Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 11

< 10 November	12 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany to Germany[edit]

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

Contested redirect to Ratatat (album). This unsourced song article fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Honestly, there aren't the sources in the article at present nor from a simple Google search to keep, but 1.) I just don't like the idea of deleting articles about singles from notable artists as they can be navigated and 2.) I really don't see why redirect isn't a viable option. If the article can't be written up to snuff (and I reckon it can't), then redirect is a legitimate option, especially considering that this is linked through a navbox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an article but a discography entry masquerading as an article. If it's a contested redirect then there is no choice but to delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:13, 7 November 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, Courcelles 23:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to evidence for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Classics (Ratatat album). Considering the one person who seemed to be opposed to redirecting is now in favour of it (or at least more so than outright deletion), that's probably the best option, even if it means this AfD has been a bit of a pointless exercise HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lex (song)[edit]

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

Contested redirect to Classics (Ratatat album). This unsourced song article fails WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Honestly, there aren't the sources in the article at present nor from a simple Google search to keep, but 1.) I just don't like the idea of deleting articles about singles from notable artists as they can be navigated and 2.) I really don't see why redirect isn't a viable option. If the article can't be written up to snuff (and I reckon it can't), then redirect is a legitimate option, especially considering that this is linked through a navbox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Looking at the history it seems the only reason this isn't already a redirect is because you challenged it. Does this mean you'd be OK with the redirect now? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 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, Courcelles 23:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources, no charting, not even close to notability. 08:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) →Σ τ c. 00:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XBoard[edit]

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

Article about an open source software program that does not have any reliable sources that allow the reader to verify the article or demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Prod was contested claiming there are minor news sources to support this article, but no such references have been forthcoming. Sparthorse (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references for what they are worth are on the talk page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 November 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, Courcelles 23:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This seems to be discussed to a reasonable if not overwhelming extent in a variety of reliable sources. I added a bunch of them to the article, although I couldn't make much of the first talk page source, which doesn't seem to mention XBoard at all. The newsbank search has five hits, from which there is one I could use. However, that one plus the five books (there are other books, but they duplicate information) seem to me to demonstrate notability.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Free software software is invaribly difficult to source given no value for promotion. XBoard/Winbpard was a widely used product for online and computer chess. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—And what do you mean by was? hmmm?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably that it's the granddaddy of software for this kind of thing which has been supplanted by more recent software in most cases. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is notable and it seems to have enough sources now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no doubting that the article as it is is an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Whether that means it should be deleted and whether the subject is sufficiently notable for an article, it seems nobody can agree on. Thus, no consensus, I'm afraid folks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Performance[edit]

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

An article on this subject was previously deleted at this location, but this version looks quite different. However, this still appears to be a WP:OR essay that appears heavily based on one source (i.e., the Dixon book which was the main source used for the first incarnation of this article; I am unsure if some of the content is actually a copyvio). Much as the previously deleted version, it looks like an attempt to expand a dictionary definition with a lot of vague opinion/OR and with very little actual coherent encyclopedic content. Kinu ^t/_c 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We created the page for a university assignment, we did try to find as many different sources as possible for this to increase the level of credibility but there is not much out there to refer to. The book itself has loads of reference within it. We split up the section to research and as we only had to write 3000 obviously we have not covered the whole topic area we were told to just focus on the histroy and introduction into the subject area. I have stated this on the talk page for Digitale Performance so anyone feels free to add contributions. I understand that it is one source and a definition widely put but like I said we had a word limit so could not cover all topics. --Alannamm90 (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)— Alannamm90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom reasons. It's definitely an WP:OR essay. To Alannamm90, I heavily recommend that you talk to your professor about not assigning any projects that involve creating pages on wikipedia, at least not creating any without the article going through the Afc process first. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from contributing but not everything needs to be here on the wiki and sourcing doesn't really disguise that this is still an original research essay. At least putting it through the Afc process would help save our time and yours if it's found to be something that doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. (That way we won't have to continue deleting it if it's unencyclopedic and you won't waste your time re-adding it if it's found to be unencyclopedic in any format.) I also heavily recommend that your professor look into using Wikia since that's a site where you can create your own wikis without having to go through Wikipedia and it won't get (potentially) continuously deleted. I don't mean to sound harsh, I'm just trying to save everyone time and effort. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment: Here are links to Wikia and to the Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. Again, I sort of discourage making pages on wikipedia purely for grade purposes because 1) it can potentially be deleted, causing you to re-add it (and potentially get blocked for repeatedly adding it if an admin believes you're being disruptive) and 2) many people will edit the piece, meaning that you might lose grade points for something done by someone else. Again, not trying to be hostile, I'm just trying to let you know that adding pages for homework on wikipedia without at least trying to do it via the Afc article wizard isn't really a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional: I found the page of the professor who is assigning his student with the projects of creating pages on Wikipedia, if any admin wants to discuss this with him: User:ToniSant. I left a message about going through Wikia or Afc, but this is something that really should go through an admin or someone on a little higher authority than I am (which is no authority, lol). Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional additional: Just to let guys know, the previous delete was for a page added by last semester's students back in 2010. This article was created by a new batch of students, so odds are the page was written differently than the last version. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Further Comment : The article has many problems but I suggest it should be reduced to a stub rather than deleted. There's already an article on Digital theatre, which is actually a subset or type of Digital Performance, and some of the material on that page would actually be better placed on the new article page and/or cross referenced from one article to the other. There are also many other sources about this subject, but the creators of the page failed to cite these properly or understand the conventions of writing an article for Wikipedia, which is what I believe has led to the proposed AfD we're discussing. Digital Performance is a notable subject that deserves its own article, and certainly fits the guidelines/criteria for notability on Wikipedia. While I respect the PoV of Deletionists, I happen to be an Inclusionist! :-) --ToniSant (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the lack of coverage or lack of breadth and depth of coverage is the killer here, and nobody has made a strong counter-argument. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Rocks (University of Oregon)[edit]

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

Non-notable "collegiate a cappella" group. Refs do not establish notability. There are dozens more of these that probably need going over. Declined PROD. Hairhorn (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 5 November 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, Courcelles 23:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to say keep; made it through multiple episodes of The Sing-Off, albums can be bought on Amazon.com. bd2412 T 01:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Your grandma's dog can get an album listed on Amazon, that demonstrates nothing. Hairhorn (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources need to be independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd love to keep this one, and I do see sources that mention then (Independent ones, too - NYT and Seattle Times, as examples). But nothing that focuses on the group itself. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols[edit]

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

This has been deleted in the past - it is not notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To whom it may concern, I am the one who created this article. I don't believe this article was "deleted in the past" as this article discusses the official release of The Black Album, not the demo version which was never released. The article also discusses the album Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols which is the first official compilation released by the band. I hope that adds some clarification to any confusion surrounding said article. If not, please allow me to propose a serious question here and I would really like a qualified answer. How is this particular album allegedly "not notable" then, while The Dandy Warhols' other albums have apparently been deemed notable? -- Neuroticguru (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a released album, and not a demo tape for a notable band with an extensive discography. As such, it makes no sense for an encyclopedia to have a hole in the discography coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This album doesn't fit the criteria for 'Not notable', it was a fully released album and is included in the official discography of the band on their website. If this were to be deleted then there would be a good case to delete the individual entries for their other albums .--BloodlessVoid (talk) 17:52, 8 November 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, Courcelles 23:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons stated by others: it's an official album release by a solidly notable band, no reason to have a hole in the discography. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film Third[edit]

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

One of a series of articles, all detailing different awards winners from the same awards program. The award program overall meets notability, but having an article for every sub award seems like overkill. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: in the broader context of deleting/significantly restructuring the Karnataka State Film Awards page as it exists today. Specific policy violated is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a list. The WP:SALAT guideline suggests that Wikipedia lists should not be too broad or too specific. A more broader list here - for example, of all awards in a particular category - would be more relevant. Veryhuman (talk) 23:29, 4 November 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, Courcelles 23:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film First and Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film Second to a single consolidated article Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film. --Lambiam 22:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Done: See Karnataka State Film Award for Best Film, which I created. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Per merge done above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Marinescu[edit]

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

I see no basis for considering this individual notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was tagged for G11 speedy by the nominator while it was being actively edited by its author.[1] As CSD is a different standard than notability, and the article did make an assertion of notability and had been further expanded and contained sourcing, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz declined the speedy.[2] The nominator then brought the article to AFD for discussion,[3] User:EEng re-tagged it for speedy 38 minutes later,[4] perhaps unaware that an earier G11 speedy had been declined. Seeing that it had been a second time tagged for the same speedy... and AFTER it had been sent to AFD... I declined the second speedy. Note: While not in English, there do appear to be a number of sources dealing with this person, although they are in the Romanian language.[5] So if it can be determined that this person is notable to Romania through Romanian coverage meeting the WP:GNG, that is good enough for en.Wikipdedia, and any concern with tone and sourcing can be addressed with regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)0[reply]

