is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Dolovis (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG based on sources found by Dolovis, especially the first and last. Just for the record, I don't think either the Ivan Tennant Memorial Award nor being named as Canada's best player at the IIHF U18, would qualify him as notable, but again, he passes GNG, so that's all moot. Ravendrop 04:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Err ... the notion that a "top academic player" award = preeminent honor is well to the left of farcical. It's not remotely so, and claiming otherwise is close to pointy; one wonders if there are ANY awards given out by the league which Dolovis does not consider to be "major." That being said, I'm not entirely convinced by the sources, either; the local newspaper source is a relatively routine interview that's half about other matters, and the other sources the moral equivalent of blogs. I'd like to see one or two more print sources which describe the subject in "substantial detail." Ravenswing 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 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, Acather96 (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References 3 and 5 give evidence of notability. Rirunmot (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither 3 or 5 are about the player in significant detail and are just mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does not meet NHOCKEY, but in-depth coverage from sources passes GNG. Nitalake (talk) 22:22, 2 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 04:30, 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. Peer review publication is required for accepting the clinical efficacy of the procedure, but is not required for encyclopedic notability. Even quackery meets our inclusion standards if it is sufficiently well publicized. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual gastric band[edit]

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

Although the use of hypnosis in treating obesity may be notable, the procedure named "virtual gastric band" is not notable. Deli nk (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that is innovative would be considered not notable since it would not be widely recognized. Hypnotherapy is endorsed by the NHS as an alternative procedure for obesity treatment^[1]. VGB goes beyond complementing hypnotherapy with hypnopedia. That is innovation. User:Carhur61 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Carhur61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Two of the sources (Kirsch, Montgomery et al) are miscited. The first doesn't find a stistically significant difference, the second used surgery on both groups. Narayanese (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ http://www.nhsdirectory.org/default.aspx?page=Hypnotherapy&t=y

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]

The original method, was and is named, and protected worldwide by trademark called The Gastric mind Band, developed at the Elite Clinic in Spain, it is also the subject of a book, Shirrans Solution The Gastric mind Band (Authorhouse 2010).
After receiving worldwide publicity (TV & print media) it has attracted various people to copy the treatment, the public need to be aware of the difference between the two completely different approaches. user shirran21 — shirran21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete The procedure itself is not notable. The coverage just doesn't exist. --Banana (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news search shows considerable and significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 07:51, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - considerable practitioner and participant references to this procedure; Google search results show widespread takeup of this procedure. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unproven technology which has not gotten sufficient coverage in either the professional or the lay press to deserve an article. Google Scholar search finds absolutely nothing, suggesting that it has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Google News Archive finds a few testimonial-type stories. Google finds no reliable sources, just promotional sites and social media. I could find no confirmation that the procedure is accepted by the National Health Service. In the absence of Reliable Sources, this article should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 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 delete. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Murdoch[edit]

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

Not convinced that this gentleman passes our general notability guidelines. The first reference mentions that he won the Manchester International Organ competition. Is this enough to pass criterion 9 of our criteria for musicians and ensembles? doomgaze (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why this artcle should be deleted. –BuickCentury Driver 13:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as I said above, he appears to fail both WP:GNG and (as far as I can see) WP:MUSICBIO. Why do you believe this article should be kept? doomgaze (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has references, and I get dozens of hits about this person on Google. Nuff said. –BuickCentury Driver 13:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But no references that constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Plus, only false positives on Google News. What 'hits' are you referring to? doomgaze (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - A quick websearch suggests that this fellow may be noteworthy enough for a keep, although I suspect the article is an autobiography, or at least was at first.[20] (a bombarde is an organ stop). It needs wikifying, and some further references adding but I'm not sure I can personally be bothered...not really the spirit of a Wiki, but I don't like autobiographical articles. Bob talk 22:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 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]

