Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 9

< 8 May	10 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 procedural error, this AfD is malformed and stupid. If anyone actually wants to nom this article do it properly. Shii (tock) 04:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's rather relevant. Czolgolz (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: It is not going to happen, we will all die. 150.101.221.220 (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This is absurd and ridiculous, keep it in the Rapture article if need be. -- Big Brother ^{T | C} 03:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Delgado[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a write in candidate who garnered a total of 160 votes. AniMate 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ugh. Complete politician and general notability fail. This article is pretty much an unsourced hit-piece on Mario Gallegos, Jr. and could probably be an easy speedy. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc - fairly close to an indirect db-attack page. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. It does read like a hit piece, but given the links at the bottom, I wouldn't call it unsourced. Ray^Talk 16:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ray. --Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject's only claim to notability is as a politician, and she received 0.19% of the vote... And, as noted above the article was probably created with ulterior motives. jorgenev 08:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the refs seem to focus on another candidate, not on Delgado. Nothing notable here. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently all the negative stuff about the other candidate has already been deleted. Shame on us for allowing this article to be here since 2006 - and thanks to AniMate for finally sending it to AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Lott[edit]

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

Previously deleted as not notable and hasn't done much since then to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:ENTERTAINER. Also possible WP:COI with article creator. Nikki♥311 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there are reason why the AFD for "Noah Lottick" is listed here? As far as I can tell, these are completely unrelated. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I used Twinkle to do this AFD, so Lottick was automatically included...not sure why. Nikki♥311 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its just the way that template works; can't be helped. The list is generated with Special:PrefixIndex. It works as expected most of the time, sometimes it just must be ignored. jorgenev 08:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is this news article from a paper in Warsaw, IN that profiles him. Aide from that, I'm not finding anything in the way of significant coverage about him. AS such he fails WP:GNG. WP:ATHLETE does not apply to professional wrestlers. This leaves WP:ENTERTAINER which is also not satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Article does not establish notability. Reference section was blank when I checked it. A few matches against WWE wrestlers does not a notable individual make. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inderjeet Aujla[edit]

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

PROD removed back in March. This player has never played in a fully-professional league, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG (no coverage I would deem "significant") - instead what we have here is a collection of run-of-the-mill sports reports and profile pages, which contravene WP:NTEMP. It is also worth nothing the article creator is Indyaujla500 (talk · contribs) - potential COI. Giant Snowman 23:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, did he actually play the four games for Chester City between 2006–2007? I'm struggling to find any thing. If he did, he would meet WP:NFOOTY. --Jimbo^[online] 11:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any evidence either, and this profile of him mentions he played for the reserves, but not the senior team. Giant Snowman 11:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything on the usual reliable sources such as Soccerbase or BBC Sport would pull up a match report with his name in, therefore I'm going to say delete. --Jimbo^[online] 11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to be a curmudgeon, but this is a pretty clear case of self-promotion for a non-notable individual. He needs to wait until he achieves stardom, then let someone else write his entry. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:37, 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 already speedy deleted. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact BBDO[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Pucci[edit]

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

I hate nominating an article for deletion a second time, but I'm afraid I'm just not seeing what makes this person notable. I see an interview with her at Glamourcon and a blurb about an upcoming project on AVN, but I don't see any significant discussion anywhere of her career as a model, an actress, or a porn actress. My opinion is that the sources cited don't really rise to the level of WP:RS, and I'm not finding better sources using Google news. But if you disagree, I'll still like you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The last AfD indicated that WP:PORNBIO was not met, and I find no indication that that has changed; I do not think that the other appearances are sufficient per the general notability guideline. The sources, interviews, and appearances are completely consistent with a minor figure in a PR-dependent industry, and do not indicate notability at this time. As the subject is a living person, future sources may reverse this assessment. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject meets a common interpretation of PORNBIO#4, that any combination of mainstream credits and porn credits demonstrates notability. Time to put that to rest for good. Subject has negligible credits in both fields and fails the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any decent sources which can be used to demonstrate notability or used to fill a bio with independently verified info. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pornbio #4 says "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." She has one 2nd billing in a direct-to-video of hidden camera skits. After that it is a slew of low-or-no-billing in other DTV and made-for-tv flicks. There is nothing here to satisfy any of our notability criteria. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Cindy Pucci. Please delete this!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindypucci (talk • contribs) 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best Days (Graham Colton song)[edit]

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

borderline notability. Never charted, but was used on television. nothing in article is referenced, but content can be merged into main article Graham Colton to improve what is lacking there. Alan - talk 23:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first paragraph suggests notability. It received Billboard coverage even if it didn't chart. CycloneGU (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment One article or review as the case may be, isn't enough for notability. it's borderline notability is the songs use on various television programs, and that's very borderline as thousands of songs are used in movies and television, and barely noticed when they are used. Alan - talk 04:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but I'd also be interested in others' opinions. I agree that it is borderline. But if it made one major chart anywhere (even if it's a major chart in Sweden for all we know), notability is passed. CycloneGU (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it had, but, he's only popular in the US and parts of Canada, with small groups in other countries due to major artists he's opened for on Us tours. It hurts me to nomininate his articles being I actually know him, but I stay neutral and that's what AFD is for.. consensus from neutral parties Alan - talk 04:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Here Right Now, the album. I see no compelling reason for a separate song article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 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 redirect to Osseo Area School District 279. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osseo Junior High School[edit]

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

Per prior consensus pre-secondary schools are usually not notable unless they stand out somehow academically, this school lacks substantial coverage outside of Primary Sources and has no notability except for being ranked slightly above average for middle schools in the state of Minnesota. Marcusmax(speak) 21:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district, per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The school won an award as the outstanding junior high school in Minnesota. Also, the district has too many schools to accommodate unwieldy sections for each of them. The solution of redirecting to the district page should only be carried out for small districts with a handful of schools.Bellczar (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what award might that be, show me some evidence that this is notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be an option to include it as a subhead in the article for Osseo High School? The two schools started as one and they share a campus including athletic facilities (e.g., the swimming pool is at the jr high; tennis courts etc. are between the schools; they share a track and ice arena; sr high football field uses jr high locker rooms) and central heating plant.Bellczar (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district, per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. School district pages do not need more than a simple listing of the school. Should the school assert notability at a later date, the redirect can be simply undone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as usual. Awards can show notability , but there are no sources for any DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (without a merge of information, just a simple redirect) The claim of an award is unimpressive as well as unsourced. Supposedly "The building won an award as the outstanding new school in Minnesota of 1966." The outstanding NEW school in Minnesota? How much competition can there be for that distinction in any given year? --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of top home run hitters by birthplace[edit]

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

What makes the birthplace of the home run hitter important enough to make a list dedicated to the subject?– Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As it stands now, almost entirely OR. Nor do I think that most home runs by state of birth is particularly notable. I could be persuaded that the list of top home run hitters by country of birth is appropriate, if it could be properly sourced. Rlendog (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not terribly notable or encyclopedic. --Coemgenus 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dumb trivia, nothing more, nothing found to support the notability of winners by state/province/country. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep - Do you people really believe that it's "no big deal" to have the most career home runs for a player from a particular country, or from a particular state? There is nothing "trivial" about this. As for sourcing of the greatest career home run hitters by country, state, province or territory, these results all come from www.baseball-reference.com, the preeminent source of baseball statistics on the Internet, which site allows you to see lists (with full career statistics) of all players born in each jurisdiction. For example, here's the list of players born in Puerto Rico (click on "HR" and it liosts them by career home runs): http://www.baseball-reference.com/bio/P-R-_born.shtml All a person needs to know to figure out what player born in Puerto Rico hit the most homers is to know that 473 is higher than 434 or 379 (and thus Carlos Delgado, not Juan Gonzalez or Orlando Cepeda, hit the most career home runs for a player born in Puerto Rico). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Chris said in the AfD for wins leaders by birthplace, you have to demonstrate why we should synthesize this statistic with place of birth. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as based on a nonencyclopedic cross-categorization (WP:NOTDIR #7). Deor (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hottest Female Athlete[edit]

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

Not notable. Can't find any coverage from news sources, current article has no sources and very trivial information. - filelake shoe 20:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not the most consequential of sports "awards", but it does receive plenty of coverage both within ESPN[1] and in other media outlets.[2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Mariepr (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero notability for a website's online fan poll. Not a legitimate or serious "award". Tarc (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no coverage about this "award" other than it being mentioned in articles about the particular athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 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 keep. Owen× ☎ 22:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kawthekar High School[edit]

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

Very little content and no reliable sources, and very few ghits to indicate notability. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the arguments as to why we keep high school articles are given in the essay WP:NHS. Ghits are a very poor measure of the notability of Indian schools as most have very little in the way of Internet presence. To avoid systemic bias we should await a local search for sources from regional newspapers and libraries and the like. Lack of content is also not a valid deletion reason; that's the way of stubs; they start small and grow over the years and is how Wikipedia develops articles.

In my view, Jimmy Wales opinion from November 2003 is still valid:

"...Put another way, if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. ..."Partial solution to rampant deletionism, Wikimedia, November 7, 2003.

TerriersFan (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per TerriersFan, in accordance with every high school AfD since almost ever.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan, who clearly outlines for us once again the standard practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 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) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Major League Baseball season pitching leaders[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an almanac. Anything from this page that needs to be covered can be covered at 2006 Major League Baseball season. This strikes me as an effort that was taken up in 2006 and then abandoned.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure what to do about the stats cruft. There are plenty of resources out there with sortable stat capabilities, why should Wikipedia attempt to be an inferior incarnation of these? Carrite (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:12, 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 keep (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Hope (actor)[edit]

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

An apparenly notable actor, whose BLP is totally unreferenced and seeming unreferenceable to reliable sources. Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References can be found with a quick Google search for "William Hope actor". --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when i did that I found an IMDB ref (only kinda reliable), and other things that were not the actor. If you find some please add reliable sources to the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actor has appeared in many significant productions; meets WP:ENT. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found and added some sources. Granted, he's not the best-known actor, but the article is sourceable. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy procedural~~ keep and close per the speedy keep of just [two months and] two days before this renomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm... that was two months and two days ago ;) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops. My bad. Corrected above. Still think this AFD should be closed, as not being fixed is a reason to do so, but not to delete an improvable article because it was not done within some arbitrary deadline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Shabana[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NSPORT, athletes competing at the highest level in their sport as considered notable. Her WISPA profile (world governing body for women's squash), her highest ranking was 20, and she has competed at top level competitions. For example, she has competed at the WORLD OPEN 2002. World Open, and Grand Slam events are the top level of competition on the WISPA tour. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq, it looks like she meets NSPORT. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:42, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Ju-Jitsu Federation[edit]

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

A article with questionable notability without sources to support otherwise Dwanyewest (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently, despite it's name, this organization is part of a larger organization. I found no reliable and independent sources that show this organization is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found no coverage of this organization in reliable and independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing in the article to support notability, and on a cursory search found no independent sources to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 05:04, 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. Owen× ☎ 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UKJJAI – The United Kingdom Jujitsu Association International[edit]

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

A article with questionable notability without sources to support otherwise. This is long lacking overdue for deletion Dwanyewest (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced article about a non-notable organization. My search found no independent and reliable sources that would support this organization's claim to notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no reliable sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following all the other comments above. Janggeom (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Guild[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a promotional article for a Non-Notable clothing line and fashion designer. The result of the first AfD in 2006 was to give the article time to develop. After 5 years it still lacks any sources. Poyani (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable high-end fashion designer. Her work was included in a British fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum. This book provides verification for this as part of a chapter covering Shirin Guild and her work. She has also received coverage in news media: [3], [4],. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources added to the article by Whpq are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah[edit]

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

A very excessive list of banknotes from one area, no references. All the images have been tagged as free use (and currently removed - as excessive free usage of images in one article). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Indonesian currency will be covered in all major international banknote catalogues, and is clearly notable. There will also be plenty of Indonesian sources available. The length of article is an argument for splitting it into articles based on denomination or series, not for deleting it. I'm not sure why having a lot of "free use" images would be a bad thing. --Anthem of joy (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The subject, a national currency, is notable - and it has its own article at Indonesian rupiah. Note, though, that the main article is already tagged as {{Very long}} - which means that forking out subjects for their own articles is warranted. And so, here we are. If it's sourceable, then we need to keep the article. The image problems are a separate issue, one not related to whether or not the article should be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above and article seems like it could be sourced with some effort. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as the person removing the non-free content, I see no reason for deleting the article, a re-evaluation and introducing one or two non-free images along with a few sources and this will make a fairly good article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly better referencing is in order, but why would any of those reasons warrant deletion? The existence of this currency and its notes is trivially verifiable. Jpatokal (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reincorporation into the main article will make it too long, if this article is deleted then nomination for all banknote articles is warrented. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Information about the denominations of national currencies is generally notable. References need improvement, but that is not a cause for deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 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) 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aphrodite Lafont[edit]

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

Article about some book character who is not notable. The main character does not even have her own page. Username1234567891011 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no third party coverage readily available through the internet. --Anthem of joy (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)--[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While fictional characters from notable works should normally be merged or redirected to the work, I can't even determine from the article which book the character derives. If anyone can identify such a work that is notable and has its own Wikipedia article, I'd be happy to see this merged or redirected there. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is from The House of Night series. --Username1234567891011 (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to House_of_Night_(series)#Prophetess per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also List of characters in the House of Night series --Username1234567891011 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline because it does not provide reliable third-party sources independent of the subject and a search engine test shows unreliable sources only. The article is also a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context so there is no reason to keep it around. Jfgslo (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoot Suit Women[edit]

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

Essay. There's probably some information that can be salvaged and merged into other articles. After that, redir. If not, delete. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. OR essay. It can go to zoot suit. Szzuk (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an interesting essay, but Wikipedia is not the place for this per WP:SYN. jorgenev 08:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first part could be covered in Pachuco, if anything isn't already over there. The Sleepy Lagoon murder already has an article, as does the film its based on. Dream Focus 04:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FML (film)[edit]

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}}.