Yeah, I didn't notice the earlier speedy, sorry. Obviously it's a bad idea to keep re-adding speedies (on purpose, anyway) but I do have a question: as a technical matter, is there some provision forbidding speedies while the article is at AfD? I'm asking because I'm guessing you, of all people, would know of such a provision if it exists. EEng (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, a lot of those sources off the Google search linked above are in Turkish. I can't say that I'm wowwed by the potential sourcing, but neither am I grumpy enough about this piece to advise deletion. Not sure if she is a public figure, in Romania or Turkey or elsewhere, not sure that she isn't... Carrite (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there ya go, I missed it: For a while, she took a break from modeling and moved to Istanbul to be part of Beyaz Show, a famous entertainment show in Turkey[2]. Also, she shined in the spot of cameras for Kara Murat, a famous Turkish TV series where she was cast in the lead role, playing the influencing wife of a greek general , always threatening the life of the Sultan. Bios of TV stars are usually kept around these parts... Carrite (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think we can do better than to trust the article to say accurate things, when we're discussing the very rationale for its existence - it's like trusting Philip Morris to tell you that cigarettes are good for the lungs. Here's Today's Zaman: "Director Chris Roche is currently shooting a follow-up to the 1970s’ historical saga “Kara Murat” -- made famous by the lead character played by Cüneyt Arkın -- in the Black Sea city of Trabzon using new filmmaking technology. Titled 'Kara Murat: Mora’nın Ateşi' (Kara Murat: The Fire of Morea), the new installment stars Nefise Karatay, Bahadır Sarı, Tatiana Marinescu, Hakan Ural, Kerem Alışık, İlker İnanoğlu and Suna Selen. Release date: December 2011". Meaning she is not in the lead role, meaning the show is not yet released, meaning we don't know if she will get any reviews, meaning the article lies through it teeth, meaning wikipedia is used for promoting this person. As for "to be part of Beyaz Show, a famous entertainment show in Turkey" - cut out the chin music, and what you get is that she had a cameo, maybe even a dancing girl routine, on some talk show - unless she was the interviewer, or was herself interviewed on each episode of that show. As a general observation, an actress who leaves Romania for Turkey is not really a success story; the thing to do is to head west, my daughter.

That said: as a native Romanian speaker (something the AfD nominator himself is), I can tell you the following: the Romanian sources that showed up until I got tired of googling are all tabloids and gossip columns, with relevant titles such as "Tatiana Marinescu - Nude and without Inhibitions", "TM Will Undress for the Animals" (meaning for an animal welfare cause, but so very ironic...), "TM Poses with Eva Mendes", "TM Says No to 30,000 Dollar because Catwalk Located in Club", "TM Says: Bastian Schweinsteiger Enjoys Flirt, but Has Girlfriend", "Man who Obsesses about Stars Makes another Hit: TM", "TM to Model a New Pair of Shoes", "TM, Sexy Vegeterian"... But don't take my word for it, restrict your search and try google translate - see if there's anything from the professional field of acting in your first 50,000 results, and I'll change my vote. Dahn (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my comment above. Dahn (talk) 11:57, 7 November 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, Eluchil404 (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources for claims. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability, certainly not in indep. RS. EEng (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Closing as delete, but with no prejudice towards re-creation in the future should sufficient sources be found or become available to demonstrate notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GENOA Software[edit]

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable software product. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find this, and a lot of unrelated software with the Genoa name (Samsung). I get a sneaky suspicion, however, that there are many more articles on it, but in more technical publications. Withholding !vote for now. And yes, as it stands, the current article is a mess, but that isn't an issue for AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is a strong secondary source now, and I think we can find a couple more, but there are so many other products with similar names, it is very time consuming to filter through. There IS however, a tremendous amount of primary source references than can be added. Obviously these do nothing to demonstrate notability, but they will be useful in providing references for non-contentious facts. The article as it is, well, it is a complete mess and needs attention, which is of course, is not a reason to delete an article, but instead to improve it. In short, it passes the 'sniff' test, and has at least one very significant and strong 3rd party reference now, is widely used and has been for many years. I put it on my page, so if it is kept, I will take the time to properly research and rewrite the entire article myself. I can see why it was nominated, but after some serious digging, I think it is worth salvaging. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:31, 5 November 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, Eluchil404 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Deleting per the lack of notability in its own right and then redirecting it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Creed: Revelations (novel)[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:NBOOK. Google search brings up only bookseller listings, but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 22:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Temporarily) to Assassin's Creed: Revelations - I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not valid point, but looking at Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (novel) & Assassin's Creed: Renaissance, I would sway in favor of keeping it a separate article and adding it to the {Assassin's Creed} template. Of course, as an unreleased book, there is not much to say about it... hm. My initial thought was a merge with the game it is based on, Assassin's Creed: Revelations, until the book is released, then it can be split like the previous ones in the series. I would, however, not be too surprised is consensus emerged to also merge the other books into their respective games' article, and might even support such an idea, but this AfD is probably not the place to discuss it. Salvidrim (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely lacking independent sources, failing that merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm surprised by the lack of coverage for this novel, but I could not find any secondary coverage. The Background section can be merged into Assassin's Creed: Revelations as it is sourced (primary). --Odie5533 (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as noted above, per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Mills[edit]

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

Non-notable former quarterback at Penn State. Fails notability guidelines, and currently is serving as an assistant high school football coach.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talk • contribs) 22:35, November 11, 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep College football players are notable under WP:GNG if they have received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Mills was the QB at Penn State, one of the top programs in college football, from 2001 to 2004. A search of Google News Archive reveals hundreds of articles with non-trivial articles (i.e., more than a stat line or passing references in game coverage) about Mills. Examples include: (1) 'General Mills' Is in Command; As a Redshirt Freshman Quarterback, Urbana High Graduate Guides Resurgent Penn State, The Washington Post, Nov. 2001; (2) Mills: A moving target, His option skill displeases defenses, but he accepts the risk, Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 2002; (3) Freshman QB 101: Zack Mills describes difficult transition process from high school to college, Altoona Mirror, Aug. 2010; (4) Mills can't continue to go it alone, The Morning Call, Sept. 2003; (5) Freshman quarterback is growing up fast, York Daily Record, Oct. 2001; (6) Lions Should Stick With Mills, Times Leader, Oct. 2001; (7) Mills sets record for freshman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 2001; (8) Paterno: Mills will probably start: The Nittany Lions' talented freshman QB ..., Reading Eagle, Nov. 2001; (9) Zack isn't milling around the interview room, Reading Eagle, Sept. 2004; (10) Mills Shows Cool Hand in Leading Lions, Times Leader, Oct. 2001; (11) Mills runs, catches, throws TDs to rout Zips, ESPN, Sept. 2004; (12) Struggling Penn State gets a lift from Mills, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Nov. 2003; (13) Mills' slump is mystifying, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 2003; (14) Lions put classy end on tough season, Senior QB Zack Mills got an emotional send-off after he and the offense pounded the Spartans, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 2004; (15) Zack Mills leads Lions to another comeback win, Reading Eagle, Nov. 2001; (16) Penn State's Mills may miss Ohio State game with concussion, Associated Press, Oct. 2004; (17) Mills will be tested to see if he can play, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 2004; (18) Mills still coping with the catcalls, Reading Eagle, Nov. 2004; (19) Stock Is Falling; Zack Mills, The Washington Post, Sept. 2004; (20) Mills gives Lions best shot to win, Reading Eagle, Sept. 2004; (21) Wounded pride for Lions QB now faced with being replaced, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 2004; (22) Mills finds his past exploits a comfort amid struggle, venom of present, The Morning Call, Nov. 2004; (23) Mills might get last laugh at Penn State, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 2004; (24) Mills hopes to lay groundwork for Penn State's revival, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 2004; (25) Mills Shows His Big Play Versatility, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 2004; (26) Mills Does It All for Penn State, The New York Times, Sept. 2004; (27) Tragedy mars off-season for Penn State's Zack Mills, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 2003; (28) Knee injury alters Mills' perspective, approach to game, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 2003; (29) Mills has new grip on offense, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 2003; (30) Mills' Arm Feeling Healthy, Centre Daily Times, Apr. 2008; (31) Mills has zero tolerance for committing turnovers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 2002; (32) Former Lion Mills finds life after football: After searching for a team for two years, former QB went to work in business world, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, July 2007; (33) With coaching job, Mills gains new perspective, Philadelphia Inquirer, April 2006; (34) Ex-Penn St. QB Mills joins Temple staff, Philadephia Inquirer, Feb. 2006; Mills just wants another shot: Former PSU quarterback didn't last very long with the Redskins, York Sunday News, June 2005; (35) Mills' Career Has Emotional Ending, Centre Daily Times, Nov. 2004; (36) Mills Named Senior MVP at Banquet, Centre Daily Times, Dec. 2004. Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't he a bit of a run of the mill college player? Many QBs from a few years ago have several articles from papers in their home markets, but does that really qualify them as notable? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We don't assess notability by our personal view of whether we think a player was "run of the mill." It's the nature and extent of the coverage that matters. Here, the coverage is extraordinarily deep and wide, including stories about him in some of the country's most significant major metropolitan newspapers, such as: Associated Press wire service, The New York Times (3rd in circulation), The Washington Post (5th in circulation), The Philadelphia Inquirer (13th in circulation), Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (31st in circulation), and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (35th in circulation). While there's no fixed rule that major college starting QBs are notable, starting QBs for major college football teams typically receive a lot of news coverage -- far more than players at any position. For a recent example of a major college QB (one with less coverage than Mills, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Costa, which was closed as "keep." Cbl62 (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You Changed My Mind After reading the arguments for Nate Costa, I agree with you and withdrawal my support for this article to be deleted. Go Phightins! (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable reliable coverage. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable with a wide array of independent, reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of coverage as shown by Cbl. Passes WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 03:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tigeroar[edit]