Delete - No indication that significant coverage exists on this person, so fails WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 03:37, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one independent source found here - British and international music yearbook, Volume 1. There is an amount of coverage of Murdoch Scott Productions Ltd - mentioned in the article on Google, but this is not the subject of the article; its one of his works. I don't see sufficient notability to satisfy the criteria for musicians and ensembles. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:46, 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 no consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death industrial[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable. Google searches show that the expression is used but return almost no substantial coverage, nothing in news, books, or scholar. The information that some artists have produced death industrial music is not cited at all. Nor is there even enough information in the article so that a listener would know that he is listening to death industrial music rather than some other sub-genre. Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with power electronics, which seems to be the closest related genre. I see plenty of people talking about the term, although I have yet to find a solid secondary source discussing it in detail, so I think it's likely to be used as a search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 11:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's listed as a genre here, here, and here. Reviews here, here, here, and here use the term to describe albums. Like I said, there's nothing substantial describing what exactly the genre is, but the term gets thrown around a lot, and should be preserved as a redirect, since it's likely to be used as a search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:30, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources and rationle found by Torchiest. Lugnuts (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with power electronics --Whiteguru (talk) 09:48, 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) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phindiwe Sangweni[edit]

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

This article lacks notability as described in [Wikipedia:N]. There appears to be insignificant coverage of this person. The links provided are not notable in themselves. The article is an orphan. This appears to be a case of self-promotion GetDownAdam (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established by the article, nor could I find any other sources that would establish notability. The first source - Legalbrief - mentions her appointment as Director of the ConCourt, but nothing more; the second (the Zulu PDF) only mentions her name as a translator, and I really don't know why it's included at all; and the third is a Who's Who entry. To avoid confusion, the position of "Director of the Constitutional Court" is not a judicial position, it is a civil service position; basically, the Director performs administrative duties delegated by the Chief Justice. There are hundreds of people at "Director" rank in the South African civil service - it is not inherently notable. - htonl (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am changing from Neutral to Keep - It can not hurt to keep pending more references and hopefully more data. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - It is interesting that material, including portions that were removed from article in question before being nominated for deletion by the same person for cleanup purposes. See Phindiwe Sangweni&action=history.

And the sources once included before trimming:

1.^ "Constitutional Court Director retires". Legalbrief Today. JUTA Law. 2007. http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=2002060458339999. Retrieved January 1, 2011.
2.^ "The National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa". The National Prosecuting Authority. 2008. http://www.npa.gov.za/UploadedFiles/NPA_zul.pdf. Retrieved January 1, 2011.
3.^ a b c d e f g "HRH Princess Phindiwe Dlamini-Sangweni". Who's Who - Southern Africa. whoswhosa.co.za. 2010. http://www.whoswhosa.co.za/phindiwe-dlamini-sangweni-36328. Retrieved January 1, 2011.
4.^ Spies, WIllie (2005). "Pretoria community celebrates 150 years themselves". vryheidsfront.co.za. http://www.vryheidsfront.co.za/english/media.asp?language=e&offset=810&id=1215. Retrieved January 1, 2011.

While the person is not very interesting and the article is only a stub and has problems as noted previously, can it be saved? Is "Who's Who - Southern Africa" equal to "Who's Who" in America for notability? If "Who's Who" in America is acceptable for Wikipedia notability, why not "Whos's Who - Southern Africa?" Has there been a decision on Wikipedia on which "Who's Who" is notable and which is not?