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

Notability of independent student film in question. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 18:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This search string yields no results on Google News. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even released yet. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Favonian (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am interested - as I suspect are others - in understanding more about the source and development of new entrants in the UK film industry. This kind of detail is not easy to find. Meets WP:GNG 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShapeProject (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — TheShapeProject (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Facebook and YouTube are not reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The other sources provided do not even mention this film. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I read [[WP:GNG] 5 as meaning someone finds it interesting and for what I am doing it is. You obviously have strong feelings about it. Fortunately I've read it before you got to delete it :) TheShapeProject (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." This topic has not received this kind of coverage. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (films) for more information on what is considered notable. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right on WP:GNG general notability – but WP:RFD#KEEP point 5 says “Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways” How much attention should we pay to what interests people?TheShapeProject (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#KEEP is for redirects, not articles. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the writer of the page. I do sympathise with the views expressed over the deletion of this page. However I do also feel that citing 'Is not even released yet' should not factor into the argument. Sadly, in the world of small time independent film, it is extremely hard to gain notice from someone as large as a primary source, especially while still in the production stage. I am heartened to hear that some people appear to back me up that the page is useful, especially considering it is written with total impartiality, and intended to raise awareness instead of sell the film. However, if the reasons I have put are not enough to save the page from deletion, then I guess deleted it must be. At least until the time (should that day come), the film is renowned enough to have access to a first party citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I think there sometimes comes a time, where the upholding of rules actually starts to limit progress. The rules are put in place to a) Stop spam and malicious perversion of content, b) Prevent blatant advertising and c) To ensure the accuracy of all Wikipedia articles, ensuring that they remain factually correct. It does seem to me, slightly wrong, to penalise a fledgling company purely because they do not yet have the contacts in order to provide the wealth of citations required, especially while they are striving to maintain Wikipedia's high standards, and not posting any inflammatory content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make something clear, I am not against this article, I am for following the rules of inclusion for this encyclopedia. I am not stoping this article from becoming notable, and once it is, by all means post it in this encyclopedia. But until then rules must be followed, because if we let this one go, hundreds of other articles with poor or no notability have to be let go and this encyclopedia will be useless. My 2 Cents. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 04:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, and accept that you are following rules. It just strikes me that Wiki should be used to inform, and the rules have the unfortunate side effect of penalising small scale industries like music and film, and actually generating somewhat of a hole in your content as a result. It is so hard to gain the citations required, purely due the level of secrecy needed to protect the ideas in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is shameful that, for the sake of upholding petty rules, new entrants to the independent UK film industry are made to suffer. The page is clearly written and I for one found it informative and entertaining to read. Therefore, I hope that the wikipedia admins see sense on this issue and agree to keep this page online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turok117 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — Turok117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It's not "petty" rules. As encyclopedists, we have a responsibility to ensure as much as possible the accuracy of the contents of this website. This means all information must be verifiable, and by that we mean that we must be able to verify the information without having to contact the concerned parties. That means there has to be some third-party reference available at arm's length that we may consult for verification. ("Taking your word for it" means opening the door to hoaxes and projects that will never see the light of day.) If that makes small producers suffer, then that's a lesser evil, but please keep in mind that if the finished product gets enough attention once released, then your "suffering" will only be temporary. And please keep in mind that every single item that is covered in Wikipedia was at some point unworthy of inclusion, so sticking to the "petty" rules puts everybody on a level playing field. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But these rules mean that Wikipedia is going to be unable to host articles for small independent films full stop. There is no way for them to gain citation, and as a result it is unlikely that a cultural movement will be accurately represented within the encyclopaedia. Thus wiki generates its own hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That's the lesser evil I was talking about. Wikipedia was never meant as a vehicle of promotion anyway. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film is not released yet, and there is not any visible published lead-up to the release of the movie. It has no pre-release reviews from national reviewers, and fulfills none of the requirements for notability found in WP:MOVIE Inks.LWC (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not released, and, nothing in the article indicates that it will be notable when it is release. I would , frankly, be perfectly prepared to speedy0-delete this article as G11, entirely promotional. It's argued above that enforcing the rules on notability might mean we "never have articles for independent student films". That would usually be the case, and that's exactly why we do have rules on notability . But it has happened that student films have received critical attention, no matter how rarely it happens, and there is the possibility that one might be notable. It is also the case that a student film by someone who subsequently becomes a famous film-maker whose works are taught in courses about film might become notable on that ground. So delete until one of the people involved become famous. thearguments otherwise amount to "ITS MINE AND I LIKE IT" DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, student film, low budget, home production, no coverage, refs are all to facebook and youtube. jorgenev 08:17, 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. No prejudice to recreate as a redir. Owen× ☎ 21:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submarines in world war 2[edit]

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

Essay that should be merged into other articles and then deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and redirect to Submarine#Submarines during World War II. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is useful as a redirect. I think it should stay, even if the rest gets nuked. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just look at it. What a mess. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge if it were merged it would need to be redirected. There are no references. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge essay Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTESSAY. This is a one-edit editor's bad attempt at a school essay...and it looks like a big fat F, IMO. Nothing useful to merge, just nuke it. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reasons given above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: very poor essay, not much worth saving, but it could be useful as a redirect. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 11:12, 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 Nominator withdrawn without prejudice there seems to be a commitment to improve this new article. bW 16:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna May-Rychter[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. 55% of this article is sourced to, I kid you not, an auction site and a website selling her painting, hence failing as a article primarily based on self published sources. Also, even if the lone independent source were to be used for the rest, it would not be multiple, significant coverage in reliable sources. BelloWello (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a brief mention of her in a footnote on p156 of Rudolf Steiner's "Art as spiritual activity" (ISBN 0880103965); she also has a short entry in Adrian Darmon's "Autour de l'art juif" (ISBN 2848550112) - not particularly accurate: "German? Active at the end of the 19th century". But I doubt these are sufficient to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see[5]I.Casaubon (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting minor early twentieth century artist undergoing revival of interest at auction. Auction houses like Christie's are regarded in the art world as reliable sources for information on minor artists. I just added a German source. And a list of recent auction records. I think that wehn an artist has been dead for decades, and the work continues to sell, There is a reasonable case that that artist is WP:Notable. I saw her work in a gallery, liked it, and looked for more information. Surely that is a useful role for Wikipedia to play.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator should be aware that the nom followed me to this page from a series of AFD's on Christain topics where I have argued strongly for keeping articles that he argued for deleting. See: [6]. I accused him of making false assertions in his AFD nom.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename the article to Anna Rychter-May with a redirect at this name, since that is the name used in most English language sources. She signed her paintings "A. Rychter-May". Using Google translate to read the German article now used as a reference, I see good biographical information, and also that there are about half a dozen additional references listed in German, plus a claim that a Jerusalem newspaper wrote an article about her upon her death. Here's Lost Legacy, the original 2003 Ha'aretz article, as opposed to the reprint by an art gallery now used as a reference. It also appears that several directories of artists list her, such as Davenport's art reference & price guide, Volume 2 and Autour de l'art juif: encyclopédie des peintres, photographes et sculpteurs and Dictionary of women artists: an international dictionary of women artists born before 1900. The Baltimore Sun reported that one of her paintings was part of a landscape painting exhibit in 1965 here. I don't have a problem using commercial art auction records as references about long-dead artists. I think that the existence of a documented resale market goes to establish notability of dead artists, but I would be opposed to relying solely on commercial gallery listings to establish notability of living artists. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Shee's only barely notable. But, BelloWello, I can assure you that Christie's catalogues are very much reliable sources. They are cited in academic publications. However, they do not establish notability, since Christie's of course must write entries on everything they sell. The length and scholarly detail of the entry is usually a good sign of notability. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transborder[edit]

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

Contested prod. Editorial about US immigrants from the Mexican state of Oaxaca. Factual information duplicates Mexican American, and the term has no evidence of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Questionable notability of the term. CrossTempleJay talk 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable term. Safiel (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. If the term comes into common currency at some future date, an article may be appropriate - but not now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 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 speedily deleted by Hit bull, win steak (talk · contribs); rationale was "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Accusations of criminal activity by group, w/o evidentiary support." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weetos clan[edit]

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

PROD-contested by IP. No coverage in independent sources, which fails WP:GNG and WP:V. elektrik SHOOS 18:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm withdrawing my nomination, as I'll be tagging that article for speedy deletion under criteria G3 (blatant hoax). elektrik SHOOS 18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this nomination open... just in case... -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, may fall under G10 speedy criterion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's a hoax, as there are one or two unreliable mentions on the net. Unreliable by our standard, but probably indicating existence. Definitely not indicating notability, however. Peridon (talk) 19:28, 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. Not an obvious consensus, but the keeps present a stronger case than the merge opinions. Owen× ☎ 21:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huthaifa al-Batawi[edit]

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

Not notable, as the sources just indicate death. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The sources warrant an article for the event, but not for the people involved. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The event could have an article with information on al-Batawi included. Raphie (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Known for more than one event. See, for example, Militant leader among 12 caught in connection with Iraq church siege from November 2010. WWGB (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Islamic State of Iraq. Sources indicate no notability of his own other from being leader of that organization. PluniAlmoni (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WWGB. WP:BLP1E does not apply. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article indicates strong significance, just because the event is detailed does not mean his life is that one event and thus the article. Zenithfel (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep figure of importance in major historic events, which will be part of the historical record--in. BLP obviously does not apply, and wouldn't even if he were still alive. The suggested merge is so drastic as to amount to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 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. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladan Nesovic[edit]

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

WP:V/N: While the anchor gig might or might not confer notability, I am unable to find reliable sources to verify the position or to establish any notability via the GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, none can be found. However, if one can propose an alternate spelling of this Serbian name that leads to reliable sources, I am willing to change my !vote. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable personality. CrossTempleJay talk 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding sourcing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article asserts "his debut was "Vlast" from B. Nusic, playing on 448 W. Barry Ave. in Chicago, which is the Serbian theatre building." Well... "Vlast" is a play by Branislav Nusic (born 1864, died 1938) that was made into a TV film of the same name back in 1974. A Mira Sremcevic and Ankica Ratarac are associated with the St.Sava Serbian Cultural And Arts Center in Chicago,[7] so it is just possible that our Vladan Nesovic may have appeard in a 2003 revival of that play. But every other search for someone named "Vladan Nesovic" gives only the various Wikipedia mirors, and his social networking sites... such as his Facebook page. The name spelling seems okay, but the fellow just does not have sourcable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 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 keep. It's snowing in May Courcelles 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Hennessy[edit]

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

Not notable, as the sources just indicate death. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hennessy is a veteran news presenter and host in the Trinidad and Tabago community and has received a wide variety of coverage in multiple reliable sources. The New York Times even describes her as a "local television star". Meets WP:GNG. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd expect online references to be hard to find for Trinidad-based stars, however this reliable source acknowledges her status in the community, albeit weakly. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a trinidadian article so i expect it does not have much sources just like other trinidadian articles,she is a very famous person. 190.213.51.85 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i agree with all those reasons above and the decision to keep the article :) 744cody (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are lots of quality in-depth sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reasons listed above are clear. There are many sources. Scanlan (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another source here in Trinidad and Tobago's oldest newspaper. Looks like someone who was much loved by the people she served. If they think she's notable enough for multiple updates on her progress whilst she was ill [8] [9] [10] (including the apparent involvement of the country's Health Minister re blood donation (see ref 2)) then she's notable enough for here. (Would still be nice to get a full obit to flesh out the article a little, though) Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should have been "see ref 3" Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was also awarded the Trinidad & Tobago Publishers and Broadcasters Association’s Award for Media Excellence 2009 (page displays poorly on my browser but she's there). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the article is now well sourced, and she easily meets WP:GNG. Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 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× ☎ 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Stalking Controversy[edit]