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

Non notable University a cappella group. All coverage is either from non-independent sources or is hyperlocal. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust education[edit]

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

This article was basically a personal essay by a new editor. When all the unsourced, improperly sourced and irrelevant material was removed, very little was left. What is actually there could easily be included in the Holocaust or Holocaust denial article if it is worth keeping. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- essay, not article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Perhaps this was inspired by the existence of Holocaust denial, which would be an opposing concept. At any rate, the information belongs in existing articles, including Holocaust and Holocaust denial where necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 23:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge -- No useful content that could not be in one of the other articles mentioned. I have not checked, but strongly suspect that there is in fact little or nothing worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's absolutely an article-worthy topic, but there's nothing to save here. Blow it up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, incubate or rescue - perfectly good idea for an article. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC) It appears clear that this can not, and will not, be fixed. Snow delete. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge to Holocaust or Holocaust denial. —SW— ^gab 22:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good idea for an article, very bad attempt at an article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 superpower. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian superpower[edit]

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

Synth-y OR mush. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Synth-y AND mush. Reads like a school kid's in-class essay. There are actually references buried in there, mostly undisplayed. I went through the first dozen or so. Some of them appeared related to the subject, some not. None actually seemed to employ the term "Asian superpower". Fails WP:OR. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to superpower. I've heard the term used (and Russia was an Asian superpower), so it's not an implausible search target. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to superpower; Its a widely used term, but the article currently is a complete OR. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to superpower. Looks like WP:OR. EricSerge (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to superpower. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reverted a page-mangling edit to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion G7: the lone contributor of text blanked the page after the AfD tag was applied. If a page is recreated on Tanguera in the future, I strongly suggest that a very clear assertion of significance is made and that it's backed up with secondary sources, lest it get speedy deleted under A7. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Tanguera[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Says she is well known for her blog, but a reference is not provided. -Vaar sivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 20:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a COI: Birth name is Kara Yates, creator of page was "Kyates0208" -Vaar sivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 20:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creator blanked page. Could either be a realisation that she's not notable, or an attempt at not getting their article deleted. -Vaar sivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 20:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's the classic argument between a short burst of media attention potentially satisfying the GNG and the lack of sustained coverage, potentially falling afoul of NOTNEWS. I'm sure this debate will rage on for many more AfDs to come before it is ever settled, because it certainly isn't settled here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (cat)[edit]

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

per WP:NOTNEWS. This is sad and all, but there really isn't any chance of this having any sort of enduring notability, impact, or coverage. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surpassing WP:GNG: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it got covered. And in 2 weeks it won't anymore. No enduring notability at all. About the same situation as the coverage of that woman claiming to have a baby with Justin Bieber, or that video of little girls covering Nicki Minaj.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't have any lasting notability. At most this should be a 1-2 sentence addition to the John F. Kennedy International Airport, but I'm not sure it really merits that. It's a sad story but in about a month nobody will really remember this. Jack is not as memorable an animal as say, Marley or Dewey. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep/merge It's not clear whether this cat will be remembered but it doesn't matter because notability does not expire and the point of Wikipedia is to inform readers of things that they don't know, not things that they do. There are lots of similar cats on the List of cats and the worst case seems to be that we would just merge this one onto that list per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if comparing this article to the unreferenced mush that makes up List of cats is really a strong argument. Do we really want to say something should be kept because it's similar to elements of an article that includes the deliciously unreferenced section "Famous pets of other famous people"?--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the spirit of WP:BLP1E: he's not a person or alive, but this article needs to be deleted for the same WP:NOTNEWS reasons that we delete cases of BLP1E. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extensive coverage in reliable sources easilly passing WP:GNG. BLP1E does not apply; as even delete voters seem to admit, the cat is neither a person nor alive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in the spirit of BLP1E it's even less significant. A person involved in an event with this little importance or impact would absolutely not get an article; the idea that a cat should be treated to an even less strict standard seems absurd.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to John F. Kennedy International Airport. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The sources presented easily pass GNG. This is more than 1 Event. 1. Disappearance 2. Missing 3. Discovery 4. Passing. Jack doesn't need coverage in 2 weeks, Notability has been established and WP:NTEMP. CallawayRox (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's...quite a stretch. But at this point it looks like this article has been incorrectly rescue tagged for long enough to canvass out the usual flock of keep !voters, so I doubt it will end in anything but a no consensus. A renomination in a couple months when it will be easier to see the lack of enduring notability may be best, though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't is awesome that we have a category of "individual cats" on wikipedia? RIP, Jack.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Originally I thought this was ridiculous, but the coverage of this cat/incident is amazingly comprehensive. I see no benefit from deleting it really. In 50 years, yes, people will remember this and want to look it up. Just like people today will look up events from 50 years ago. If you don't believe me, read up on things like Francine Gottfried.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I find it ridiculous to call this multiple separate events, I do see the benefit in waiting longer to see the extent of continued coverage. Depending on the results here, perhaps a renomination in a couple months may be best,--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also think that this topic has enduring notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary". Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - At this point, the use of the rescue tag has been contested. Please do not re-add it without discussing your rationale first, and ideally after reading up on when it should be used (right here).--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested, my ass. Its a legitimate use. I am re-adding it, and I rarely add the tag to anything. Why? Because the article is clearly subject to additional improvement through the adding of sourcing. There are many sources and editorials that discuss this little 'ol cat. Alerting editors that the article can be improved through rescue processes is legitimate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the article needs references? Because I don't think anyone is arguing that; no amount of sources one way or another is going counters the arguments expressed here, since it was not about lack of sourcing. The rescue tag's purpose is for when the reasons deletion proposed can probably be countered not simply because an article could use more references. The other uses of the rescue template, as listed on the ARS page, clearly don't apply here either. If you think the article could be improved by the addition of more sourcing, feel free to add the appropriate tag.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism to remove the tag. I doubt you did it for any reason other than to prevent more people from coming over here, who might disagree with you. Dream Focus 16:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the rescue tag does nowadays is canvass ARS members to vote keep. Rarely does the article itself actually get improved. Goodvac (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back up your spurious assertions with evidence before defaming ARS.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to find evidence. Most articles marked for rescue are not improved, despite ARS' professed purpose of improving articles at AfD ("The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles."). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devolvement, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CanSat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semi-vegetarianism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Day New York (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Smalltalk, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Respiratory Care Foundation for some recent examples. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkstars is a particularly telling example—a member of ARS marks an article for rescue merely because the article was relisted with no other voters.
Note I said "rarely"; I do admit, though, that ARS used to do good work as seen here, but I usually don't see that anymore. Goodvac (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not scientific, that's just some random AfDs to support your biased opinion. I've never used the hall of fame for my many rescues, I just edit and improve wikipedia. If only 10% of tagged articles are rescued, that's a significant number of articles saved from unnecessary deletion at the hands of the book burners.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's just some random AfDs to support your biased opinion—as was your example. Suffice it to say that ARS improves a few tagged articles and votes keep at the rest. Goodvac (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles tagged for Rescue end as kept. See the current list of results? Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Article_list The arguments are what keep an article, not the numbers, AFD is not a vote. Dream Focus 21:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ending in "keep" doesn't mean that ARS has fulfilled its self-professed goal of improving articles; it just means either that notability was established (at which ARS sometimes succeeds) or that ARS members voted as a bloc.
AFD is not a vote. Interesting that you say this when you don't subscribe to it yourself. "At the AFD, most stated the article should be kept, not deleted/redirected. Follow consensus" and "Most people have already stated the article should be kept." Your comments here are based on the number of votes, not on the strength of the votes.
"We're trying to save the world" Hey, thanks for the laugh! :) Goodvac (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Yaksar, please discontinue removing the rescue tag from the article. Please read the information on the Article Rescue Squadron page regarding removal of rescue tags – "It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete." Also please read the notability guideline section WP:NTEMP, Notability is not temporary, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." As you're the one that nominated this article for deletion, it appears that you're trying to game the system to obtain the result for the article you desire, to have it deleted. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my lack of arguing at this point is not giving in, I just don't care enough to fight a flock of misinformed people. You are wrong, plain and simple, about the use of the rescue tag. Even if this article definitely should be kept, it does not mean the use of the rescue tag is justifiable. The tag's purpose is to bring editors who can help improve the deficiencies given in the deletion argument. You've stated that you put the rescue tag on to alert ARS members that an article you feel is notable is up for deletion. That is misuse. If an article meets your opinion of the notability guidelines, but consensus is trending towards deleting it, well, that just sucks for you, unfortunately. You can't just call in a group of people to come !vote on it. That's canvassing. If you wanted to address a specific issue that the deletion nomination was covering, that's a different scenario. But that was not the case here. Tschuss.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than just a cat, a campaign. Documented in reliable sources. JORGENEV 07:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage already found. In books published about famous cats, this one will surely be featured with the rest one day. Books about the airport's history might include an entry about this also. Dream Focus 16:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although reasonable coverage exists that indicate subject passes WP:GNG, the determining weight of this AfD would be more prudently judged by WP:NNEWS as the cat's notability credentials (so far at least) strictly stem from its singular event. Under those criteria, the subject has not satisfied and in all likelihood will never satisfy WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, and enduring notability is a specific inclusion criteria of WP:NOT#NEWS. This article should be deleted because of the failure of those policies, but re-created in case of a future event that causes a lasting impact. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE are satisfied. One documented effect was the creation of an online campaign involving many thousands of people. And the coverage spanned several months, so demonstrating some persistence. Warden (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EFFECT specifically refers to a notable lasting effect and surely a subsequent online campaign with involvement by an arbitrary number of people does not qualify. WP:PERSISTENCE stresses coverage outside of the subject's immediate newsworthy period to determine lasting significance. All the current sources are merely reporting the event as it happened, during the subject's news cycle. They do not qualify. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 12:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aequo (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I contributed comments in favor of keeping above, but realize I did not !vote.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jorgenev et al., as a campaign documented in many reliable sources over more than two weeks' time, awfully long for a news cycle. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG PERSISTENCE all per above - and 25,000 cat nutters is likely of interest to future internet psychologists. (as is afd in general) --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that coverage in independent, reliable sources is insufficient to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Jeffords[edit]