I agree that "There are hundreds of people at "Director" rank in the South African civil service - it is not inherently notable." - but being the first "Black" in that position once all white - not notable? Curious. Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three of those sources are the same three I referred to in my original comment; the fourth only mentions her in passing as assistant to the mayor of Pretoria. As to being the first black person in that position, it's not quite as notable as it sounds - she was in fact the second director of the ConCourt ever; it's only existed since 1995. But, in general, I do not think that being the first black or female person in a particular position makes a person notable if the position was not already notable. - htonl (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't consider listing in "Who's Who" to be a significant factor with regard to notability, at least not in America. See this article about "Who's Who in America" for why. If someone listed in a "Who's Who" publication is truly notable, there should be other, more credible sources to establish that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had heard of her previously, as she testified at the Congressional "Traditional Leadership" briefing hosted by U.S. Congresswoman Diane Watson on Capitol Hill in October 2010, along with Prince Ermias of Ethiopia and other African royalty. Some evidence of her notability seems to be minimised in the article for unknown reasons, and the information provided seems substantial enough to justify the coverage here. "Firsts" by women and blacks in South Africa's government certainly can be notable ipso facto, and it's not clear this isn't a good example of that. More should be added rather than the article being deleted. FactStraight (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's interesting and I would agree with you if there was more information. Do you have a link to her testimony at this briefing? Also, there's two ways of looking at the evidence of her notability. You say that evidence of her notability has been minimised, but is it possible that the evidence is not there. Perhaps I should also clarify my position on the notability of royals. In Southern Africa, there is a rather large sector of the population that can find a close connection to a royal family. There are many royal families. In that sense, the mere fact of being royal is not notable. In terms of firsts by women and black people, I have to agree with htonl. The Constitutional Court is a post-Apartheid body. Race and sex have very little to do with appointment. From what I can understand from the web, this person is just a normal citizen who happens to work in government departments and is incidentally also a member of a royal family. Nothing notable. GetDownAdam (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 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, Sandstein 06:36, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs more references, like the material given by FactStraight above. As FactStraight says, this article is not a good example of "Firsts" by women and blacks in South Africa's government. Keep and improve. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:02, 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) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harmon Leon[edit]

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

This is a problematic article that has no citations and a complete lack of notability. It was only reinstated after an initial suggest for deletion due to the subject contesting that it was still valid on the grounds of it having been around for five years. The fact that it has been around in this state for so long and the fact that the subject had to resuscitate it would all lead credence to the argument that it is not notable and continues to be an unverified, personal page for one writer in San Francisco of which there are thousands of equal status. Allowing this article to stay sets the precedent for countless others to be created. Primecoordinator (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Primecoordinator (talk) 04:45, 07 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - marginal figure on the fringes of a number of fields, never quite meets the standards of actual notability. -Orange Mike | Talk 03:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was deleted on 27 April 2011 via the WP:Proposed deletion process, where the article went seven days with a proposed deletion tag on it without objections. After the deletion, an objection was raised on 28 April, and a request was filed at WP:Requests for undeletion. As the article was not subject to speedy deletion, I restored it. That said, the request for undeletion did come from Harmonleon (talk · contribs), so I agree with Primecoordinator's assessment that the subject of the article made the request. —C.Fred (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition Elle[edit]

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

Delete or redirect to Reitmans. As it is currently written it is too much like an advertisement (although that is not a reason for deletion). It does not meet WP:CORP. The bar for notability must be set quite high to prevent commercial organisations getting unwarranted articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reitmans. If this article is not allowed to be kept on Wikipedia, then it should be a redirect to the parent company (as the parent company is apparently more notable than a subsidiary). GVnayR (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that GVnayR added sources it meets the notability bar in my opinion (and I think they're reliable enough to give the article a chance to grow). It does have 139 locations so it's not like reading an article about a small local store or a minor clothing chain. Royal broil 12:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have officially changed my vote to keep thanks to Royalbroil's explanation. GVnayR (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep because the nomination and subsequent discussion is tainted by the noms topic ban. can be immediately relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Adams[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 02:10, 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) 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 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) 19:29, 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) 20:44, 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) 14:11, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [21]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:12, 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! 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Amore[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 02:12, 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) 02:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:32, 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) 19:29, 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) 20:44, 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) 14:10, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [22]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:13, 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! 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Michelle Barré[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 02:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy online model and "Cyber Girl of the Year." Article content is pretty trivial, and it would be better to merge the content into the Cyber Girl of the Year article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:47, 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 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. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 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) 14:08, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [23]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC
Delete - nothing supports this persons wikipedia notable for a stand alone WP:BLP - 'merge all similar to the list Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 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 no consensus. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Teasdale[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 01:28, 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) 19:33, 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. Not a Playboy Playmate, but a British not-quite-hardcore model of no apparent notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:49, 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) 14:22, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [24]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monty. Also nom is completely flawed because subject was never even a Playmate, its just a mistaken nom.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:16, 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Tziotis[edit]