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

Highly POV article that draws some drastic original conclusions (i.e. gang stalking is a form of COINTELPRO). Article's author has been trying unsuccessfully to get this information introduced into Wikipedia for several weeks now, and had a similar article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Lawsuit. The article as it stands represents a rather serious fork of the material at Stalking. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. The term "gang stalking" has numerous meanings, not just one, I grant. There is controversy a-plenty as to whether the term is apt when used to label some of the wide range of phenomena it is used to label. There are certainly people (let us call them "gang stalking deniers") with the theory that the widespread testimony of gang stalking is entirely attributable to persons suffering from paranoia giving false testimony of gang stalking. On the other side, there are those (the COINTELPRO theorists) who theorise that all gang stalking reports are attributable to a renaissance of COINTELPRO. But these observations - the ambiguities, the controversy and the prejudices of vocal minorities, are reasons for having a thorough, scholarly and balanced entry on gang stalking, not reasons for not having an entry at all. The term has become a part of the language, and with good reason. It would diminish Wikipedia to give in to one particular faction, however vocal. Those whom I have called the "gang stalking deniers" would be the only beneficiaries of a deletion of the entry. Given that it has been a long time since the former COINTELPRO inquiries, and the similarities between some gang stalking reports and COINTELPRO crimes of earlier decades, it might also be UNSAFE to suppress the entry. And, deleting the entry would certainly pour fertiliser on the conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Allman (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this conspiracy POV-pushing has been an ongoing negative trend; note the history of it on Talk:Stalking, leading to emotional outbursts from dozens of IPs, etc. Interestingly enough, the NYT link provided to "evidence" that there is a distinction between psychosis and Gang Stalking paranoia is actually a far more instructive analysis of the mental issues involved, but certainly says nothing at all to substantiate that this is a real problem as opposed to a psychosis or "shared belief system." MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE, opponent arguments FAIL to address how this page does not qualify as a CONTROVERSY. There are clearly strong opinions on both sides.

Furthermore the affidavit by Ted Gunderson does relate Gang Stalking to COINTELPRO. And if not then only that section should be deleted.

The NYT article presents the psychosis point of view because this is a CONTROVERSY, that is what the title says. Advocates for deletion are clearly BIASED and only serve to reinforce the fact that this issue is properly defined as a controversy. --Paulc2 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — Paulc2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The few sources used that qualify as reliable do talk about gang stalking, but none of them mention anything about a controversy. Furthermore, we already have an article on cyberstalking. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: The National Center for Victims of Crime, the largest government funded victims' group is receiving thousands of calls every month complaining about gang stalking nationwide.Italic text'This can be verified ny ANYONE by calling (contact information removed). Surely there is a controversy as to whether there is a shared "delusional system" of countless thousanda of Americans or a COINTELPRO-style social engineering scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.217.169 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.89.217.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If the only way to verify the information is to contact the organization directly, then the information quite simply does not meet our guidelines for verifiability. What printed or online reliable source from a third party may we consult to verify the information? Please note that if there's no such source, then we'll have no choice but to side with the government that doesn't want you to know; however, we will not stand in your way when you take your information to Facebook or Twitter. (hint, hint...) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of any notable controversy here, in that no reliable sources have been produced that say that this is anything other than a delusional conspiracy theory. For related discussions about previous attempts to get this rubbish into Wikipedia see Talk:Stalking, WP:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and WP:articles for deletion/Cause stalking. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. There is an affidavit of a former FBI Chief on gang stalking. There is a link to a Santa Cruz Police Lieutenant's press conference on gang stalking. There are official D.O.J. documents showing 185,050 Americans stalked by teams or groups of between 2 and 50. Try reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.220.7 (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.89.220.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yup. I've read it all. Nothing that points to a C.O.N.T.R.O.V.E.R.S.Y. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don’t delete:~~ you may not !vote twice. A controversy is defined as: 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. 2. contention, strife, or argument.

There is a Federal case pending on this issue. The Judge is expected to rule on it any day.

If the court rules gang stalking is going on then deletion is going to put Wikipedia in a potentially embarrassing position.

The opponents here are irrationally biased therefore should not be taken seriously. --Paulc2 (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's nothing more than a court case to point to the existence of a dispute, then I think Wikipedia should take its chances with the possible embarassment. Otherwise, every instance of someone fighting a speeding ticket would warrant a Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real professional for Wiki Editors to censor a pro-article user from voting twice when anti-article users are posting four times. What percentage of Wiki Editors are salaried government employees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.218.64 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote multiple times, but you may add to the discussion without voting. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence for actual existence of the topic , at least as presented in the article. Not even a notable conspiracy theory. Amounts to publicity for the PI involved, and nothing more. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This belongs to cyberstalking. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete:'Bold textNot even a notable conspiracy theory?Italic text'Have you looked at the Hundreds of Thousands of Google search hits for "organized stalking", "group stalking", "gang stalking" and similar terms. Are you a joker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.220.161 (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.89.220.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy delete. This contrived controversy is a smoke screen intended to distract brainwashed mind control victims from the prize, going into the Bioethics Commission hearing two days from today, where many mind control victims will be testifying. There is no such thing as gang stalking; it's an illusion created through brainwashing. MoreAwakeThanYou (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Courcelles 00:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Stein[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 01:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:55, 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) 19:34, 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) 20:34, 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) 14:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was the lady whose centerfold appeared in the film Die Hard.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any more trivia about her? --Damiens.rf 16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect no evidence of multiple reliable sources with significant coverage beyond X is a Y that was Z. In this case "she was a woman that was a playboy bunny." And to carrite: I agree that mass deletions are troubling however that points to the need for a mass deletion policy, we need not keep all the bathwater only for fear of throwing out a baby, we can look at the article and make a reasoned decision. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [11]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1977. Courcelles 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Thomas[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 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1977. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 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]

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) 14:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:49, 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, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Not enough coverage in reliable sources for a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [12]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. Courcelles 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Verkaik[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 01:44, 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) 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hullaballoo. --John (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not enough coverage to require an individual article. Epbr123 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 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) 19:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dekkapai. Not notable as a Playmate, and not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. I would be opposed to redirecting/merging to a list. Robofish (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has sufficient coverage beyond playmatehood. See cites about recent study I just added that showed she is one of the top 10 most searched playmates on the internet (at #5).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- She's mentioned on passage, together with other playmates, in an article about her playmatehood. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [13]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Courcelles 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Wakelin[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 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Has some coverage, but not enough for an individual article. Epbr123 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:31, 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) 20:40, 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) 14:15, 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} 15:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [14]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1980. Courcelles 00:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Welch[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 criteria. Damiens.rf 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1980. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:31, 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) 20:41, 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) 14:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per comments at first AfD, mainstream appearances are sufficient to cross notability threshold applying apparently current "standards" for playmate articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First afd was no consensus and all keep votes were assuming she had enough of a career as an actress, which, unless I'm missing something, she doesn't. --Damiens.rf 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, of course, as someone who has nominated a slew of playmate articles for deletion and a bunch of them have been kept.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [15]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1998. Courcelles 00:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimber West[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 01:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1998. 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) 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - Two articles about her eight years apart. [16] about her playmatehood. [17] about her and her boutique (although you would have to see behind the paywall). Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 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} 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [18]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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]

Carrie Westcott[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 01:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not enough coverage to require an individual article. Epbr123 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 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) 20:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Despite ironic non-hometown article[19], that's the extent of the what seems like non-trivial coverage and it's behind a paywall so I can't gauge its depth.

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) 14:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unlike some of the recently redirected playmate articles, this one does seem to have more coverage out there. (Including hosting a show on MTV, see billboard ref added to article to confirm it, and B-movie starring roles, see NY times ref added to article.)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [20]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. Courcelles 00:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Wood[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 02:08, 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) 03:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 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) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - What seems like the only significant coverage is behind a paywall. [21] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 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) 14:12, 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} 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [22]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:18, 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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Courcelles 00:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Wood[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 02:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 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} 15:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [23]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:18, 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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Courcelles 00:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Greenberg[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [24]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:18, 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 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]

Jaime Hammer[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete She was never actually Playboy Playmate of the Month, which is about where I draw the line. She earned many recognitions that are a slight cut below. Hard to give any other credible reason for a keep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An in depth profile from the Phoenix New Times [25] in addition to numerous other coverage in reliable sources leaves no question as to her notability. BelloWello (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An Arizona newspaper interviewed the Arizona playmate by the time she appeared on Playboy's cover. We can safely expect this to happen to almost every playmate. This is the kind of playmatehood coveragethat I predicted on the nomination.
- Among those numerous other coverage in reliable sources you know, can you show us some of the non-trivial ones? They would justify keeping biography. --Damiens.rf 06:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a Playmate, but a Playboy "special editions" model, Penthouse Pet, and not-quite-hardcore-porn(yet) performer who doesn't have any coverage to satisfy WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, or the GNG (yet). The "in-depth" profile contains very little non-trivial information about the model, especially compared to the amount of kvetching she does about how little Playboy actually paid her. (It also reports her claim she would never pose for Penthouse, and we can see how accurate that was . . . ) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [26]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:18, 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 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]

Corinna Harney[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between google news hits, and movie appearances already in article, this person is clearly notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be missing something, but I don't think we can write an article from what I see on her Google News search. Did you find many non-trivial mentions? --Damiens.rf 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several of those articles appear to be substantive coverage, but they are behind pay-walls. Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [27], so keep for that reason as well. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1991. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Playmate of the Year is a well-known award satisfying criteria 1 of WP:PORNBIO. Several mainstream credits including starring role in The Road Home (2003 film) satisfies criteria 4 of PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the necessary significant coverage in reliable sources to meet our notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Playmate of the Year is sufficient for notability. We used to have a bright line rule that all playmates were notable so as to avoid excess wasted time on AfD. Now we enjoy wasting time on these AfDs, but at least we should set the bar here to avoid continued waste of time. None of this content is going to be deleted regardless of where it resides.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the appropriate list. Assuming that she doesn't meet the WP:GNG that is. As a former playboy playmate, her name is a plausible search term, and having a redlink for such an obviously plausible search term is unacceptable. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War 2 Victory[edit]

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

Seems to be a NN game - no assertion of notability. delete' - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scoured the online sources, could only find a light piece at Examiner.com which I can't link to, as it is blacklisted. Marasmusine (talk) 11:35, 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× ☎ 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WU LYF[edit]

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

Multiple issues regarding notability. Some attempts at CSD. Elevating to AFD for discussion. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With coverage already cited in the article from NME, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, and the BBC, plus these that could be added: [28], [29], [30], [31], and with airplay on BBC Radio 1, what exactly are these 'multiple issues regarding notability'? The band are clearly notable, and the latest attempt at speedy deletion was baffling given the coverage cited in the article at the time.--Michig (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the band has had articles written on them in several reliable sources, including the NME, the Observer, the Guardian (twice) and Rolling Stone. They have received coverage in several countries, including England, France, Holland, Austria and Italy. Their current tour takes them to many different countries, including UK, Australia, Germany, France, Portugal, USA, Japan and Norway. The article was previously deleted using CSD by the nominator and that decision was overturned at DRV here. Robman94 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No valid basis for deletion advanced. Article cites an array of reliable sources which in ordinary circumstances would demonstrate notability. There seems to have been an unusually strong push to summarily delete the article on an invalid speedy nom, as well as an unwarranted gutting of the article just prior to the AFD nomination, but neither of those remotely approaches grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to admit I'm usually pretty quick to try to pull the delete-trigger on band articles, but it definitely looks to me like the third party coverage here is enough to establish notability. Kevin (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Given the coverage this band has received in major RS, the article should never have been nominate. Keep per all the above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason for this band's notability is their intentional avoidance of all standards for notability. Although this reason may seem like the perfect recipe for allowing bands to subvert our standards of notability, this intentional strategy is documented in a reliable source.[32] -- llywrch (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:*I guess they failed then. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As shown above, notability seems to have been proven extremely well; Rolling Stone, BBC and everything. . . Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 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 redirect to High School Musical (film series)#Cast members. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manly "Little Pickles" Ortega[edit]