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

None of the references in the article are to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as required for notability, and I have been unable to find any such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff piece for a non-notable plastic surgeon. Google News finds nothing of significance so he fails WP:BIO. Google Scholar finds only one significant article, in which he is one of seven authors - fails WP:ACADEMIC. Most of the article's references are either self-referential or do not mention the subject. A good example of Melanie's Law: if an article refers to the subject by first name ("Keith" rather than "Jeffords"), the subject almost always turns out to be non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of the article has posted the following on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (I will re-write this entry. It was not my intentaion for this to be a solicitation, and I do not believe it is. Also, as with the other articles I have authored, the topic is "significant". However, please kindly give me a couple weeks to re-write the entry. Joe "Highrock" Giove (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC) ) --Joe "Highrock" Giove (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely re-written this article to increase neutrality, and eliminate G11 and other criteria for speedy deletion. I have deleted references to Dr. Jeffords as "prominent" as well as some of his awards/honors. Dr. Jeffords is a significant member of Atlanta's community and is notable for a variety of reasons (media appearences, variety of association memberships, national influence, etc.) I believe the edits I have made have resulted in an article that is encyclopedic in tone, while also highlighting important biographical accomplishments that readers would want to be aware of. Joe "Highrock" Giove (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I can see that he is quoted in newspapers, and there is local coverage of his university award. But none of that is sufficient to meet our guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable sources covering him in sufficient depth. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hawley[edit]

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

Previously nominated for deletion. Non-notable amateur athlete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As per nom, not notable. C_(u)W_(t)C_(c) 19:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine and small mentions in a couple of local papers. The one live link in the entry is about the best. Discussion in the previous AfD got derailed into philosophical/legal discussion of various guidelines. I just think it fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By all rights fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG afaik. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Also, the claim the Gryphons became the top ranked team in the country in baseball seems dubious. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon no Uta Hyakusen[edit]

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

Just a duplication of a list from http://www.bunka.go.jp/uta100sen/ but no explanation of methodology (other than a poll without a mention of whom) or why this is any more important than any other similar list. No coverage in third-party sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a list 101 classic songs that all Japanese people know, mostly nursery songs. It's definitely notable, because these songs were chosen by the government as the best examples of Japanese cultural heritage for mothers to teach their children. A corresponding article would be, e.g. List of nursery rhymes, but that list is not really maintainable, whereas this one is because the songs were specifically selected by the government as valuable. This article will prove helpful to anyone with an interest in this subject and can be a useful starting point for further research, which is the reason most people use Wikipedia anyway. BTW, this is a little off-topic, but I spent several hours translating this article from its corresponding article on the Japanese Wikipedia and I don't like that this Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars fella has tried to delete it three times now through various means rather than simply asking me for help improving it. Shii (tock) 01:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has existed since 2007 on Japanese Wikipedia and is considered noteworthy there. The topic meets Wikipedia's notability guideline: it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including two Japanese newspapers. The topic is relatively obscure to an English-speaking audience, but does not fall under any of the suggested reasons for deletion. As per alternatives to deletion, if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.--Jonathan Drain (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep per Jonathan Drain. I suggest to provide translations for the reference titles in addition to the Japanese original (『荒城の月』から『涙そうそう』、日本の歌に１０１曲, 歌い継いでいきたい童謡・唱歌ランキング, 親子で歌いつごう日本の歌百選") in order to help non-Japanese readers access the relevance of the sources. bamse (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought this was a keep before, and I think the citations show it beyond any reasonable doubt now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. The set of songs is also represented in Japanese song books such as this one. In addition to coverage by national newspapers, the list is clearly notable. No need to keep this AfD running the full seven days. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per reasons provided by Shii and Jonathan Drain. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article covers a clearly notable topic given the news coverage and the book coverage mentioned. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jonathan Drain --Hirohisat^(Talk) 00:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be no way around the lack of coverage in independent sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S. E. Sever[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)

English writer who currently doesn't meet our criteria for including biographical articles. The article does provide two references but one is to her website and the other is to a short "About the author" blurb in a magazine she writes for. I am unable to find any material about her written by third-party sources. The claim that "her style has come to be known as 'Severesque'" is at best dubious. Note that if kept, the article also needs to be cleaned up for copyright issues. It's not speedy-deletion worthy but some parts are way too close to the original source. Pichpich (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I say delete because it is non-notable. As it only has two sources that are not thrid party sources. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There aren't enough reliable third party sources to prove notability and a search only brings up links to pages created or edited by the author herself or one of her agents. Sever did have one article in a magazine, but I don't really think that's enough to prove notability in this instance. Getting published doesn't automatically mean notability, nor does participating in a reality show. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Reality show? I don't see the connection. Pichpich (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - She starred in an episode of the UK version of Dragon's Den, a reality show where people try to pitch their ideas to a small group of investors. A fun show and not exactly along the same reality show lines as Bachelor or Jersey Shore, but still a reality show. Each episode shows different people coming on, so it's not like it's a reoccurring role either. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  - Sorry, misread that. She was interviews by the creators for a different reality show (The Last Tycoon) where she (and others) are given money and a set amount of days to raise as much money as possible. The show doesn't seem to be overly notable either since there aren't many mentions of it on the web and what sources there are available don't really focus on her or really even mention her. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep. While article does fail notability to some degree, it is no different than having pages for individuals that have been on tv shows. Sin City London (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)— Sin City London (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- We do not systematically maintain articles for every individual that has ever been on a TV show. In fact biographical entries are all subject to the same requirements. Pichpich (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I understand. Requirements say "occasional exceptions may apply": "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Sin City London (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)— Sin City London (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Sure, occasional exceptions may apply but why is an exception warranted in this particular case? Even though it's ok to ignore some rules at times, it's never ok to ignore the fundamental policies on which the whole project rests. Content added on Wikipedia should be attributable to a reliable, published source. This is non-negotiable and in the present case, such sources don't seem to exist. Pichpich (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP*.. I understand clearly the rule for verifiable sources;however, does the rule require more than one source? Not all worthy of a Wiki are household names, nor prolific. Van Gogh didn't sell one piece in his lifetime, but he would have deserved a Wiki, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISamantha (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — ISamantha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The notability guidelines typically require multiple sources but if you can point to one reliable third-party source, it would be a start. Personally I've failed to find one. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails to meet basic notability criteria. Misses speedy deletion by a whisker. andy (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! I googled S.E. Sever today as I read an interesting article by her in Pi Newspaper. I don't think this article needs deleting, I think it needs more editing! I'll add the source I encountered soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.212.26 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — 213.104.212.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep it! I had added relevant citations to this page Libibic (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the page history - unless you are User:213.104.212.26 in which case you !voted twice using different IDs. Anyway those references don't in any way show notability: #3 and #6 don't mention her at all and the others are either copies of her article or self-published material. Absolutely nothing independent, which is a minimum requirement. andy (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on! I am the User:213.104.212.26 and I haven't added the article I mentioned yet, but I will as promised. I don't think anyone deserves to be accused of double voting here.