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

Withdrawn (below) WP:N issues, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this strategist. But language issues might be an issue, additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have added a couple of references including a political interview of Dimitris Tziotis. He's an unusual character. Mayoral candidate for the wealthiest suburb in Athens. A Marxist who drives a Porsche! A serial entrepreneur who has managed some high profile marketing campaigns. Easily meets WP:GNG by a long way. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nom based on added sources, with kudos to User:Nipsonanomhmata for the sourcing assist. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silkshire Terrier[edit]

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

Contested PROD: unremarkable dog cross-breed, no source or notability. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Notability of this particular cross has not been established with good quality sources. Google search reveals a lot of hits but no significant coverage. News search turns up nothing. Seaphoto^Talk 02:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree, news, books and scholar turn up nothing. I'm surprised that Kennel Clubs notes or references to breeds are not cited as reliable references. Other articles here on other crossbreeds of terriers are of good quality. Delete, let them come back with good references. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Godness...You can find it,many Source's about the Silkshire's. But...OK,Delete it. Such Bad People here. Dilek2 (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Chocolate_Yorkshire_Terrier This is not for delete? This Terrier are also not registered. Dilek2 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is with this not registered Dog's Sporting_Lucas_Terrier This is allowed in Wikipedia? Ok Thankyyyyyyyyyy Dilek2 (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are examples of how an article about an unusual or non-standard breed can be appropriately described and referenced. If you can find references completing with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources documenting this cross-breed, you are welcome to add them. I didn't find any useful sources meeting those standards; perhaps you have access to better sources. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dogster.com/dog-breeds/hybrid/Silkshire_Terrier

http://www.petyourdog.com/dog_breeds/dog_breed_by_group/hybrid_designer_dogs/silkshire-terrier/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: needs reliable sources. Nothing to do with kennel club recognition or lack thereof – anna 22:29, 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) 04:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance Digital Media[edit]

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

Surely fails notability. Rd232 ^talk 01:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:COMPANY. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
??? [25] is significant coverage. Is the quality of the source satisfactory per WP:NOTE? Chester Markel (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider this type of local coverage (note that there is a "_______ Business Journal" for many cities) to be sufficient in itself to establish notability. Many publications offer free coverage to potential advertisers. Seaphoto^Talk 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. Local coverage only (see above comment), first 10 pages of Google hits are press releases, blogs and the like. Seaphoto^Talk 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another digital marketing boutique agency. Also advertising: ...has constantly approached its concept of transparency and openness with welcome arms to the local marketing community - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 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) 04:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pettidee[edit]

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

Non-notable musician "sourced" to places like his MySpace page. Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Myspace? Rapzilla? Not close to independent and reliable sources. Chester Markel (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:BAND, doesn't appear to have had any charting single/album and there is no article for his record label Jebus989 ^✰ 12:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 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 withdrawn by nominator. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Megan and Liz[edit]

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

The bulk of information on this article comes from primary sources: Twitter accounts, YouTube videos, Tumblr accounts. I found only a Stony Brook Independent article that looked promising until I saw it was user-submitted. I'm sure these ladies' career will take off eventually, but as of right now, I'm not seeing enough notability for inclusion here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes: I did read through the first nomination fD. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't consider flash sensation to be encyclopedic. If these two girls were to break up tomorrow, their YouTube videos will still continue to garner hits since, well, YouTube will live on undoubtedly forever. The Internet has made a whole new generation of people "eternal". They could very well live on in a digital world, whether, in this case, the duo breaks up, or if they perish, or if they continue with their careers in another direction.

According to a discussion held at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_13#Oh.2C_this_new_modern_age.21, notability cannot be assumed from YouTube views and, by extension, the creation of fan clubs. I have not sat down and counted, but the number of musical subjects that toot their own horns with half a dozen popular social networks, reaching out to millions of fans across the globe—some of whom in turn create "fan sites", no matter how decent looking (gone are the days of Angelfire and Geocities)—have got to be in the hundreds, if not thousands. The Internet has changed and is still changing the music industry (in fact, maybe most industries). But Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. It's also not an Encyclopedia Britannica, which I understand. But a line must be drawn somewhere as to what would be deemed acceptable and what really shouldn't. Wikipedia is simply not a watershed of every Internet "spike" that happens. In fact, where are the attempted articles for other YouTube sensations Memphis High, Emily Harder, Hayley Stayner, Boyce Avenue, and Tiffany Alvord? (They're mentioned in the M&L article.) Wikipedia thrives off reliable third party publications, which this article sorely lacks, and it's safe to assume that if the media doesn't think Megan & Liz matters, neither should we.