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

There are notable animals. This isn't one of them. Unsourced BLD. No reliable sources provided or found. (Previously deleted via prod (I'm counting the recreation as disputing the prod). Speedy categories and BLP prod seem not to apply.) SummerPhD (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad to say, this pooch seems to be getting the short end of the stick here. I've added some totally reliable sources to the article, but I think WP:GNG etc. are simply not designed to help dogs in need. *Sigh* Drmies (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's also unfortunate that WP:BLP doesn't protect him from the scandalous claims in that source that he is the father of that bitch Noodle's pups. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I sympathize with him, having gone through similar situations many a time. BTW, you know that A7 now also applies to animals, right? (Not in this case, of course--there is a claim to notability.) Drmies (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll keep that in mind for the next non-notable animal article I find. It'll probably be a while... - SummerPhD (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tell that to Paddy the Wanderer. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to High School Musical (film series)#Cast members where he is already mentioned and cited. While inclusion is suitable there, he does not have notability for his own article. It's not as if he were Rin Tin Tin, Lassie, or Benji. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that. But what redirect--this one, I guess, and Manly Ortega as well? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a redirect from Manly Ortega. (FWIW, it had previously been speedied as a G7.) The fate of this one will carry over to the redirect. In the seemingly unlikely event this is closed as a "keep", we might want to move the article to the redirect name, as I don't see the "Little Pickles" part on the dog's official bio page at Disney. Yes, the dog has an official bio. The Internet: The most powerful communications medium in history, primarily used for porn, stealing music and info on "famous" dogs. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent. The Disney bio actually does include that usage: "Born in Los Angeles, California, Master Manly Little Pickles of Fulton and Weddington (as his pedigree certificate reads) was a gift to Emmy Award-winning director and choreographer Kenny Ortega from his best friend, Kelly Gonda."[33] And too, New York Times' InBaseline also refers to the dog as "Manly 'Little Pickles' Ortega",[34] and it is again stated in Seattle Times,[35] so a second redirect from this one will work too. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I support whatever reasonable redirects someone wants to add (and I'm tempted to see just how many we can find), I have a more pressing matter: "Master"?! - SummerPhD (talk) 11:50, 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 withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rihards Gorkšs

Oļegs Malašenoks[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This article was previously kept on the ground that Oļegs Malašenoks had been called up to the Latvian national team, or that he had played in the Europa League. Both of these claims appear to be false. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new research has demonstrated notability. Giant Snowman 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Because he played for different states Top Leagues clubs and is still available for calling-up for main team --Noel baran (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are relevant to notability. The top leagues he has played in are not fully pro and therefore insufficient to grant notability under WP:NSPORT. The claim that he may be called up at some point is speculation, which is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, why Latvian league isn't "fully pro"? It's professional, not amateur. I agree that isn't Fußball-Bundesliga or other, but... I read this somewhat surprising, because in this way of thinking do possible to lot of footballers biographies!--Noel baran (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This player has played for the Latvian National Team in 2010 according to FK Jelgava team website. Oļegs Malašenoks biography Also this player played in the 2010–11 UEFA Europa League Molde vs FK Jelgava 2nd qual. round first leg The problem seems that those that want to delete immediately should do a little research. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. UEFA says that he played in the qualifying rounds of the Europa League which isn't enough, in my opinion. However, NFT, a site I find useful for national team players, says that he played for Latvia in 2010. He is included in the team here for a 2010 Baltic Cup match against Lithuania on 18 June 2010. I'm going to see if I can find anything more reliable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that quite bias since many countries have to have their teams go through the qualification process thus limiting their exposure to the high WP:NOTABILITY requirements which the Wiki Football team has set. Getting into European competitions even at the qualification level should be good enough, but thats not for this thread. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they have to go through qualifying rounds due to their league not being good enough isn't Wikipedia's fault. A player involved in a match between two semi-professional clubs (it can happen in qualifying) is not notable. Malašenoks has played for his country at senior international level so he is fine. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Malašenoks is included in the Latvian team for the match against Lithuania on the Latvian Football Federation and the Lithuanian Football Federation websites. As a Latvian international, he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As stated above, he is notable for having played for the Latvian national team. As nominator, I am prepared to withdraw this nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - His page should be updated to reflect his credentials so that this does not repeat. Sounds like a purrfect assignment for some Latvian who wants to improve their English skills. Brudder Andrusha (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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Academy of Scuba Educators[edit]

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

I have searched for reliable sources to establish notability and am unable to find any. The only references I can turn up are job postings and press releases, which do not signify notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 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) 00:04, 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, J04n(talk page) 14:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not counting Wee Curry Monster's second "keep" opinion. Sandstein 07:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Morison[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

long unreferenced biography of article with no clear notabillity and no significant changes in five years. Previous afd prevents me from prodding Sadads (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The U. S. Patent Office records show he held a patent, but that is a primary source. I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this person in depth (or at all). Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the patent office confirm he was one of the people to hold the patent to the proximity fuze? If so, we might be able to redirect instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable from a cursory search for a role in the development of the proximity fuze, a major advance in military technology. Meets notability criteria but needs improvement. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail WP:BIO, as I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. It's worth noting that, according to the obituary linked in the article, he only 'participated in the development and testing of the radio proximity fuse', not invented it; even if he had, he wouldn't necessarily be notable as a result, but my point is this is even less of a claim to notability than it first seems. Robofish (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Proximity fuze. Seems to be his only notable contribution to history. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single obit is not sufficient to meet basic WP:BIO guidelines. A merge/redirect to Proximity fuze could be problematic as that article has presently contains no mention of Morison's putative role in its development and I have no clue whether Morison is found in the other sources cited there. The obit is too vague to be useful in this regard. — Scientizzle 19:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having only taken a minor part in the invention of the proximity fuze, I doubt his name is a viable redirect. Other than that, he does not pass WP:BIO so no point in keeping the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The source only states that he "participated in" the development of the proximity fuze, not that he was "instrumental" to the development (as the article currently states). With no other sources to go on - very little on Google when searching for the combination of "Rodney Morrison" and "proximity fuze" except mirror sites - I don't really see anything worth even merging or redirecting. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced bio. obits in general don't satisfy WP:RS. no other sources found. but no objection to recreation if someone finds a reliable source. fails WP:BIO. -Atmoz (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This literally screams WP:SOFIXIT to me, we're too eager to delete these stubs without improving them. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So... Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue (band)[edit]

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

Does not seem notable Echetus Xe 13:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I checked all the major Progressive Rock sites, plus AllMusicGuide, and pretty much all I could find on the group was a review of their sole commercial release on Progressive World. The Wiki article itself has almost no real content; it's 90% unsourced rumors, speculation, and feeble attempts at humor.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:02, 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. The reason for the deletion nomination no longer exists, as the article is no longer blank. If the article is still deemed problematic, a new nomination would be needed to discuss any new problems it may have. Sandstein 05:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warwickshire Police Authority[edit]

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

Blank article, but contains tags, has previously been nominated for speedy deletion for copyright reasons on 6th May. I assume that deletion is contested as it has been recreated since deletion. Wintonian (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A3, no content. --Anthem of joy (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken the text out of the article as it seems that everytime I go to edit it it has changed from previous and therefore it would be easier to remain blank while you discuss the issue of the page. Warwickshire Police Authority is being referred to by another page (reason I chose to create it) which is therefore another concern for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashataylor (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A3 no longer applies.; and the original copyright-based deletion was wrong as OTRS clearance exists. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content (before it was blanked) into Warwickshire or other suitable existing article. This organization isn't notable on its own. Peacock (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The correct parent article would be Police authority, if we were going to merge. But Police authorities are a significant part of the administration of justice, here in the UK, and personally I'm of the view that they're inherently notable, being a relatively powerful and well-funded arm of government. I'll go with do not delete. As an interim measure I would accept a redirect to police authority or a merge to that article, but in the fullness of time Wikipedia should have a proper article with this title.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could redirect/ merge with Warwickshire Police --Wintonian (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the correct merge for a Wikipedia article on this topic would be with Warwickshire Police. The police authority is the statutory body responsible for policing, the police force the organisation discharging those duties. But clearly the information should not repeat general information applicable to all such bodies, and should be encyclopedic in form rather than merely duplicating information in another website. They are due to be replaced in 2012 under Government proposals. I agree with S Marshall that as statutory bodies with substantial powers GNG should not apply. In general I would prefer that information specific to each body be included under the matching police force if there is interesting to say about them, but if not they should qualify for an article in their own right. --AJHingston (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate either as a stub or a redirect to Warwickshire Police. Police authorities have a lot of power (as we know from the Ian Blair vs Boris Johnson war of 2005-2008), but the existing article (now blanked) looks like a reprint of a web page in a format unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. But there's no reason why someone shouldn't create a suitable article in its place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then recreate as a stub or redirect to Warwickshire Police per Chris Neville-Smith. The non-blanked version appears to be a copyright violation of the authority's website. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why the very first revision has "OTRS pending" on it, I should think, Thryduulf. It's clearly the police authority's intention to give Wikipedia permission to use their copyright; I think they just thought Wikipedia was a kind of free web host. Sashataylor's remark (above) implies that they think they ought to be able to control the content of "their" page, too. But it will be easy to educate them on these matters. Assuming there's OTRS permission I don't see why we'd want to hide the history by deleting it before we redirect.—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hadn't spotted the OTRS-pending tag. If acceptable OTRS permission is received then deletion before stubbification or redirect is indeed not needed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see the talk page. The OTRS permission has been confirmed/approved (and it's been confirmed since before this article went to AfD). Jenks24 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. An inherently notable organisation and not the same thing as the Warwickshire Police Service. Separate organisations should have separate articles, for reasons outlined in my blog post about local government articles. And why do we treat new editors and their contributions - which we solicit - this way? How many of you have offered support? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the aritcle is no longer blank. I've added new content. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I propose keep and improve article and then consider merger when the government next restructures, so you have a joint historical article. User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 11:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I admit that I didn't notice the WP:OTRS and I'm not sure I have come across it before, so obviously that’s not an issue, but I'm still not sure whether it warrants its own article? In that respect I would be happy to along with User:MikeBeckett or just merge anyway --Wintonian (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is now in a sufficiently rescued state. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:06, 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× ☎ 21:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apples & Ampalaya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Apples & Ampalaya

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

Contested PROD. The article gives no indication, and I have found none by searches, that this book meets the notability standard of WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the article makes no claim to notability and does not appear to have reviews available, Sadads (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable book. Moray An Par (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject of article does not appear to meet notability requirements for inclusion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find sources that could support notability. Besides, it has an Amazon Bestsellers Rank of #5,639,045. [36]. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the wikipedia servers are short of storage space and information about books has to be deleted. If you owned the book and if you were interested in Philippine history you might not be so ready to delete it. But Wikipedia is run by people who are very bossy, selective and restrictive about freedom of information.

The Reason it is so low on the Amazon list is because it is not published by a mainstream Publisher and distributed by a mainstread publisher worldwide. It is published in the Philippines, and as far as I'm aware, can only be sourced there. Therefore without proper advertising, thousands of people, who would otherwise be interested, are not aware of the book.

Go ahead and delete it if it will make you any happier.

Wikipedia imposes its own censorship and restriction of information on itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostradamus1566 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read the notability guidelines and understand that "it is very interesting" is not a criterion for inclusion. Wikipedia is not trying to be the encyclopedia about everything although one may argue that the "sum of all human knowledge" (what Wikipedia tries to be according to its founder) is indeed everything. In simple terms, one wouldn't want articles about every single person in the world written. That's simply absurd. The same case applies here. For that very reason, Wikipedia has to have guidelines for inclusion. Unless you can present reliable third-party sources that indicate that this book is notable, we can't have it here. Articles created here are not meant for advertising. And yes, making Wikipedia cleaner and better does make us happier, and I wish it also does it to you. I invite you to help us in these goals. Moray An Par (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:09, 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. Hoaxes do not qualify for speedy deltion. Owen× ☎ 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As We Become Men[edit]

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

I believe this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia due to the reason of being a work of fiction by 'juniors in high school', as said article states, and not an actual film-work in any kind of production. This should be in a Wiki, because Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Cocoloco19 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The section about the cast is entirely wishful thinking, not fact. This is simply not notable. Peacock (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MADEUP. This is a borderline hoax, and at best a fantasy. --Anthem of joy (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As impressive as an (expected) gross revenue of 16,000,000 is, this is just made up. Also note that most of the cast's articles were edited to include their participation (maybe) in the film - frankieMR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

HOAX???? the script I will post if you believe it is a hoax. you may be right that it is "wishful thinking but say it can't come true and watch what happens. Delete it. It is fine. Just wait and see. and the 16,000,000 is impressive, isn't? And do you know the director of Blue valentine wrote the screenplay when he was a "junior in high school." Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic78 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. I'd advise keeping an eye on the account as well, as it's been adding text to the actors' articles claiming they're in the film, an obvious BLP and V violation. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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 replaced by Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 15#Call recorder Andrevan@ 07:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call recorder[edit]

Call_recorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This redirect does not make sense. Call recorder is not equivalent to Telephone tapping. A call recorder is a hardware device that allows the recording of telephone calls, which may or may not constitute tapping.