Since you are User:213.104.212.26 and you both said "Keep" I've struck out one of them, in order to avoid confusion. andy (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But my point was that the other person wasn't me! You struck out someone else's "Keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.212.26 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of thing that happens when you don't sign your posts! andy (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hands Up! You're right andy. I'll be more careful from now on. Sorry to cause confusion. —Comment added by 213.104.212.26 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since there are a lot of single purpose accounts weighing in, I just want to let you guys know that this is not decided on a vote. You have to back up your "keep" opinions with reliable sources that prove notability. Saying that you find her interesting or hinting that other articles might not be wikipedia worthy aren't good arguments to keep a page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing with [WP:RS]] is not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reference of this page are reliable. Bonnymdyohl (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not: one is promotional material, two are her own work and one doesn't even mention her at all. andy (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Sever is a new writer. Even though her work seems influencial, I'll have to agree that at least one independant source mentioning her name is a must. I'll say, if this can be added, Keep it! VoodooMaster (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.128.98 (talk) — 128.40.128.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete shame - can't find anything 'in depth' and 'independent' to corroborate the claims in the article in line with WP:GNG - otherwise would be notable I think. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koki Otani[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. PROD was contested procedurally as the article was previously deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everybody that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. I afforded no weight whatsoever to rationales consisting of little more than "not notable" without any sort of intelligent elaboration; I also discounted Dream Focus' "I see nothing wrong with the sources provided" as it fails to address the concerns raised by others about the independence and/or reliability of the sources. As such, the only strong arguments are those which assert that there is no coverage in reliable sources, and thus the result has to be delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Money New Zealand[edit]

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

The party has received little independent news coverage and is not running its own candidates in the 2011 general election, hence does not meet notability requirements. Schwede 66 17:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Meeting WP:GNG, per [13] and [14]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only independent source I see is [15], which is a journalism students work. Note that scoop.co.nz articles are usually not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Scoop (website) not be considered independent? Dream Focus 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because they mainly just publish press releases. Schwede 66 21:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case, the "source" in question is in fact a press release from Positive Money.--IdiotSavant (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they've only just launched.... I'd wait until the events of the 27th are over (is only a few days away after all!) to see what happens. I expect the limited mentioned they've already got will only have grown from the current state. Mathmo ^Talk 08:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 27th is only relevant to political parties. They're not one (the political party is the New Economics Party). --IdiotSavant (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nothing wrong with the sources found. Dream Focus 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are woefully inadequate. Both the sources listed by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) are unreliable. The first is an article written by a journalism student on a WordPress site whose URL is newswire.co.nz—doesn't instill any confidence in me. The second is a press release straight from Positive Money itself—neither reliable nor independent. A Google News Archive search for "Positive Money New Zealand" yields zero results. The subject fails the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the GNG, 0 results on both the NZ Herald and Stuff websites, didn't rate even a trivial mention. The Scoop press release is primary source content, same basket as the subject's own website and doesn't count towards notability. XLerate (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good points are made by those advocating deletion, such as the crystal-ball nature of much of the information, but their opponents make an equally valid argument that the series has a host of notable cast-members and that a TV series with that cast would be highly unlikely not be notable. Perhaps best to leave this for a few weeks to see if anything more becomes known about it, and renominate if it seems to have been forgotten about. Right now, there's no consensus either way in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy (2012 TV series)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for press releases. Future TV series don't get their own articles unless they are exceptionally popular prior to their airing. If this TV series becomes notable after its airing, create the article then. —SW— ^comment 17:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It isn't notable at this point in time, although it very well may be. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL, so until then there's no need for an article on here. At most this might be something the article's creator might want to userfy, but it doesn't merit an article at this time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL with no discrimination as to future notability.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! As the creator of the said page, I think the upcoming TV series is well anticipated by many and the network already announced it and had their press releases, to where I got some infos I put in the page. (User:jefmolina)
Keep or userify - three good references and a stack of notable cast. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. —SW— ^confabulate 06:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep iff it's in production already, otherwise, delete. –H T D 16:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
userfy we don't do promotion for people unless there's a seriously big expectation going on in the general media. Keep it in your userspace jef till it's launched. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 South Island nationalism#Active and inactive nationalist groups. Any content worth merging can be done from the page history. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Munster Party[edit]

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

Not notable. No coverage in the news media. Does not run candidates in the 2011 general election. Schwede 66 17:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage = no notability. 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails criteria for an nz political party, as it is not registered, has never run a candidate or had an MP, and is not notable for other reasons. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to South Island nationalism#Active and inactive nationalist groups which covers this group. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge and redirect as Daveosaurus. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as Daveosaurus. Mathmo ^Talk 08:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC) (I'll add they've been mentioned by another political party: http://www.republic.org.nz/node/1557)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micah M. White[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Germinal1848 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - White is a senior editor at the magazine Adbusters and an early organizer of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meeting WP:GNG per: [16], [17]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems notable if this is true: "He has appeared on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and his innovative activism has been featured in the AP, the Chronicle for Higher Education, the New York Times and Teen People. A Contributing Editor at Adbusters, Micah's writings reach an international audience of over 100,000." (from [18]) --Edcolins (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable person meeting WP:GNG per: [19], [20]. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - it's clear now that he meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources has been found. Dream Focus 12:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Lifestyle Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Griffith Lifestyle Centre

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

Non-notable shopping centre. According to Property Council Australia, a regional shopping centre is one which "typically incorporates one full line department store, a full line discount department store, one or more supermarkets and around 100 or more specialty shops." This centre fails to do so. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article just claims it is "large" without giving the gross leasable area, commonly used to separate regional shopping centers from smaller ones. Could not find references giving the GLA. The article has links for some of the stores, but no reference for the centre itself, which might support notability per WP:ORG. Sghopping centers are not automatically notable just for existing. Edison (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It's a large project, 10 or some main big retailers and lots of smaller retailers according to some google links. If it gets deleted, it will just be recreated in the short future. Not an up and coming case because its a shopping centre, not a person. Ray-Rays 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)

The question is not if it will be recreated or not, it's a matter of passing the WP:GNG, which this centre fails to do so. 11coolguy12 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find discussion of it in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete - seems odd that even the Local newspaper has never mentioned the place in their daily reporting. I can only guess that Griffith is a crimefree zone :P Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to complete lack of WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Greenidge[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient evidence of notability of this musician, per wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague notability. Would suggest deletion. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources = no notability = no article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean (Devadas album)[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient evidence of notability of this album, per wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Not a notable album per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Album has not charted or been reviewed. Mattg82 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with Shine Shine On, the article gives no indication of notability, and the article on the artist himself has been tagged for notability for nearly two years. Incidentally, the links to the relevant AfD discussions on both Ocean (Devadas album) and Shine Shine On are broken. I'm not sure how to fix that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Shine On[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient evidence of notability of this album, per wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article gives no indication of notability, and the article on the artist himself has been tagged for notability for nearly two years.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hetrick Pause[edit]

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

Contested prod about a neologism used in one local community theatre. There is exactly one non-wikipedia ghit for the term, and that's only on a blog. andy (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I say delete it because it isn't notable. There are no references or external links to help back up the article. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it I've worked in three community theatres in New England, and all have regularly used the term. I understand why references are hard, because they go directly into the text of plays, and then the article gets flagged for trying to sell manuscripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.233.33 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: or, in other words, this neologism fails wikipedia's notability guideline at WP:GNG - only a limited set of people have heard of it, it's not in wide use and there's no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. andy (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it Notibility-wise this article is no different than many entries of people whose been on a single show. Sin City London (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)— Sin City London (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I don't really see the relevance in the comparison but in any case articles about such individuals are routinely deleted for failing the notability threshold for biographical articles. Pichpich (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pausing for effect is as old as acting itself. So this is not an article on a new concept that may turn out to be very important. It's an article about an inside joke in some community theatres of New England. It's therefore not really surprising that there is no reliable independent coverage about this topic. (Note that Andy above says that the only Ghit is a blog but it's actually a comment of a blog post!) Pichpich (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The description of the Hetrick Pause sounds exactly like any other pause used for dramatic effect. There is no coverage in any sources, reliable or unreliable that discuss this pause in detail. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus below is that her career is sufficiently noteworthy to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Heffern[edit]

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

Minor actress with a series of minor roles, but no indications of notability (either per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — Article fails notability requirements as per nomination, but inclusion doesn't seem harmful. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While article does fail notability to some degree, it is no different than having pages for individuals that have been on tv shows IE. Siam_(duo). Jab843 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:ENT#1 through verifiability of significant roles in multiple notable productions. As has any actor, she has had some minor roles, but we do not judge actors by only the least of what they have done. I find the verifiability of her 9 episodes of Lovebites as Tess, 5 episodes of Aaron Stone as Jo, 3 episodes of Mudpit as Sweetie, 8 episodes of Almost Heroes as Candi, and 11 episodes of Blue Mountain State as Kate to be convincing. As we have multiple sources available,[21][22] I see it as a decent reason to encourage improvements through regular editing, but not to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:ENT #1 with multiple significant roles. The Steve 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR--Cavarrone (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting (1), (2) or (3) of the prongs of WP:NACTOR. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heerlen photo gallery[edit]

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

This article consists entirely of a photo gallery. From WP:IUP:

Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images.