For now, I would hope Wikipedia is less dependent on the Internet band du jour and will remain close to its roots. Megan & Liz could very well become the next Lady Gagas, and when they do, the media will welcome them with open arms, and Wikipedia will perform its duty to recount the history of this group. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one doesn't have to be as big as Lady Gaga to rate an article. But granted you can't be just a nobody either. Under the old criteria of WP:MUSIC they would be in, since they've had a regional tour; but that criteria was removed a while back. So they do not meet any criterion of WP:MUSIC, I don't think. However, as mentioned at various places, the question is whether WP:MUSIC is behind the times. I would say that they have a lot of the ancillary markers of what, in the past, we would have associated with a marginally notable band: been on the television box, toured the United States, opened for a bluelinked artist, been part of the music scene with other notable artists, etc. etc., the things that notable bands do. What they don't have is recording contract with a major label. What they do have instead -- according to the article anyway -- is "the 33rd most subscribed music channel on YouTube". Does this mean anything or not? Is this the modern equivalent of having a #27 hit on the radio or deal with Chess Records to cut an LP or whatever? I don't know, I don't watch the youtubes and don't consider anything later than Johnny Ray and Joni James to be worth listening to, so I'm not the one to say. But we do have some under-30's here at the Wikipedia and I'd like to hear what they have to say about this. Herostratus (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an interesting case. But there's no real media coverage on them. That right there throws the whole thing out the window, for me at any rate. This example isn't going to change WP:MUSIC because there's nothing to change. If WP:Music is behind the times, then there would be a dozen more of these similar cases. I haven't really seen them. I have a video on YouTube with 1.8 million hits. Does that make me partially notable for some random reason? Not at all. Meg & Liz are popular on YouTube now, but not forever. Their everlasting value hasn't been established, not yet. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact, where are the attempted articles for other YouTube sensations Memphis High, Emily Harder, Hayley Stayner, Boyce Avenue, and Tiffany Alvord?" - As far as I'm aware, Boyce Avenue and Tiffany Alvord do have Wikipedia articles. The Boyce Avenue articles seems supported, but I think Tiffany Alvord's page should be flagged for possible deletion as well. The others are not very well known at all and haven't gained much notority on YouTube, which is why they wouldn't have Wikipedia articles. Megan & Liz do have some notority - they were featured on Oprah, they have gone on tours and performances, and they recently got verification from Twitter, which means that they are a notable group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'papillon (talk • contribs) 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the community at large, obviously, but verification by Twitter means absolutely zilch to me. If I were the author of a biograpy on any given celebrity, Twitter verification would not be mentioned in the sources at the back of the book. But Oprah would be a good addition and would help the notability of these people a bit. If they were on Oprah, then there will be articles written about them for having been on Oprah. It should escalate from there. As for Boyce and Tiffany, I did a search for several of the names, stopping at Hayley. Just coincidence. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see Oprah is already mentioned. It isn't as bolstering to their notability as I imagined since they were not the featured guests, but I'm sure it helps. Still, only one article mentions it? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just don't see them as unnotable and unpopular enough to be deleted, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So popularity = notability? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:05, 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) 00:31, 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) 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment This may work against my own nomination, but I'm open to accepting that notability may be changing with the times. I just checked the monthly visits for this page, and the last three months have seen an increase in traffic, from 4,000 hits to 8,000 and finally 10,000 hits. I was impressed. Along with the lack of consensus being reached, would this help the article attain a keep? If so, the perhaps it's time to just let the nom close as such. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since [26] could be construed as significant coverage per WP:GNG, and AFD discussions should not be left open indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing nomination. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:04, 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) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extraction and reporting language[edit]