Paul Robert Murphy (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to revoke this deletion request. Editor Andrevan pointed out that this should have been a redirect for discussion. Will do that now. Apologies for the mistak. Paul Robert Murphy (talk) 10:22, 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 keep. Several established editors have provided sources supporting the existence and notability of this entity. Sandstein 05:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galmudug[edit]

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

I have proposed this article to be deleted in accordance with the Wiki guidelines. The article portrays a new state within a state. But when you search around the internet (i.e Google.com) the first article that shows up on "Galmudug", is this one. It seems to me that these breakaway regions are popping up everywhere but with no real leadership and it looks to me, after careful examining this article that it does not meet Wikipedia standards nor does it seem to portray reality on the ground. It represents an article on a state that has control over its territory though there's little mention of such entity in Somalia other than that of Somaliland and Puntland.

I believe this article was made up purely to support a individuals course. 26oo (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Galmudug is an autonomous region in Somalia. THIS IS A FACT. I read the news on Puntland, Somaliland, and Somalia virtually every day, and Galmudug repeatedly comes up. Galmudug, admittedly, controls little outside of South Galkayo. To VERIFY FOR YOURSELF, however, that THIS IS TRUE, simply search in GOOGLE NEWS 'Galmudug.' You will get SHITLOADS OF STUFF VERIFYING THAT GALMUDUG IS A VIABLE, ACTIVE ADMINISTRATION ON THE GROUND. The same cannot be said for Awdalland or SSC, however, which really only exist on paper (SSC does not have much administrative structures, is mostly just a political movement/militia; Awdalland does not really have militia or structures on the ground as Somaliland pretty much exerts full control over its west). Galmudug IS ON THE GROUND, HAS STRUCTURES, but is weak and limited to a few settlements around Galkayo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgog1 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Galmudug is an autonomous region in Somalia. A weak administration to be sure, but an administration all the same. More such autonomous polities are starting to pop up in the country because the new national draft constitution allows them under a federal system of governance, wherein power is shared between the central government and autonomous regional entities. The Galmudug administration is already mentioned on the Somalia page, as well as the States and regions of Somalia article. It is also recognized by other autonomous states in Somalia as such, including Puntland (c.f. Galmudug Accord [37]). Middayexpress (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does appear to be the de facto governing block in this region, if not officially recognized as such by various nations. This seems to be constantly referred to as the "Galmudug state" by many sources. [38][39][40][41][42]--Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Middayexpress and Oakshade. The fact that this article is the first result in a Google search is meaningless, as the same applies to any number of topics (e.g. "peanut"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also add AFP as a source: [43]. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galmudug has no control over Galkacyo nor its own territory. It was created by people in the diaspora. I suggest you search (in Google.com) the following things; Ximan and Xeeb, Awdal State, Ras Aseyr. You will see that these are "states within states" as well. ^[1]^[2] Is anyone allowed to create there own state and get publicity through wikipedia? Ok, I call mine, WallaceLand, I will tell people I own the southern part of Milton Keynes26oo (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If WallaceLand garnered the significant coverage as this topic has, then that can have an article too. Good luck with that. --Oakshade (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That first link you footnoted above doesn't mention Galmudug, and the second link is a blog (a self-published source; see WP:SPS). Middayexpress (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not blogs, I urge you to check again.^[3]^[4] If you would bother to read the articles and my post it's not suppose to read "Galmudug" but rather show you that these so-called states are only in name and have no diplomatic relationships outside Somalia and no influence inside Somalia. Its existence is only in name so far. Another article I would want to refer you to is Ximan iyo xeeb. This clearly shows another article which is being build up from nothing. Also I have checked the The World Factbook and found that "Galmudug" was not mentioned under 'Government'.^[5] I also looked at the United Nations profile and found no other information. It looks to me it's rather individuals which are calling themselves Galmudug State. 26oo (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)26oo (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ximan and Xeeb Ximan and Xeeb is a LEGITIMATE administration controlling territory in central Somalia. The reason you may not have been able to verify its existence is that XIMAN AND XEEB, UNLIKE THE OTHER 'STATES,' IS ALLIED TO AL-SHABAAB. This means that it gets lumped in with Al-Shabaab and most of the stuff written about it is in Somali. It is not allied with the TFG. Also, Ras Asayr is not a NAME ONLY place. There is an active revolt happening in Puntland; Puntland acknowledges this: http://www.raxanreeb.com/?p=95262 . That said, my guess is that Puntland WILL suppress Ras Asayr. I doubt Ras Asayr will be able to secede from Puntland, just like Puntland negotiated to have Maakhir come back into the fold. The situation in Somalia IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX. Some states are name only (Awdalland, Azania for the most part), others are newly declared with few structures, just militia, (Ras Asayr and SSC), others exist and have administrations but are extremely small and weak (Ximan iyo Xeeb, Galmudug). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgog1 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid that first link [44] you footnoted above doesn't mention Galmudug, and the second link, Somalilandpress [45], is most certainly a blog (a self-published source). It is, however, very appropriate that you should bring up the UN, since the UN itself officially acknowledges the existence of the Galmudug administration and actually invited it, alongside Puntland and other regions in Somalia, to participate in a consultative meeting just last month. Middayexpress (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, it's not suppose to mention "Galmudug", it's suppose to show anyone can declare a state and seems to have done so in this case and others. SomalilandPress is a reputable press-outlet in Somalia. It is a news outlet and you are just making stuff up. This is rather annoying. I think the third party, monitoring this conversation will see to that. To further prove my case I will I urge you to look at the citation in the Somaliland article and you will see that [39] is an article from the supposed blog.^[6] You have your facts wrong. The United Nations invitation to individuals doesn't mean it recognises the existence of that entity. Taiwan is not recognised by the UN and has been invited to UN-affiliated organisations.^[7]^[8] 26oo (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SomalilandPress is unfortunately a blog i.e. a self-published source ("the Government friendly SomalilandPress blog" [46]). As such, pointing to its use on other pages in Wikipedia only suggests that it should be removed from those pages too. Further, that Taiwan analogy is irrelevant; unlike Taiwan, Galmudug does not seek recognition as or consider itself an independent nation (nor does any region in Somalia, except of course for Somaliland) nor is it regarded as such by any polity in the world. I meant that the UN itself officially acknowledges the existence of the Galmudug administration as a region in Somalia, not as an independent nation. That is why I wrote that the UN "actually invited it, alongside Puntland and other regions in Somalia, to participate in a consultative meeting just last month". Bottom line, this deletion case is about the notability of Galmudug as a topic for a stand-alone Wikipedia article -- something which the other editors above have already established with little difficulty. The converse cannot be said. Middayexpress (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. First you said it doesn't exist, now you claim lack of notability? For a state-level administration? What is wrong with you? Ingoman (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somalis Please[edit]

It's a fun trick that you have learned to use the Wikipedia's insane deletion policies in order to get articles about other clans stuff deleted, and I have to admit I do find it amusing, but can we give it a rest please? You guys are embarrassing yourselves. Ingoman (talk) 19:06, 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) 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark S. A. Smith[edit]

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

No indication of importance, fails WP:N. All reliable sources linked in the article are not actually coverage of the subject but coverage of organizations he was involved in. High number of self-published sources that do not establish notability. BelloWello (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:BIO, no indication of substantive third party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator BelloWello has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Is this AfD still valid? OCNative (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the nominator's status, the subject of this article fails notability. No independent reliable sourcing about him found. Claim to fame is some self-published and online books. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Alice Springs[edit]

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

An attack page. Selective picking from a few sensationalist beat ups of a short term rise in crime. A tabloid style piece promoting a cause, trying to make a town look bad. This article does not reflect the story of crime in Alice Springs, it's just an agenda pushing read on a news event. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is necessary that there is an article under this title, as Alice Springs does indeed have major crime problems. However the current content on the article is utterly biased and could easily be seen as racist, wheter this is the intention or not, stating that the main problem with crime is due to the black Aboriginal people. The article is needed but it needs to be completly rewritten, or deleted and recreated anew. User Talk:Pingu.dbl96 —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Merge with Alice Springs. It seems well sourced, but I don't think we need an independent article about crime in a town of 27,000 people. --Anthem of joy (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to parent article, Crime in the Northern Territory which needs the content. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against a merge. This poorly sourced page does not in any way reflect the true story of crime in Alice Springs, it is a short snapshot that you get from the news and Wikipedia is not the news. This info is sensationalist and misleading where ever it may be. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable topic, other Australian cities have similar articles. Ignorant Armie s 08:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articleworthy topic. Censorship for political correctness is not what Wikipedia is about. Moondyne (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Moondyne.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems well sourced and factual. - Longhair\^talk 09:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Moondyne and Longhair Satu Suro 15:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Groundless nomination. Trantsbugle (talk) 16:20, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speers Ponder[edit]

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

Mid-level army officer and minor academic. No indication in article that topic meets WP:BIO, no third party sourcing (either in article or locatable through Google News/Books). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too little coverage to demonstrate notability under either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems clear that he does not pass WP:PROF for his academic work, so we have to rely on WP:BIO for his military work. But the sources that have been provided are completely inadequate for that: we don't have any third-party sources that cover him in any depth, instead we have two sources that merely name-check him and two patents he wrote (not third-party). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, insufficient coverage to establish notability. bW 08:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck the comments of User:BelloWello, who has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. OCNative (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. As a military man, he doesn't seem to have had any significance (no important commands/roles, no significant advances, no awards, etc.) per WP:MILPEOPLE. There's also some gaps in his history that lend me to think his duties and accomplishments were routine in nature, namely, what exactly was he doing in WWII (the current "served in a variety of theaters" is far to vague to mean anything)? What about Korea? What was his role in the Chemical Corps? I can't speak very intelligently to his academic role, but it does seem he fails WP:PROF. Add to that a general WP:BIO and WP:GNG failures, the article doesn't have a leg to stand on. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Australian Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying[edit]

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

Parallel with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Wimbledon Championships - Girls' Singles Qualifying: tournament is very notable, junior tournament is also notable, but the qualification for it isn't. Fails WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

2011 Australian Open – Girls' Singles Qualifying
2010 Australian Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying
2010 Australian Open – Girls' Singles Qualifying
2010 French Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying
2010 French Open – Girls' Singles Qualifying
2010 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying
2010 US Open – Girls' Singles Qualifying
2009 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying
2009 US Open – Girls' Singles Qualifying

Delete per arguments of previous AfDs.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:Sports event and WP:TENNIS. Moondyne (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with everything said above. Jenks24 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete junior tournaments are not notable; far less are qualifyings to junior tournaments, regardless of whether being to Grand Slams or not.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 18:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beaumont[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. no coverage for this artist except one passing mention in an article in gnews [47]. the awards are minor local awards. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all criteria at WP:ARTIST. Awards at country shows are not notable. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 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× ☎ 18:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram Gurbanov[edit]

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

Technical nomination. This article was PRODed by anon editor, but after that was DEPRODed by potentially COI editor. Reason for PROD was lack of reliable sources. Beagel (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don`t understand one moment. I gave a number of references and external links,so..why article has to be deleted ? Fuadenbaum

Please do not remove the AfD tag before the discussion is closed. For sources, please see WP:RS, which sources are satisfying reliable sources criteria. Also, most of information you re-added to the article qualifies as corporate spam and should be removed. Removing this, there is no sources about Bahram Gurbanov. Beagel (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All references given in the article are affiliated with the subject and his enterprise and the 1newz statement is about the GRBS centre, not explicitely about Gurbanov. No independent proof of notability. De728631 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources for notability. --Muhandes (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for information. How can I prove that all information in article are true ? because I have not a lot of reliable sources. --Fuadenbaum —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You are missing the point. The first question would be is this person notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Did the person receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person? If the answer is that you do not have enough reliable independent secondary sources, the person is not notable per the relevant guideline, and should be removed. And if you keep removing the AfD notice from the page despite repeating warnings, you will be blocked. --Muhandes (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The article seems to be written/maintained by a copywriter. No reliable sources, all references listed seem to be not about the subject but about something else (with claimed connection to the subject). Not notable per WP policies. 208.123.163.171 (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Tuke (cartographer and surveyer)[edit]

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

Obscure 19th century cartographer of Northern England. No articulation of any particular notability, no indication of substantive coverage from {{find}}. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. For anybody who wants to check or consider further, note that the Tukes were a prominent York Quaker family, of whom the best remembered is William Tuke whose entry really does deserve expansion, and several were called John. This one was born c1758 and died 1841. The comment that he is known only for three maps is wrong (booksellers are not all reliable sources) and his most significant work is his General View Of The Agriculture Of The North Riding Of Yorkshire (1800) which runs to 355 pages. It is referred to by academic writers but has not in my view been of sufficient interest to pass the notability criteria. --AJHingston (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerSmarts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are a couple of hits for this behind from 1987 that are behind newspaper paywalls. Best I can tell from the free access though, the most any of those are saying is that its an expensive educational Christmas gift, a generic statment made about dozens of items every year, and one that does not establish notability. As such, this fails the notability guideline. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources that were apparently overlooked include this and this. It also should be understood that, since the product is from 1987, it is highly likely that most sources cannot be found online. Silverseren^C 07:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't "overlook" them, I discounted them. The second one has absolutely no context, just the name of the product. The first one is a glorified advertisement, and that coverage reaches the point of "there is proof that this item exists" but not the point of "this is notable". That a website, even a newspaper or magazine, mentions a product is not enough to establish notability. The sources themselves need to indicate the notability. There isn't any here, as far as I can tell. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be noticeable, nor does it seem to have had a lasting effect, unlike Tickle Me Elmo. [The first link above appears to be a passing mention when discussing the company, and the second one may not be a reliable source; aren't sections like that usually paid for by the companies? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with VideoSmarts, the sources smell of press-kits, and it seems we are beyond the suggestion of merging everything to Connor Toy Corporation. Marasmusine (talk) 11:51, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young radicals[edit]