Many of the images on this page are already included in the article about this place, Heerlen. This gallery page should be deleted and the images should be moved to Commons where possible. There is already a page on Commons with similar images. Jncraton (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I WP:Proded it, and if that fails, consensus here may overrule. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and I have removed that prod tag. An article that is being discussed or has been discussed at AfD cannot be prodded. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Heerlen. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose a merge- "Heerlen photo gallery" is not a logical or useful redirect for anyone; it's more likely to be confusing than helpful. And the article doesn't need a gallery merged into it, individual pictures can be added if they would improve the article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose merge. The article is explicitly a photo gallery contrary to WP:NOTGALLERY. As for merging, Heerlen already is overstuffed with images and needs some trimming. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arte Libertino Magazine[edit]

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

Possible hoax, definitely a copyvio. Majority of the text is lifted verbatim from Monocle (2007 magazine), with only the names changed. Other parts are lifted from Acne Paper, again with the names changed. As this article is completely unreferenced, checking the references in the original articles shows that the claims are indeed true for Monacle and Acne, but not for Arte Libertino. For example, this quote which I removed from the article (Susannah Frankel of The Independent writes "There is an organic and authentic quality to Arte Libertino, a sense of it extending above and beyond an obviously commercially viable concern, which is genuinely inspiring.") was actually about Acne Paper, not Arte Libertino - here's the original article with the real quote. Should have been speedy deleted, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to have this article existing, as for the statements above. Jab843 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the admin who declined the speedy delete request, I feel I should point out that I declined it under the "hoax" criteria because it didn't read like a blatant hoax when I read over it. Indeed, Arte Libertino does indeed appear to be a real magazine. How notable is it? I won't go into that. Is the article very poorly written? Yes, it is -- the copyvio from other articles (which I'll admit, I missed) should be enough to attest to that. But the magazine itself does appear to be real, which means the entire article isn't a hoax, and the copyvios can be fixed, if someone wants to spend the time to do it. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 00:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I believe this qualifies as a blatant hoax even though a Web site (not a physical magazine; I can find no evidence that there is any such magazine) by the name of Arte Libertino exists. Of the three images currently in the article, the first obviously depicts faked mockups, the second either may be of the same nature or may be an image of an unrelated magazine (the words visible on the left-hand page are French, not Spanish), and the third is a spread from an issue of Conservator magazine—see pages 3 & 4 of this PDF. The ISSN given in the infobox appears to be fake, and nothing else of substance in the article appears to be correct, as the nominator has stated. I'm off to Commons to nominate the Conservator copyvio for deletion. Deor (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no references. I don't think it is a hoax but rather badly created by copying another article. Vrenator ^talk 09:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure if this is a copyvio or a hoax, but it's non-notable either way. --Madison-chan (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Delete. Regarding the real Arte Libertino online magazine, this is the only coverage that I could find. The magazine does seem to be gradually picking up notoriety, so the usual caveats apply — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean technology challenge[edit]

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

Article was deproded by an anon IP editor yet the original issue is still there. I can find no reliable source coverage to establish notability for this organization/event. The current references are blogs and primary source announcements. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — As per nom ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, seems no justification for this event. Jab843 (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find any reliable third party sources which establish notability. Jncraton (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Event with no evidence of independent coverage to support its notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Cooper (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball figure, de-prod'd. Being a "multiple championship winner" does not make one notable, as demonstrated by the countless successful AfD's of members of minor league championship teams. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nomination, fails notability ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Agree with nom. Shadowjams (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Toddst1 as "A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Najmal Volcano[edit]

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

Non-notable choreographer, page also has advertising and a message not in English -Vaar sivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has since been speedily deleted. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to place a redirect here, and where to, is a matter for yet-to-be-established editorial consensus. Sandstein 08:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim scholar[edit]

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

There is no encyclopedic concept to be covered here, nor an ambiguous concept to be disambiguated. The phrase is like Chinese hobbyist or brown pants. Possibly soft redirect to Category:Muslim scholars. bd2412 T 15:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—We do have a List of Islamic studies scholars, which isn't quite the same thing but seems a more appropriate association of terms. Perhaps a merge there? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — Article serves no purpose. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete phrase pretending to be a disambiguation page. A redirect to Islamic studies could work. --JaGa^talk 17:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the dab page Muslim scholarship overlaps, and raises similar issues. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree with nominator that there's no encyclopedic concept to be covered here. As the nominator suggested, Category:Muslim scholars might be a good redirect destination. But I don't think merge/redirect to another article would be best in this case, as there's no particular article this should be merged/redirected to: "Muslim scholar" is a wide-open, ambiguous concept, even assuming momentarily that it is encyclopedic. Neither List of Muslim historians, List of modern-day Muslim scholars of Islam, List of Muslim philosophers, nor Islamic studies seems a particularly good fit for the concept. JFHJr (㊟) 21:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why it should be a dab page. -- 202.124.73.30 (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Strong Keep. A sensible dab page, based on an obvious search term, and with an inherent ambiguity (is it scholarship from within Golden-Age Muslim culture but unrelated to Islam, or scholarship based on Islamic religion, or scholarship by Muslims? -- the first two of those relate to different clusters of articles, the last to a variety of lists). -- 202.124.73.30 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem there is not the ambiguity of the phrase "Muslim scholar" but of the word "Muslim" in that phrase. The exact same thing could be said about "Jewish scholar", "Buddhist scholar", "Hindu scholar", "Chinese scholar", "Brazilian scholar", "Canadian scholar", "Republican scholar", "Psychotic scholar", Asian-American scholar", etc. Furthermore, you could substitute "academic" or "specialist" or " expert" (or even "hobbyist") for "scholar" in any of those. Do you see where that becomes a problem? bd2412 T 15:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but "Muslim Scholar" is a little different, because it refers to the cultural phenomenon called the Islamic Golden Age as well as to the adjectival sense you describe. Consequently there is no obvious redirect target. -- 202.124.72.216 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many religions, ethnic groups, nations, and cultures have had periods from which particularly proud scholarship arose. There is nothing special about Islam in that regard. The lack of an obvious redirect target is of no more significance than the fact that there is no obvious redirect target for purple flower. Any flower that is purple can be described as a purple flower. bd2412 T 23:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the article under discussion isn't about purple flowers, but about a topic where the adjective is ambiguous (it can refer to the religion of the scholar or to a particular cultural milieu). It is therefore analogous to, say, Jasmine (disambiguation), and satisfies the criteria at WP:Disambiguation for creating a dab page. -- 202.124.73.15 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, that is a function of the ambiguity of the word "Muslim", not of the phrase "Muslim scholar" (or of possible substitutions like "expert", "student", "researcher", "teacher", etc.). bd2412 T 15:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Muslim_scholars, which seems great. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe this page should be deleted because there isn't really anything notable about Category 4. Category 5 hurricanes are at the top of the scale and rare, but Category 4's? Not so much. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 2008 AfD discussion spelled out why this list is valid, and while consensus can change, but I don't see any reason why it should change in this case. This is a list of notable hurricanes (all of them bluelinks, most of them with their own articles) grouped in a useful and meaningful way. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the category works better to link them together. A Category 4 isn't notable on it's own. Unlike Category 5 hurricanes (which are the top of a scale and notable in that regard) and major hurricanes (which is a broad group of strong hurricanes), there isn't anything objectively special about Category 4 hurricanes. That is, none of the information in the article is actual limited to a Category 4 hurricane. It's all generic info for major hurricanes, sans what is derived from the Atlantic hurricane best track. If there was an independent agency listing the Category 4 hurricanes and providing some statistical analysis, as well as more information on the structure of Category 4 hurricanes (as opposed to Cat. 3 or 5), I'd be inclined to keep, but as far as I know, that information is simply not available. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A once/twice/thrice-a-year occurrence should be enough to warrant notability, and in my opinion, this page links Category 4 hurricanes better than a category would. HurricaneFan 25 16:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does a much better job at linking Category 4 hurricanes together than the category does. As someone who doesn't know much about hurricanes, I appreciate the context that this page brings and the way that it organizes the information. Jncraton (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is notable. Jab843 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I echo the points raised here by Hurricanehink. I would be convinced otherwise if there were similarly produced lists of cat 4 hurricanes, as there are for cat 5 hurricanes. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A discriminate list of notable category 4 hurricanes, with references. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies all our criteria for lists. It's easy to decide whether a topic deserves to be included in the list, the topic is NPOV, references can easily be provided, the subjects themselves fit our notability definition, and categories and lists can work together. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per Hurricanehink.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I prefer to delete lists that are truly redundant to categories, despite the wording of WP:CLN, but in this case the list provides information and formatting that no category could. In such cases lists are in fact complementary not redundant and should not be deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it doesn't. The list contains no additional information than what is found in Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale or is a synthesis of data from the article itself. It includes no objective studies or articles on Category 4 hurricanes themselves. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I was comparing the list to the category and not other articles. Sure the general information on Cat 4 storms is found in the general articles but the list of hurricanes in chronological (not alphabetic) order with additional info like location of landfall and minimum central pressure is, as far as I can tell, unique to this list. There is no requirement that lists contain information not present in other articles just that they present it in a different and useful way. IMO, this list meets those criteria by doing things a category can't. The only concern would be that it is more logical to group storms by year rather than by strength since Cat 4 storms are rarely considered as a separate group. This argument has some force, but is not dispositive since wikipedia is not paper and we can list them both ways. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The hurricanes get coverage. Many blue links to category 4 Atlantic hurricanes in the article. And the list article offers information useful for people wishing to know more information than you could get from just looking at a Wikipedia category. Dream Focus 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate content and/or redirect to Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per overwhelming consensus across two afds now. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Its not an overwhelming consensus remember WP is not a vote.Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I was tempted to wait and be the closing admin, I feel I am sufficiently inclusionist when it comes to meteorology articles that I'm somewhat biased towards keeping this. All in all, I agree with Eluchil404's summary of things with regards to it being redundant to the category. I also don't really feel that this lacks sufficient notability...category 4 hurricanes aren't exactly trivial, dime a dozen things. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ultimately, Eluchil404 hits the problem with this nomination straight in the head: it assumes that for the list to exist, it must provide some sort of scientific analysis on Category 4 tropical cyclones. (In fact, I posit that such an analysis would be better placed in an article about major hurricanes.) That level of analysis is not necessary by any means, as the additional chronological and intensity information provided by the list make it superior to a category, at least from a navigational perspective. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that his academic accomplishments are insufficient to support an article in the absence of independent, reliable sources, which have not been found. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Reiff-Marganiec[edit]