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

Unverified novel term. The phrase is a substring of one of Perl's backronyms, but I can find no evidence it's an independent concept/categorization. Cybercobra (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:14, 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) 00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no evidence that this term is used except with reference specifically to Perl. And we don't need a separate article just for "Perl and Awk". Hans Adler 08:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per above: no evidence of its use outside of Perl, where it's already mentioned.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:42, 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 no consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xombie (flash cartoon)[edit]

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

Previously went through AFD and was deleted, was restored through a DRV in which arguments in favor of undeletion were paltry at best. Fails WP:WEB, exists solely as advertisement/promotion, merely placing web content on a DVD does not mean it is truly published in any meaningful sense. Just self-published vanity project that got minor mention in one magazine. Notability requirements demand non-trivial (more than passing mention or press release or short blurb) from two notable and reliable sources. This fails. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background: This was deleted after this AfD in 2006, and then undeleted after this DRV, which concluded that this article in Fangoria and this article in Rue Morgue were enough for the article to pass WP:WEB.
Although WP:WEB has changed a lot since 2006, the argument can still be made that those two magazine articles allow "Xombie" to pass criterion #1 of the guideline. I think the Fangoria article counts towards notability, but I'm not so sure about the Rue Morgue article. According to the relevant criterion, "a brief summary of the nature of the content" does not count towards notability. The Rue Morgue article appears to be a survey of various flash cartoons of this ilk, devoting a section to each. The section devoted to "Xombie" amounts to a summary of the nature of the content, although I don't know if it's fair to call it brief; it's supplemented with quotations from the cartoon's creator, James Farr. This is definitely a borderline case in terms of notability, and the article is clearly in need of work. However, I do not support deletion; instead, I'm split between a weak keep or a merge into James Farr, and I would like to hear what others think about the Rue Morgue article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew M. Stroth[edit]

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

Non-notable marketing representation lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Individual has small quotes in relation to his clients, but lacks in-depth coverage about subject of article. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on what exactly you need in terms of GHits and GNEWs? This person is a legitimate representative of the people referenced in the entry - what types of sources would you/Wikipedia need to show proof? The citations included are meant to show that Stroth does in fact represent the clients referenced -- though the articles are not ABOUT Stroth representing the client (in this line of work, the media is interested in the client themselves, not necessarily in who their representative is). Very interested in your thoughts and feedback! Christineokelly (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searching and Google News Archive searching are used to determine whether the person has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. That's how Wikipedia determines whether the subject is "notable" or not. That's what is needed for a person to have an article at Wikipedia; passing mentions in an article about somebody else are not enough. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for an explanation of the criteria. Your citations show that he does indeed represent some notable people, but there is a saying here that "notability is not inherited"; just being associated with a notable person does not mean that their notability rubs off on you. It's true that the attorneys or representatives of notable people, or attorneys for important legal cases, often get mentioned in news stories, but that does not make the attorneys or representatives notable in themselves. And that's the problem with an article about Mr. Stroth. He represents notable people, but that does not make him notable in himself. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of citations of WP:RS, but a random sampling of the sources reveals only brief mentions, not significant coverage. This doesn't meet the requirements imposed by the notability guideline. Also, the article is written in the format of a resumé, which isn't neutral. Chester Markel (talk) 01:04, 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) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pair options[edit]