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

No indication of importance for this student organization. There are no results related to this 1920s club in a google news including "Columbia University" where it was ostensibly active. I considered proding but perhaps some editor can uncover something that Google doesn't know about. BelloWello (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't a "university club" and was improperly stubbed as politically-related rather than philosophy-related. This seems to be a group of philosophy co-thinkers, a trend, something like Young Hegelians. I have no opinion as to inclusion-worthiness myself, but be sure you are looking in the right places for additional sourcing and please do tread lightly here. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to reiterate Carrite's point above, we are definitely talking about a group characterised by intellectual affinity – more Vienna Circle than Marlowe Society. I'd be a lot less inclined towards deletion than if this were such an organisation. Skomorokh 23:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have significant coverage in reliable sources for that? I looked quite extensively both when I nominated and after Carrite's comment and didn't come up with anything significant. bW 23:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pardon? I did not address sourcing in my initial comment, only the scope of the topic at hand. Skomorokh 00:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, alright, I reread your comment, I completely misread it. My bad. bW 04:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source listed indicates that these are philosophers of the school of pragmatic naturalism. That title (which is currently a redlink) might make a good topic as there are books devoted to it. Young radicals is not a useful search term though as it does not seem to be the name of the school and so the phrase is just being used in a general way. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by Colonel Warden, the term itself is not useful when searching for reliable sources; hundreds upon thousands of passing mentions that we would have to sift through to find information on this group, if reliable sources even exist online. That seems to be the epitome of not verifiable to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator BelloWello has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Is this AfD still valid? OCNative (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It galls me than a fairly incompetent deletion nomination by a blocked editor is going to stand, but the Colonel's point above that the search term is insufficient and unlikely to be used in searching Wikipedia is a good one. I still have a strong hunch that there is probably an article here, but it may well be best if somebody takes that on from scratch at some future date. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the ANI board regarding the mass nomination of pornographic actresses, RL0919 mentioned that, as long as there are delete votes, the nominator's status is irrelevant. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. WP:SNOW closure. Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Awesome Party/Conservatives only[edit]

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

Organization that clearly fails the notability guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Nominating to AfD to have a deletion discussion so that this can be salted if created again. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm shocked and awed... 20 members... on facebook... and... no coverage at all? I'm not cynical enough to cry "salt it", generally at least one recreation is needed first, but that aside, this article is a promotional piece for an organization that clearly fails notability guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found in a good faith search. - Pointillist (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-group, just like last time. Hairhorn (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't know there was a last time. In that case, we should let this run out so that it can be salted, or at the very least, allow db-recreated to come into play. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or not. On a quick second thought another speedy and an IAR salt wouldn't bother me at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was really thinking of a salt after the next recreation, not this one, but either way, I think this deletion discussion would be enough for a G4 or salt, even if gets speedy deleted here. (though I'm not sure if the current version is the best case for a speedy) Monty ₈₄₅ 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with an inclination towards the speedy. As impressive as a group that has "skyrocketed in membership from 12 to over 20" must surely be, fails to meet any of the criteria for notability. - Dravecky (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability My76Strat (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I found this to be an enlightening in depth article on an innovative political system. I heard from many news sources that they will publish more information about it soon. 3:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)— Oysterizer Insomniac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete 20 members = non-notable. GabrielF (talk) 03:57, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Utes football under Ron McBride[edit]

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

This article has been split into 13 separate articles. This duplicates those 13 articles and information found in the Ron McBride article. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreate. As it stands now, the article is duplication. However, it is very possible that the article could stand alone with additional details and information--it just isn't there right now. If the article is expanded to be more than a re-hash of what already exists, I'd certainly change my position. If deleted, an appropriate re-direct should be made (which, technically isn't a delete... but you guys know what I mean).--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the original author of the article, and it has served its purpose. The recently-created 13 separate articles will do a better job now. DeFaultRyan 15:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason we shouldn't just blank the article and redirect? Or maybe use a WP:SPEEDY G7 (author requests deletion)? I'd lean towards the redirect for now...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I would not object to a redirect. I nominated the article to get a full opportunity for others to comment. However, what would it redirect to? The main Ron McBride article? —Ute in DC (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking. Right now, it's really a robust disambiguation page. BUt more comments would be good, there's no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:30, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Singers of All Time[edit]

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

Listcruft, possible copyvio, no substance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are third party sources covering list. See google news archive. --CutOffTies (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may need a rename though if it is not referring exclusively to the Rolling Stone list. We also have some precedent for keeping articles like this. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete First of all, if this is going to get kept, the name needs to be changed to "Rolling Stone 100 Greatest Singers of All Time". Second of all, this might have coverage, but it's pure opinion. Notable magazine or not, we're regurgitating... partially even... someone else's subjective opinion and passing it off as objective fact. The issue of copyright comes into play when we begin regurgitating other people's lists. All in all, I think this is better off getting the axe. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did a move to remove Rolling Stone from the title per the title of the articles in Crisco's comments. The list voters are not necessarily associated with Rolling Stone magazine. As for the copyvio, precedent is to list the top ten. I asked about this here. --CutOffTies (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the precedent is that way, and it would be enough to satisfy most people. For those who want to see the full list, there is a link at the bottom. The only way we could include the whole thing is if Rolling Stone explicitly granted permission, but that's unlikely. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that even that precedent is iffy per the Wikimedia Foundation attorney's advice. See her feedback here. I've reduced the list to the top 10, but this is not really safe practice according to her. I've been meaning for almost two months now to launch an RfC about this, but it keeps getting shoved aside by more urgent considerations (see User talk:Moonriddengirl/sandbox)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to discuss it there. If the proper person contacted Rolling Stone to get permission (full or partial) would be nice too, although it could end up with us not including the list. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For what I can read from the feedback the list is definitely one best left unapproached without such permission. Kudos if there is, but still the title's gotta change like Sven Manguard said - frankieMR (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as copyright infringement per Wikimedia Foundation legal opinion (See Moonriddengirl's link) -- this exists only as a direct copy of a subjective list. Even it wasn't a copyvio, the title is terribly misleading. Greatest Singers? Throughout the world? Throughout History? Really? Note there are no pre-rock singers (Frank Sinatra}, no jazz singers (Billy Holliday), no foreign language singers (Edith Piaf), no operatic singers (Luciano Pavarotti) and there can't be any singers after 2008. The best that can be said is this is a List of Rolling Stone Magazine's suggested greatest pop rock singers in the United States music market between 1950 and 2008. Otherwise, this is a geocentric, time-constrained POV that should not be presented as if it were a worldview encyclopedic fact. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sven Manguard and CactusWriter. --Klein zach 23:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is permission - frankieMR (talk) 23:49, 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) 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Prysner[edit]

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

PROD contested because it was added "3 minutes after a new article is created" Fails WP:POLITICIAN - not been elected to anything (received just six write-in votes), has no coverage in reliable sources that that address the subject directly in detail in that are independent of the subject so fails the WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you look at the actual coverage, there is significant, independent coverage of the person. This interview is extensive and so is this one. This one quotes him fairly extensively as well. It seems he is a fairly notable anti-war activist.--TM 03:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I removed the prod because I feel that you could not have looked over the large number of sources provided in the time between the article's creation and 3 minutes later when you prodded it. Unless it is utter nonsense, I think it is better to give the author some time to expand and improve it before trying to delete an article that may or may not be notable.--TM 03:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at carolhansengrey.com one it is written by the subject. None of the other sources given are main stream reliable sources. with the exception of the sun-sentinel and this is just quoting him and uses phrases such as "Prysner says he served ...." a journalistic tool indicating that they have not researched this person and are relying on what he is saying. He IMO is not worthy of encyclopaedic note Mtking (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Purely trivial coverage of his positions, no coverage of him per se, as required by notability criteria. Ray^Talk 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Frothing up a lot of bubbles on the Internet does not create notability. -- Donald Albury 23:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What say you wish to delete to this source? It looks substantial and independent to me.--TM 03:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty clearly an antiwar advocacy site, of dubious reliability and independence when it comes to evaluating the notability of an antiwar advocate. Ray^Talk 03:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is from a website called "antiwar.com", not what you could call a well respected, and if you look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard you will see that they are not regarded as a reliable source. Mtking (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not what the discussion says. The discussion is referring to using antiwar.com as a source for criticism. Moreover, there is a basic disagreement and no consensus even on that issue. Do we use governmental biographies for politicians? Wouldn't you say they are they clearly advocating a position? For biographies, it doesn't matter if the source is biased towards anti-war opinions and whatnot. It matters if it is is substantive and independent, which it is.--TM 11:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International news network RT interviewed Prysner in detail. WP:BEFORE you nominate an article for deletion, you are expected to make a reasonable effort to find sources. You very clearly did not do this. The hasty prod and Afd nomination cycle here is an example of why it is reasonable to wait and perhaps do a google search before nominating.--TM 11:55, 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) 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Glick[edit]

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

The article's subject is known only for one event. Sad, but there seems to be little encyclopaedic notability. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the various criteria in WP:EVENT. No coverage outside of the regional area. Location (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a news repository, nor a list of all the murders in the world. His death is sad, but it does not seem to be a notable one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were 155 murders in the state of Minnesota in 1993. Most of them received little notice in the local media. This murder was well documented for 2 years. The sources include only print sources in a couple of papers that are easily accessible through library databases, thus excluding radio and television coverage, as well as print matter that was not digitized. David Straub (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why should we delete so many crime articles so lightly.. I dont see any issues with having thi article who has been on wikipedia since 2006 on. If no one has spotted a problem with it for so many years I find it hard to believe there to be a cause of concern. Also regional story doesnt equal non-notable per fact, also Wikipedia is infact built on news.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT, and if the article has been up since 2006, that's not a reason to keep it, just more evidence there are likely many older articles out there about non-notable subjects people haven't reviewed yet.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That city probably has a homicide every other month; we could probably write an article like this on each of them. The fact that it is possible to write such articles doesn't mean that it's desirable for Wikipedia to have articles on run of the mill crimes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the WP:MILL doesn't hack it here. Take a look at the page, it refers to names of stores and prep-sports athletes.David Straub (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The murder of Brian Glick was a significant event in Minnesota in 1993-95. While the deceased was not notable, the event was widely covered in the state media, particularly for it's brutality. This article is based on [Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources] and occurred at the dawn of the internet age and is therefore not well represented through simple google searches. From 1993 to 1995 there were 482 murders in the state of Minnesota and including one that was well covered is very much encyclopedic. I've published articles in several hard print encyclopedia's published by academic publishers (Encyclopedia of the Jewish diaspora, (Encyclopedia of the Veteran in America), (Worldmark Encyclopedia of Cultures and Daily Life) and I can say that idea that an article would not appear in a standard 10 volume encyclopedia of everything is irrelevant, as there are hundreds of specialized encyclopedia's published each year. Notability in academia is determined by context and in this article the context is Minnesota, not the world (and the article is tagged appropriately). If we just want this site to be a wikibritannica, then the name should be changed.David Straub (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:VICTIM. The test is long standing notability as per WP:EVENT. Not if it was just got a lot of coverage in Minnesota at the time. LibStar (talk) 15:31, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 02:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brookshier[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG (no reliable secondary sources). Ring2011 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient notability, as above. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The subject of this AfD was not properly tagged (or tagged at all) until 04:43, April 24 [48]. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also notified the page creator which was not done, and removed the CSD A9, as the subject is not a musical recording. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no coverage in gnews of his role. imdb confirms he has only worked on 1 notable production. that does not get him notability. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was nominated for a PrimeTime Emmy Awards which is notable. Gsearch brought additional sources which have added to the page. Readorama (talk) 11:44, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sallans[edit]