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

I admit that I am not an expert in the field, but I cannot find any evidence here of the sort of widespread enough publication that would pass WP:PROF. Where are the independent sources? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Edited 3 books (and one special journal issue: see [23]' also 50 peer reviewed publications, many in IEEE/ACM publications. One of them has 240 Google Scholar citations and 118 in Scopus (the usual 2:1 proportion) , "Feature interaction: a critical review and considered forecast" by Caldera, Kolbergb, Magillb, & Reiff-Marganiec in Computer Networks Volume 41, Issue 1, 15 January 2003, Pages 115-141; another "Feature interaction in policies", by Reiff-Marganiec & Turner in Computer Networks Volume 45, Issue 5, 5 August 2004, Pages 569-584 has 49 GS / 22 Scopus. (overall h=15). Probably enough to show expertise in the subject. Did the nom look at the list of publication--it's linked in the article. It's certainly "widespread" enough, though that's not the usual criterion (rather we usually judge by the citations, and I think they're borderline, but the books add to it.) DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I glanced down the list. Unfortunately, as you say, having published lots of articles is fairly meaningless (especially in a discipline such as computer science, where journal quality has been criticised before) although I agree that the books are useful in that regard. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His one high-citation work in Google scholar is a survey paper co-authored with his thesis advisor. The citation counts are respectable but not really high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see anything else in the article that can substitute or that can pass a different criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no even close to notable due an almost complete lack in independent third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Ljekperic[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage and therefore fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Same as above. Probable autobio. Previouly speedy deleted (A7).— Racconish^Tk 16:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Could be a personal bio. Jab843 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 02:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FallDown![edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources unaffiliated with the subject have been shown to provide significant non-trivial coverage of the subject. In other words, not notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication this is at all notable--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is about a video game for IPhones and the like. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This game in particular doesn't meet notability. There are several instances of these kind of "falldown" games (see [24], [25], [26], [27], also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falldown). This post [28] provides some fair coverage but, alas, it's not the same program. I guess the title without the exclamation mark would be suited for presenting the game concept, but I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing that either — frankie (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the blogcritics source would fail WP:RS, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't sure about it either, as it isn't clear how much control does the editorial staff exert. Checking the WP:RSN archives shows the site has not been considered reliable the times it was brought up — frankie (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — G11 - Article seems like a blatant advert, due to (a) it's articleless link to creator and (b) link to iTunes store. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No assertion of notability from this game. Please note, as Ian.thomson has pointed out, that there are several games with the same title in which you need to sift through. –MuZemike 21:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, but frankie. The asterisks and and tabs don't complement each other too well. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 21:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — G11 Stuartyeates (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital community art[edit]

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

This is an article about a neologism (the article states that it's "a recent development") which has gained almost no traction so far. This search yields only 34 ghits. andy (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NEO with no significant coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Legion of Extraordinary Dancers. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chadd Smith[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Unknown dancer with minor acting roles. Hardly meets WP:ENT. bender235 (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to The Legion of Extraordinary Dancers as that is where the article asserts his notability, and for which he has soucability.[29]. Article claims he has a "huge YouTube following and has put out several well rated videos", but such assertion seems puffery that lacks sourcing. We can send readers to the one place where they can read about him in context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Legion of Extraordinary Dancers as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but a consensus also exists to rewrite. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of HTML5 and Flash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/HTML5 vs. Flash

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

This WP:ESSAY is WP:ORIGINAL research and a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Adobe Flash and HTML 5 articles. The subject is of questionable WP:NOTABILITY and is comparing apples to oranges (HTML+CSS+JS != HTML 5), as evidenced by the lede statement: "HTML5 can sometimes be used as an alternative to Adobe Flash". There are obvious WP:NPOV issues, no doubt due to WP:COI of the editors and with even Adobe having given up on Flash (at least on mobile and TV) in favour of HTML 5, it's unlikely anyone would write a "HTML vs Flash" article today. All in all Wikipedia would be better off if this article were deleted as it is not encyclopedic and more appropriate for someone's personal blog. -- samj _in ^out 13:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was previously nominated for deletion under a different name and the result was no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HTML5_vs._Flash -- samj _in ^out 13:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the above claim to delete it. I think the statement that websites have started using HTML5 instead of flash is a neutral one, unlike what you claim, simply because it is true (as an example, Youtube that was traditionally all flash, has started to provide HTML5 players for devices that don't support flash). I came to wikipedia searching for a comparision between the two technologies, and have found this article very helpful. It would be a shame to delete it and not have this comparision, especially when in the tech world, people compare the two technologies every day. - Dasarp

Delete – I agree with samj. This is a terrible article, despite all of its sources. Any of the (little) good information can be incorporated into the HTML 5 and Flash articles in a comparison section. This is nothing more than an essay, and a poorly written one at that. Particularly bad is the testing section with no explanation of the testing parameters (treating CPU usage on a single, undefined machine as a value that actually matters and comparing undefined HTML5 and Flash files without even the assertion that they are somewhat comparable animations). —danhash (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — I'd say some rewriting is necessary to make it more appropriate for wiki, and some sections need removal/addition, but it's sourced, and I'd say is notable in terms of current important browser technologies. ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article contains a significant amount of well source information which is encyclopedic in nature. In the long term, I think that this article should be summed up and merged into HTML5 as a comparison to existing technologies section. Jncraton (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HTML5. It's a wp:Notable debate (which I can't find an actual policy about) concerning notable technologies, but it's currently a bit too close to violating NOT#FAQ. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability was clearly established in last year's Afd and notability is not temporary. As Lambiam said in that discussion, "merging the content of this article into a specific choice between HTML5 and Adobe Flash would give [the comparison] unduly localized prominence." Afd is not for cleanup: delete the original research. There's a lot of well-referenced content. Participate in discussion to reach neutral POV. What does the eventual resolution of the conflict (i.e. Adobe backing down) have to do with the topic's relevance? Flash isn't gone, and the comparison still belongs in its own article for now. If Flash were gone, maybe it could be moved there instead, but let's not write history before it happens. Thinking from an historical perspective may be useful, though: it's clear that the article doesn't need so much detail about performance, for example. --Pnm (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have Adobe Flash and HTML5. What this WP:ESSAY adds to that is comparison material that is far from being as well-sourced as it should be. -- 202.124.73.250 (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge into HTML5 Merge into Adobe Flash As a comparison of two competing technologies, it rightly belongs in neither main article, otherwise we have duplicates to maintain. The article does indeed need attention but keep as per Lambian (talk · contribs)'s sourcing in the previous Afd --Senra (Talk) 13:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm just a user and found this article useful (good summary, links for further reading). That alone would be reason enough for me to keep it. Of course usability of the Wikipedia is subordinate to its policy which I don't understand, but that leaves my option unaffected. 89.0.130.44 (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i.e., rename/rewrite. The 'Flash versus HTML 5 controversy was (and still is) an important phenomenon (in its context) with lasting effects. It as such is worthy of a dedicated article that could cover the history and context of the controversy, and, potentially, discuss the merits of some of the accusations expressed by some parties involved in this controversy. Several of these aspects are covered in the current article, but needs further work. The article is slightly biased in favor of Flash, but the original motivation for deletion, however, is clearly biased in favor of HTML 5. A good article on this controversy should be neutral, as should be any evaluation of it content. --Wouter VdB (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite in standard table-driven format as other technical comparisons, such as Comparison of word processors, Comparison of text editors, Comparison of Linux distributions and Comparison of web server software. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then rewrite with a more neutral POV, per Wouter VdB's rationale.--Cavarrone (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is useful for the readers since the references is cited but it should require rewrite per Stuartyeates and Cavarrone - WPSamson (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 02:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox TEN[edit]