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

The primary problem with this article is verifiability and notability. This is a seemingly little-known financial instrument that is sold only by one newly-formed and non-notable company. Other than their apparently proprietary information, there is no information out there on how they function. In particular, there have been two main contributors to this article: Adrian88888, and WilliamG. Adrian88888 has made few other contributions to Wikipedia, other than putting in an inappropriate link to the company in another article (although to be fair, wisely reverted him/herself). WilliamG appears to have some source(s) of information on this topic, but so far has been unwilling to divulge how s/he knows about the subject (see talk page). In any case, as pointed out by Ulner on the talk page, it is unclear what these "pair options" actually are. In particular, the payoff is completely mysterious; the article only gives an example where the following is said "...in case he is right, the payout is given by: ADD". It has been like that since WilliamG's first edits. Note that there are several "references" given in the article. These were added by WilliamG in response to Ulner's requests. But they are not actually references to this new topic of "pair options", but to financial instruments with similar naming, which already have their own Wikipedia articles. Their relevance is not clear; WilliamG claims that "pair options" are sufficiently different and notable to require its own article, but these other topics are related enough to serve as kinds of references. Again, since there are no reliable sources for us to consult, these are claims we have to take on faith. DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree : I am interested in financial mathematics and came across this entry here, and since then researched it quite a bit. It was not written in a proper way so did my best to upgrade it and add substance. The cliams don't have to be take on faith, but evaluated by people who are familiar to the domain. Outperformance Options, Pair Options, Alpha Binary Options have similarities in that they are based on relative performance,but each one is different, as much as Vanilla Options and Binary Options are different, the therfore have separate entries --WillliamG (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DudeOnTheStreet's comments; article does not have reliable sources supporting notability. Ulner (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't really fathom these exotic options and fancy derivatives, but that's irrelevant. What matters is that I am also unable to find any significant sources writing about pair options. Given the volume of books written on investing and finance, and the research on it, the fact there is no coverage in any books, or in Google scholar is rather telling. I don't doubt that this product exists and is being sold by somebody as a financial instrument, but it isn't a notable one. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete- Exotic Options are an important financial instruments. Both for traders and for financial institutions. This is an evolving domain , just two weeks ago NASDAQ launched Alpha Index Options, also options that have not appeared in any publication until recently. Just like Pair Options, they are options on Relative Performance , and are important as they offer the trader theoretically Beta neutral instruments. (depends on the correlations..)--Mikeruon (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Mikeruon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment' - Can you provide proof that these are important options in the form of significant coverage in reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 11:05, 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) 00:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When reliable sources describe this financial service in detail, then so will we. Until then, it isn't notable. Chester Markel (talk) 01:21, 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) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totsy[edit]

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

Not convinced this is notable enough. Rd232 ^talk 23:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The article may not be too notable but there might be a reason to keep it seeing some of the references in the article.--Nidhi. mehta333 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references in the article consists of press releases, and Wikipedia itself. The only thing that comes close is some coverage in TechCrunch which is a tech blog, and may or may not be a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the references are press releases and it's hard to see how this reference is relative to the article. Two citations of Wikipedia as a reference also. Article is about a new business model and does not satisfy [[WP:ORG] and the notability criteria listed here are not met by the articles references. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:15, 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; the article is indeed well beyond the level of a stub. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lace and Leather[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Discontinued chart, plus, there is not much info of the song to have an article alone. Sauloviegas (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discontinued chart? Well what is wrong with that? Nowhere in WP:NSONGS does it say that a chart must still be in circulation. Nonsense. On top of that, it isn't a stub, so there is obviously enough information. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 03:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 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) 00:13, 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, Sandstein 07:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm no fan of Britney Spears but if she sings and records Happy Birthday there should be an article about it. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:55, 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) 00:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The afd1 tag was never placed on this article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album. Song itself seems to be not notable, and not all songs by famous artists are notable in their own right. Otherwise we'd have 200+ Beatles song articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not notable enough in its own right; redirect to the album which as far as I can tell is the subject of all the references.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to album per convention, does not meet WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please give actual support for it not being notable. It charted and the article itself is not a stub, so yes, it does achieve the guidelines of NSONGS. There is little difference between this and Mmm Papi, which is even a GA article, aside from the fact that I have failed to find time to expand this article to its full size. :D --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Billboard.com's database states that it did not chart on any of their charts. RadioFan (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Billboard has terrible archiving for most songs that don't make the Hot 100. They typically will only list singles. But no matter, allmusic is run by the same corporation (Rovi), so they collect the same data. The difference being that allmusic lists every chart entry, not just for singles and Hot 100 songs. You will notice that many songs did chart here, but Billboard fails to list them. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good catch. With a quality reference for the claim of position on the pop 100, this clearly meets WP:NSONGS, changing my !vote to keep.--RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 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.

[1] "Shell for Windows on Softpedia". Retrieved 2011-04-16.

[2] "Reviews on Download.com". Retrieved 2011-04-16.

[3] "Position of Shell for Windows in Google searsh". Retrieved 2011-04-16.

[4] ttp://www.nhsdirectory.org/default.aspx?page=Hypnotherapy&t=y

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]