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

There is no notability except for media coverage that exists only because of the sexuality issue(WP:ONEVENT).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable transmen. WP:1EVENT because of his only appearance on local live newspaper where he talked about his financial problems while battling his gender issue. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least 2 reliable sources have done a feature on him satisfying WP:BASIC. [49] [50] [51] His article has been fleshed out with more sources including several more media appearances. Ziperof ^talk 01:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources given so far suggest he's famous for being famous. Media appearances are not sufficient. SparsityProblem (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ziperof, I find the existing coverage to be substantial and adequate. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Changing your sex and telling other people about it does not make someone notable.--Burkina Faso (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Ziperof. The article does satisfy the bare minimum standard for notability. —Tim Pierce (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources verify WP:ONEVENT, because the media coverage came us a result of the sex change.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The coverage in the two sources that are specifically about Sallans (as opposed to articles which cover him in passing) are more about his ongoing speaking engagements than about the event of his transitioning. Like I said, I think it's weak, but qualifies. —Tim Pierce (talk) 14:45, 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! 03:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient coverage for notability. We do not concern ourselves with the reasons for which our article subjects are covered by the media; notability is independent of any personal merits of the subject or the reasons for why they may become famous. BLP1E does not apply, as the subject's fame is not tied to any particular notable event. Sandstein 05:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G3. I call bovine fertilizer. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 13th School Gang episodes[edit]

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

No context and no main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G3. I'm really unable to find anything about a "13th School Gang" or variations of it (nothing for "Tomorrowcast: The series of Tomorrow" either), and the article claims that there were 16 seasons with 400 episodes and 10 movies. So either this is a blatant hoax, or I want Google to give me my money back - frankieMR (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 23:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda McLean[edit]

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

Found a few trivial mentions for this singer/songwriter but not enough to meet GNG and I don't believe any of her accomplishments approach MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 17:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment–The article editor named Linda Snefjella may be an alias for Linda McLean.[52]—RJH (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:BAND #5. McLean has signed to the European label Rounder Records. The artist has received recognition in Canada as evidenced by the Exclaim! review [53]. The article needs TLC not Deletion. I have started with structuring the article and the addition of a Template:Infobox musical artist. Argolin (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No claim of notability. Keb25 (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this point, claim of notability is WP:BAND #5. Argolin (talk) 04:31, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:42, 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× ☎ 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondhand obesity[edit]

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

Neologism with little notability beyond political posturing. Article was started with a passing reference to a political talk show as its only "source". Shortly thereafter, two weak sources were added: a forum posting to a "smoker's rights" site griping about "nanny state" issues and an obesity group discussing causes of obesity (without really saying anything relevant to this article). No reliable sources provided or found. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as WP:NEOLOGISM --CliffC (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is research in this area, but this term is of new coinage. JFW | T@lk 09:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IDONTLIKEIT-motivated nomination. this and this reference prove its notability. There are enough coverage in google news search --Reference Desker (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My motivation was lack of notability. Your first link give me a notice that the viewing limit has been exceeded. The second one tells us that "there was no concept of passive smoking, let alone 'passive drinking' or 'secondhand obesity'", which hardly seems like meaningful coverage of the concept, IMO. If you feel there is enough coverage in a google search, please provide the sources you are finding in that search. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International Brigades#Data. NW (Talk) 01:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Brigades data[edit]

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

All of this could be in the main article and the main article is itself "data". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to International_Brigades#Data; clear overlap, nothing lost in merging, I don't think we need to wait the full week for this one. Skomorokh 07:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've updated (and checked the sources) for the table in International Brigades with all the sourced data from here. This is now pretty much redundant. Roger Davies ^talk 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete: redundant. Since Roger has already merged, we can kill it, as it has no value as a redirect. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:55, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering flowers[edit]

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

This is a how-to; not something we do. It has, unsurprisingly, also become a spam magnet. Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam. Not an encyclopedic topic, nor a useful list. Carrite (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:ADVERT. Well written, organized, and referenced but nonetheless it's still industry spamming timed very conveniently for Mother's Day. Mariepr (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Σ _☭^★ 02:10, 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 keep. ~~No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator.~~ The closer is a dumbass but the consensus is to keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős–Bacon number[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is nothing but a listing of nonnotable trivia related to an offshoot of two other bits of trivia. The cvast majority of the content is original research, and the sources used for that original research are IMDB, the "oracle of Bacon" and others that fail WP:RS quite dramatically. The sources used that count per Wikipedia standard are used to source information other than tje Erdos-Bacon number and do not in any way demonstrate the notability of this this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would agree that IMDb is not a reliable source for trivia, movie goofs, etc., but their cast lists are not user-submitted and have editorial oversight. The great majority of IMDb cast lists are taken from the film itself (just as Wikipedia plot summaries are taken from the film itself) and/or directly from the movie producers. "Oracle of Bacon" is simply a computer program that calculates Bacon numbers based on the IMDb cast lists, and is easily verifiable by checking the links through IMDb. Most of the Erdős connections are acquired through an academic database. It is not "nonnotable trivia" because all of the items have a common connection that is rare and interesting. As was said on Talk:Natalie Portman (who has a finite EB number), her EB number certainly isn't the most notable aspect of her life, but it adds a dimension that makes her a far more interesting actress to many of us. It's certainly as notable as Lindsay Lohan's bisexual experimentation and illegal escapades, and I don't see very many people jumping up and down to try to remove that non-notable trivia. EB number isn't the most notable article on Wikipedia, but we have to ask ourselves: will we attract a broad spectrum of readers (and, in turn, new editors) with dry articles that make those in academia happy, or will we allow some well-sourced articles that have a broader appeal. Cresix (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The number of books and news articles referring to this concept, while not very large, is enough to convince me that it passes WP:GNG. Being inherently inaccurate is not a deletion rationale. It doesn't matter whether the oracle of Bacon is itself a reliable source, because the article isn't (or shouldn't be) sourced by the oracle, it's about information from the oracle. And yes, it's a bit silly, but then I just spent the last few minutes improving paper fortune teller; silliness isn't a deletion rationale either. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is quite well known[54]. If there are poor examples (I think one guy on the list claims his Erdos number from a patent application), those can be dealt with, but the article should exist and should mention people like Natalie Portman and Brian Greene who very legitimately have finite Erdos-Bacon numbers. Oh, and if the Erdos and Bacon numbers are suitably documented, adding them isn't an OR violation. The people who keep complaining about this article are just jealous because they don't have one. (Can't blame them for that, I'm jealous too; just don't see it as grounds to delete.) 76.244.155.165 (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Additional sources: Haunsperger, Deanna; Kennedy, Stephen (2007). The Edge of the Universe: Celebrating Ten Years of Math Horizons. MAA spectrum. Mathematical Association of America. p. 76. ISBN 0883855550. International journal of advertising. 27 (1–2): 334. 2008. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: My Erdos-Bacon number is 6. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep as topic meets criteria of WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and of general interest. Hilmar (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because it's a real thing that is now a part of culture. Also please stop modelling wikipedia in terms of the limitations of a paper encyclopedia. I don't mean to troll or anything but I don't see any rationale in deleting something simply because not everyone knows about it. This article is not spam or an ad, and it's not some esoteric trivia about an RPG game or something, so keep! If that makes me an inclusionist, so be it. Alex.g (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well written and well sourced article on clearly notable subject. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, used even in scientific papers. RedAndr (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly trivial (but keep Erdos number). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – somewhat trivial indeed, the topic is clearly notable, and that is what counts. --Lambiam 23:18, 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 merge to Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Beach Public Policy[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, full of original research and items with limited relationships to each other. What little (if any) of this is actually encyclopedic, belongs in the actual article Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California. Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is being developed and already has 13 references. Public planning for the environmental protection of Ocean Beach is an important and notable issue in San Francisco. In addition, "this article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of San Francisco supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the Spring 2011 term." It would be a negative to this important educational outreach program to delete this article at this time. Disclosure: I am a volunteer with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and participated in a presentation to the class that is working on this and other public policy articles. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom's reasoning is sound. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking widespread notability. I can certainly imagine a paragraph about this topic in a more general article about the area or maybe about related issues. Per nom, seems like it's reeeeeally stretching to find substantial independent coverage on the specific topic itself rather than editors' synthesis to make articles on the issues related to it seem related enough to support the notability of this specific topic. I could envision several more general "public policy and the environment" articles that could therefore draw articles on multiple implementations and higher-level relationships, but the focus here (this policy-set for this location) doesn't seem like it can stand as its own article. AfD is a week long, so hopefully the students can dig up some broader refs that still mention this actual location/policy to illustrate notability, and I'd happily re-evaluate. DMacks (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that some of the sections in this article are problematic. The section "Access and Connectivity" consists of history of the beach (better relegated to the article on the beach) followed by speculation ("a possible shift"). Most of the section "Coastal Dynamics & Climate Change" discusses climate change broadly and is more appropriate for that article, while the part about the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Plant is more relevant to the article on the beach. The suggested solutions for the Great Highway problem in the "Infrastructure" section are not clearly sourced to a third party and so currently run afoul of Wikipedia:No original research (the factual information in that section seems fine). The material in the sections "History/Background", "Program & Uses", and "Management & Stewardship" seem less problematic and I think they could remain, either as an article or as a section in the article on the beach. Disclosure: I'm in the Ambassador program and was asked to examine this discussion by another Ambassador. I'm not particularly knowledgable in the area of public policy. Dcoetzee 04:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Article may violate WP:ADVOCATE, as it appears to not be very well balanced with all points of view that may fall under this topic. That being said, the article's references need to be checked to see if they meet WP:RS guidelines. Presently I do not see a reason to delete or not delete the article. The title itself brings up very few google hits, there for it makes me question the notability of the subject. However if one were to group "Ocean Beach" and "Public Policy" separately, one gets 145K google hits. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all for your comments. Just a little bit of background about the purpose of this article: Students in my graduate environmental law class were asked to write public policy articles for a federal, state, or local policy for Wikipedia's Public Policy Initiative. My partner and I chose a local public policy because we felt that this type of situation is under represented, both on Wikipedia and in the broader public policy arena in general, and so would be helpful for practitioners, students, and the general public alike. The article also makes an important connection between coastal management and climate change, which will be an area of increasing importance as climate change begins to affect vulnerable coastlines throughout the world (as it already has in San Francisco and many other areas), and something that both policy makers and voters alike will need to take into consideration in the near future. San Francisco is currently going through a challenging and unprecedented coastal management crisis that other coastal cities either are, or will be, going through soon, and I feel the more information available regarding this subject, the better. That being said, I have no problem if the consensus feels that the article should be moved to the Ocean Beach page, or needs further editing, but complete deletion seems somewhat extreme? This is my first time writing anything for Wikipedia, but I honestly thought the way it worked was that everyone contributes by either writing or editing articles, not just deleting something that you think needs to be edited? If that is the case then I don't see the point of people taking the time to write articles if they are deleted right away without a real opportunity to be edited/revised. Amybekah (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" votes often imply that the material should be merged if there is a suitable target. I think the rationale that's behind typing 'Delete' is that an AfD for one article cannot decide what happens to another article, we can only decide what happens to this one. (Though it is common to see people voting "merge" as well, so maybe I'm just wrong.) —Soap— 00:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete - Thanks for the comment. After reading it, my opinion has changed that this article violates WP:ADVOCATE, and that all non-news references should be checked against WP:RS standards. The material that is supported by the content that meets RS standards should be merged into the article regarding Ocean Beach. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California, because the topic is not notable on its own. Sandstein 05:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mattock[edit]

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

Weak claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:ARTIST. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST and the article seems to be a personal ego boost for the subject. SteelIron^Talk 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World sports karate federation[edit]

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

A non notable martial arts organisation without any reliable third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I found no independent sources supporting notability. Much of the article appears to be copied directly from the organization's web page (possibly a copyright violoation). Papaursa (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article that gives no reasons why its subject is notable. I found no independent sources about this organization. Astudent0 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Yo[edit]

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

This is my first AfD, so take my words with a grain of salt. But this appears to me to lack reliable secondary sources; given sources are from artist's web page, convention press releases reposted at anime news portals, and ~~two blogs~~ a blog of unknown significance. This article does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:ENT. Khazar (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article's creator, I suggested this AfD on article's talk page for a quick "trial by fire" to resolve the issue of notability (comments on reliability are welcome as well, but a bit outside the scope here). I believe that while the subject is relatively young and niche, he has achieved sufficient notability to be encyclopedic, as demonstrated by several mentions at Anime News Network, convention websites, several interviews (many in the podcast/video form), and several thousands google'able mentions. Having created over a 1,000 articles, I will agree that this is a bit of a borderline case, but I believe that this is on the correct side of the notability border (otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time creating this bio... :>). This is not some wannabe with a youtube video and few local appearances, this is a professional that has been invited to numerous notable, regional/national and encyclopedic (if niche) events, and who was mentioned by numerous secondary (if online-only) sources. PS. I am still unsure where the nom sees two blogs, I see only one used once (for a minor fact from a blogged interview). I don't use blogs as sources, usually, but a recent blogged interview confirming a trivial fact seemed passable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Seeing double, apparently. 1,000 articles, btw? Kudos! -- Khazar (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the list takes a while to load, thanks. Now, two or three have been deleted, so I could be wrong this time too. I hope I am not, of course :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article completely lacks any significant coverage from reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. Convention announcements about being the person as a guest are not significant overage nor are they completely independence of the subject. And interviews are definitely not independent of the subject. Number of Google hits is irrelevant. "demonstrated by several mentions at Anime News Network" actually turns up false as the person has received no coverage by ANN outside of its forms and press releases.[55] (click the news and views) Compare this to Man-Faye, who revived a lot more covarage[56] and appeared several times on national television (such as the The Tonight Show and Who Wants to Be a Superhero?), but still his article was deleted because the coverage he relieved wasn't of significant depth or independent enough from the subject. —Farix (t | c) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the independent coverage is from RS, and being the GOH at a con doesn't confer notability, as far as I know. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request: if it is deleted, please userfy it in my userspace. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources and thus fails to cross the notability threshold. Convention websites writing about their own guests are not third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Ju-Jitsu Federation Ireland[edit]

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

A non notable martial arts organisation without reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of substantial coverage by reliable third parties.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no independent and reliable sources to show this is a notable martial arts organization. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the same lack of sources as the others. Astudent0 (talk) 16:26, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-Jitsu African Union[edit]

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

A non notable martial arts organisation without reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete As part of the JJIF it seems like this relatively new organization should be notable, but I couldn't find independent sources when I searched the web. It should at least be worth a mention in the JJIF article. Astudent0 (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I found no independent and reliable sources that support notability. The fact that it's a new sub-branch of the JJIF confers no notability (which is not inherited). Papaursa (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Geye[edit]

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

Nomination for PROD removed, no rationale given. No credible assertion of notability. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) section on "creative professionals". The only source found on Google Books is Books LLC rip-off of this very article. Wtshymanski (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listed independently as the official artist of Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach, published artist for Stray Cats, Joe Strummer, Social Distortion, and Blockage, as well as artist for Dice Magazine, the Hootenanny Festival among countless others. redacegarage (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the above user's sole contributions to Wikipedia are two edits - namely remove the article PROD and tagging, and contest the AFD. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 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) 00:03, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic non-notability via WP:GNG, fails notability of people. Of the claims in the article:

"Creating posters, album art and commissions" is what all artists do, no evidence of notability.
If works for Stray Cats, Social Distortion, Grand Prix or other clients were notable then there would be good evidence in reliable independent secondary sources but none are listed nor appear to exist based on a quick search.
If "places artwork is featured" were significant for our purposes there would be secondary coverage evidencing this.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:05, 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 without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Preizler[edit]

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

Minor model - mostly just a couple seasons of runway work. No Gnews hits or sources beyond FMD. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 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) 00:03, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nedd Willard[edit]

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

Bio for non-notable artist. He did some good works, but that's all. Damiens.rf 02:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted. I've updated it with more information about this Notable person and a link to sources about his academic work. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 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) 00:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [57]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:20, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bantam Trek[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable local event lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:EVENT and fail to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an ongoing local (Bradford 6th largest city in the uk), officially backed by Bradford City FC a professional football league club in the 6th largest city. And also covered by The national and local media (the national being tv so as yet no citations from the bbc, but the local press is not just some small time village rag, it is the telegraph and argus. I could cite more but for fear of complaints of repetition). I can only assume that somebody who thinks that this is some small local event, is not from the uk. maybe somebody from the uk should get involved in deciding.Easybizsites (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easybizsites (talk • contribs) 01:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC) — Easybizsites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: this username was blocked on May 2, 2011 per WP:GROUPNAME.[reply]

Another citation edited, all from verified sources that are impartial and not linked to Bantams Trek. Anything else needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easybizsites (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+++++KEEP+++++++ This should be removed from deletion. Organization raising money with on a non stop basis through a pro football club for a burns unit that does work world wide. Is not just a one off, and their sources are better than most on here. Preceding unsigned commented added by User:89.243.21.14 — 89.243.21.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete There does not seem to be any Reliable Source reporting on these charity walks, with the single exception of this from the Telegraph and Argus. All the other sources provided are self-referential. Nothing at all found at Google News Archive [58]. The fact that it raises money for a good cause is not reason enough to keep the article on Wikipedia; the event has to meet the requirements of notability, and it fails by a country mile. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 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. soft deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Under Ground[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable third party sources for this minor publication. The author is also under question as to notability. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge anything worthwhile to the authors BLP. I can't see assertions in the current article that this book clears the hurdle of independant notability that is Wikipedia:Notability (books) - there are a couple of independent book reviews and another couple that are a blogspot and a live-journal posting, asserting such minimal notability that if this book is wiki notable then its likely that every book ever written is. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree with that course of action. I also don't think the author clears the hurdle of notability, but will leave other editors to decide.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Book was widely reviewed as per Wikipedia:Notability (books). Reviews list now includes links to reviews by Publishers Weekly, Village Voice, The Believer, and American Book Review. Redirect and merge still seems fine, but book is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 02:40, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created Reception and Foreign Edition sections. Still may make sense to redirect or move some content to the Nick Mamatas page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 23:20, 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 keep. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arhangel[edit]

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

No reference tag since December 2009. Needs references to establish notability. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of Macedonian language references, including this one - [59]. I'm pretty sure that an editor with a decent understanding of the language should be able to justify keeping this based on the criteria of WP:BAND, but I'm finding it hard to extricate information via google translate. --Anthem of joy (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 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) 00:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nom is invalid. Lack of references is only a valid deletion rationale for BLP-PROD articles created after March 18, 2010. Also, multiple foreign-language sources do appear to exist.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would go further than Milowent's "invalid" and class this as a bad faith nomination from an editor who seems to think that any article about a subject associated with any of Greece's neighbours (don't you get on with anyone?) should be deleted. There are many examples of such ethnic-POV nominations in Nipsonanomhmata's editing history, including the ridiculous nomination of Rauf Denktaş. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad faith comment and a personal attack. This was a random article that I came across with an old no reference tag. Denktash was not a ridiculous nomination. He was a thug who made himself the president of an illegal puppet regime. He deserves to be nominated every hour of the day and every day of the week for eternity. Why don't you stick to the subject at hand and make a recommendation on this article. If you think Arhangel is worth keeping then why not do something constructive instead and say so. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nips., i have no idea what you are talking about, but it doesn't help your argument any. Lots of thugs (real or alleged) are notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only notability claimed was "President" and a President he never was (only the Republic of Turkey thinks that he was) [and no independent foreign-country citations from reliable third-party sources are provided within the article, which is why I nominated him i.e. his "Presidency" lacked notability]. He wasn't even a notable thug. Hope that clarifies it for you. But we are off-topic and this has nothing to do with Arhangel and btw there are still no references listed in the article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs improvement, which is possible given the foreign language sources available. A need for improvement is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, those who are suspicious about the nomination are probably barking up the right tree. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Greek nationalist who wants to delete the neighbouring country's rock groups based on nationalist reasons. Why? Because the Greek motherland will lose prestige if RoM's rock groups succeed? Tsk tsk.Please re-examine your logic. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I'll have to think of a better strategy to take over the world. :-) rofl Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a plausible reason to be accused of nationalist motives if the group were named "Alexander the Great" or "Macedonia is ours" but "Arhangel" is quite an uncontroversial name. On the other hand you may be motivated by the belief that Greek rock is so superior to the version in RoM that you can't stand seeing these upstarts trying to steal the glory of the motherland. I can't say that I'd blame you for that. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Gallagher (boxer)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:ATHLETE seems questionable. Main contributor PJ Gallagher (Boxer) (talk · contribs) might be in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article certainly needs a lot of work, but isn't it claiming that Gallagher was the WBC International Super Featherweight Champion in 1996? (seems to be backed up here), and so doesn't he meet Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Boxing criterion # 1? I'm asking so tentatively because I really know nothing about boxing, but he looks fairly notable to me. WP:COI may be a problem, but is not a reason to delete. --Beloved Freak 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he won the World Championship, he is notable. But that claim is unsourced. The entire article is basically w/out any references. --bender235 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak provided a source for the claim in the comment above. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WBC champion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified that he meets the boxing criteria set out at WP:NSPORTS. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anacostia (WMATA station). Owen× ☎ 18:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River Spirits of the Anacostia[edit]

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

Am not seeing where this article passes WP:GNG, requiring significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's Metro station artwork, and is already discussed at Anacostia (WMATA station). SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anacostia (WMATA station); there's nothing there that's not in Anacostia (WMATA station), and I'm not seeing any independent notability in sources either. If and when appropriate, a spin-out article can be written. As it is, it remains a plausible search term. --Beloved Freak 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artwork is a unique and important thing. Simply re-tag it for a call for expansion. NO need to delete it or merge it, it just needs to be expanded. It has two solid reference ... certainly there are more.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see where this is more notable than, for instance, the big Chinatown fan at Gallery Place, which is treated entirely within the article about the station. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:03, 8 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, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't see a substantial mention of a "big Chinatown fan." Was this thing made by an artist? Does it have title? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Specifically, the passage reads: "Originally named "Gallery Place" after the nearby National Portrait Gallery and Smithsonian American Art Museum, "Chinatown" was added to the station name in 1986 (although the station's signage was not replaced until 1990^{[citation needed]}) and in 2000, a large Chinese-style fan, entitled The Glory of the Chinese Descendants, was installed over the 7th and H Street entrance." That's the "big Chinatown fan" in the Gallery Place – Chinatown (WMATA station) article which I speak of. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. This fan could have an article unto itself for sure. Like this tile mosaic, this fan is made by a notable artist, in a notable location. Assuming the article was well researched, I'm sure there is plenty of mention of both of these things in appropriate places. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anacostia (WMATA station) which has more detail than the article anyway. No point tagging for expansion. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is their no point in expanding this article? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a point in expanding it, but adding a tag is most unlikely to achieve this. There are over 90,000 articles in Category:Articles to be expanded, which is supposed to exclude stubs like this one. About 15,000 date back to 2008 or earlier. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Workshop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears to be a small company owned, way up the line, by Burton Snowboards, itself better known, but not terribly large either. This article is mainly a vehicle for vandals wanting to insert their favorite, though unknown, skateboarders. Perhaps it could be merged into Burton or some other company. Or just plain deleted. It won't be greatly missed! Student7 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that this article has survived one AFD already, it would help if the nominator would say what they think has changed since then. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nom seems to have been kept based on "Google Hits" and Votes rather than actual criteria for notability. The article is still lacking sources. Google Hits aren't considered valid anymore, and deletion reviews are not "votes". I would say Delete unless sources can be found for the article. Most of what I found has been trivial mentions of someone owning this type of skateboard, rather than articles about the company. Denaar (talk) 16:30, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ESPN said the company has one of skateboarding's "most respected squads" here. Their clothing line received in depth attention in Knight-Ridder newspapers here. They were described as one of the "top skateboard companies" in an article about the miniature skateboard fad in the The Gazette in Colorado Springs here. Their diversification from skateboards to clothing and other products was described in a Myrtle Beach Sun News article here. MTV described their skateboarding team as "legendary" here. In the skateboarding world, the magazine called Thrasher helps determine notability, and they profiled the company here. As for the accusations of vandalism by the nominator, I recommend a review of the relevant policy, which begins with this definition: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page." If a new editor inserts the name of a skateboarder into the team members section of this article, that is absolutely not vandalism, although there may be other legitimate reasons to revert such an edit. Calling such an editor a "vandal" is wrong. It is OK to criticize an edit, but it is not OK to call an editor who has not vandalized a "vandal".Cullen328 (talk)
Comment. In the event that this Afd fails, I will expect Sergeant Cribb and/or Cullen328 to add this article to their watchlist and keep up with vandals, who are the only editors interested in it. I'm outta here either way. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 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.

^ http://www.sunatimes.com/view.php?id=975
^ http://somalilandpress.com/somalia-the-new-semi-state-within-the-semi-state-21852
^ http://somalilandpress.com/somalia-the-new-semi-state-within-the-semi-state-21852
^ http://www.sunatimes.com/view.php?id=975
^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html
^ http://somalilandpress.com/somalia-the-new-semi-state-within-the-semi-state-21852
^ http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1474388.php/WHO_confirms_Taiwan_invited_to_World_Health_Assembly
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6913020.stm

[1] ttp://www.sunatimes.com/view.php?id=975

[2] ttp://somalilandpress.com/somalia-the-new-semi-state-within-the-semi-state-21852

[3] ttp://somalilandpress.com/somalia-the-new-semi-state-within-the-semi-state-21852

[4] ttp://www.sunatimes.com/view.php?id=975

[5] ttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html

[6] ttp://somalilandpress.com/somalia-the-new-semi-state-within-the-semi-state-21852

[7] ttp://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1474388.php/WHO_confirms_Taiwan_invited_to_World_Health_Assembly

[8] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6913020.stm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]