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

Article doesn't seem to fit any speedy delete categories, and the author removed the WP:PROD template after changing a single word. Article is pure crystal ball and the name "Xbox TEN" seems to stem purely from speculation made by a podcaster. ferret (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure speculation based on unreliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the name of the page is even made up 'Xbox ten', until an official announcement is made or more verifiable information exists, this page should be deleted. Jab843 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Only one of the sources mentions the project by name, but all of them involve rumors by Microsoft and speculations thereof. –MuZemike 20:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 20:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speculation from unreliable sources. While the Joystiq is usuable as a source in general, it's not good in this instance, as it doesn't even refer to the articles name. Far too little is known about this future system for it to warrant an article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I this a real Xbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it's nothing more than a rumour. Reach Out to the Truth 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per everyone else -- speculation, rumour, etc. Salvidrim (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consists entirely of speculation and rumors, failing the general notability guideline. Chris (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't there be a successor section in the 360 article? If so, this could redirect there (as a putative name in the wild) 70.24.248.23 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything confirmed yet though, beyond the fact that they're likely working on it? Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lake piston[edit]

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

This article fits the definition of "non-verifiable" to the letter, and in addition there already exist multiple several-year old templates that make note of this fact, yet nothing has changed. I should also add that the text of the article itself is questionable at points and seems to be rather inconsistent at others. The multiple-year-old major-problem templates, combined with the text of the article itself and the utter lack of references (and I tried to find some, just in case) make this article either the very first or the very second article that I've ever nominated for deletion, and I've been a wikiaddict for a long time. If I had to guess, I'd say this is the first time. I was enjoying myself reading about sterling engines and thinking about ways to make money off of firewood with the powergrid and came across this crappy article. Read it and form your own opinion and vote. Thanks. Spiral5800 (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many web sources point back to the wikipedia page, and the term is not used in relation to renewable energy in any book source. I found these pages which never use the term "Lake piston" explicitly, but seem to capture the idea expressed in the article. That said, even if this thing does exist, there's absolutely no evidence it is a notable concept. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, neither of the devices mentioned by Jethrobot are similar to the "lake piston" described in the subject article. The subject article talks about a piston that is driven by the thermal expansion of lake water due to seasonal temperature variations. The practicality of such a system is so negligible that I have to attribute this article as a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus below is that the coverage is sufficient to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Eszes (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable person (and he was never a politician). Crufjsa (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Politician "includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions". That definition certainly embraces Eszes. WWGB (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He was a mayoral candidate in 2011. His death was reported in the English-language press. Norden (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2011 (CET)
Keep. The subject of the article has attracted international media attention in at least the United States [30], Canada [31], United Kingdom [32], Ireland [33] and India [34]. He clearly satisfies WP:SIGCOV. WWGB (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WWGB. GNews shows substantial coverage of the subject [35] and his death [36]. (adding signature later) Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2011. Oops! Forgot to sign this at the time I posted it. Sorry. Arxiloxos (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic passes WP:GNG, a couple of links I added to the article:

"Hungarian Roma Flee From Far-Right Group". Sky News. April 23, 2011. Retrieved November 11, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
McLaughlin, Daniel (April 28, 2011). "Hungary promises to tackle far-right vigilantes after four hurt in clashes". Irish Times. Retrieved November 11, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hungarian National Defence Association. While I suppose it's possible that he was covered extensively in the Hungarian press prior to the incident this year, it seems quite unlikely, given there is no Hungarian wikipedia article on the man. He received international attention only due to the paramilitary training episode this year. Nevard (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was an article about him in the Hungarian Wikipedia, hu:Eszes Tamás (remember that Maygar names are Familyname Givenname, not Givenname Familyname), but it was deleted a few days ago with a rationale linking to the Hungarian equivalent of WP:NOT. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There wasn't an article about him in the Hungarian Wikipedia, a meaningless text was on the place of the article, and it was deleted because of this. Crufjsa (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inline citations show good coverage in the international press. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, the coverage in the international press proves he is notable. Dream Focus 12:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habibeh Madjdabadi[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Other than self-published stuff, there's hardly anything about her on the internet. I don't see how she meets WP:ARTIST. bender235 (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. If reliable references for those awards are found, ping me on my talk page to re-assess my vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

123Net[edit]

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

Internet Service Provider and voice/data product company with limited claims to notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Current content of the article is a company history. None of the listed sources mention the company except two related to some of its recent acquisitions. This piece from The Oakland Press provides some depth, but it amounts to local coverage about the company, mostly relating to its acquisitions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The substantial majority of the "references" don't even mention the company, let alone support the statements in the article to which they are attached. Of the three that do mention the company, one is a wayback machine archived copy of an advertising page, one is a press release on a press release publishing website (the site's own description of its service:"we’ll help you optimize your press release with the goal of being picked up by major search engines"), and the other is the Oakland Press article mentioned above. I concur with I Jethrobot's assessment of that article. My own searches have failed to produce any independent coverage at all: that one local newspaper article seems to be it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not establish anything beyond local notability in a reliable way. Jncraton (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not establish any notability beyond the local notability established in the Oakland Press atricle. Fails the general notability guideline. Chris (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another local ISP. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My opinion upon reading this article and checking the references also leans towards 'delete', but I worry about being too hasty. It could be argued that this article has enough EV to be worth keeping around, especially since it's not like publishing costs are an issue. If this article read like an advertisement rather than a history lesson, I would strongly support its removal or total overhaul, but the style is pretty much what one expects to find in an average wikipedia article. The historical information about the company just might be useful in the future to someone who might google "123net" or type that into wikipedia in the future, whether its for some sort of research, for legal reasons, or anything else. I agree, though, that there are major problems with the references (like #6, which is a link to a "download linux free" page and isn't really a reference at all) and that the other issues regarding notability have merit, which is why I am withholding a direct 'vote' and instead voicing this comment. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that this may achieve notability if rewritten around Linux System Labs which at one time was a significantly player in the physical distribution of Linux media (95-97 timeframe), I believe. See [37], [38] and [39]; they later got sold to http://shop.cheapbytes.com/ apparently. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Website founded early enough to meet the List of websites founded before 1995 criteria, probably. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete not sure that website is proven that early Stuart? Otherwise seems entirely non-notable. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutaiku Muttai(short film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film by a non-notable company. Google search brings up nothing about the film or the company, nothing to prove any sort of notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment: It definitely fails WP:MOVIE and the company's entry was recently speedy deleted. Just thought I'd add this into the discussion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - I would have flagged this for speedy deletion, but we don't have a category for films from people with no articles like we do for music, with db-band. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON (at best) as there is no verifiability of release or screenings, no review or commentary, and all that can be found is Youtube trailers and mentions in non-RS.[40] Fails WP:NF. Maybe next year. Maybe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scant information available so far. pablo 08:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : as above Jethwarp (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this a hoax? I can't find anything about this film nor it's production company, Zero Budget Studios. Some help please? --Madison-chan (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Violates WP:ADVERT - written in a highly promotional form. WP:NOTABLE and may be WP:TOOSOON. Possibly violates WP:COI since the only Youtube trailer is from Lithiym's channel, who's also the creator of this page. Veryhuman (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persuasive and sales messages[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a manual. This is an unencyclopedic essay on a hazily defined topic, and contains nothing that isn't (or couldn't be mentioned) in Advertising or Marketing. De-PRODded with no explanation by an IP. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A how-to article doing Satan's handiwork: The 3-x-3 writing process is a strategy to use in order to create a successful structure for laying a foundation for persuasion write a successful persuasive message. It takes three steps: -The first step in the 3-x-3 writing process is to analyze the purpose. This means to identify your purpose from the beginning in order to be able to shape your message in such a way that it will leave your audience no choice but to feel convinced that you can satisfy what they need or what they are looking for. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by RHaworth as "G3: Blatant hoax". Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Mew Inc.[edit]

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

Google for company and CEO turned up as nothing. Possible hoax. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax via WP:G3. I'm not finding anything substantial and what I am finding heavily shows this being a hoax. The CEO appears to have a channel on Youtube where he appears to be a teenaged boy. [41], [42] He and his "company" left a comment on another account which seems to make me lean more towards this being a hoax. (See this account [43] on page 1 & 2.) The only ghits about this refer back to the same kid from youtube, from posts he or one of his friends seemed to have made. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax The show's own website still reports the anime still under the copyright of Studio Pierrot. This can't be right. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I just tag it for speedy deletion now or do I wait for this to close? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it already. An admin will come along soon enough. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was about to do it myself, glad to see you beat me to it. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlightView[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is completely unsourced, since 5 years ago. It therefore fails WP:V, and doesn't seem to be notable at all. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the one app seems notable enought to be included in a list somewhere. The independent information I found would only produce a stub. Not notable. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The company does seem Not notable. Jab843 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 against a redirect if anybody thinks it's a viable search term HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Freed[edit]

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

After WP:BIO cleanup, this subject has no intelligible claim to notability. Available sources mentioning this subject are generally not independent – this subject is or has been closely related to the source of most of the material previously in the article. His search hits show his own WP:SPS and a smattering of insignificant/passing coverage in his position as a company spokesperson. In sum, no significant, reliable, third party coverage exists that I can see. JFHJr (㊟) 04:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not close to notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ForeSee Results, since what little coverage he does seem to have accumulated comes entirely from his role within the company. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. are we going to include every CEO the company has as a redirect? (and as an aside what does "ForeSee continuously measures satisfaction across customer touch points and delivers critical insights on where to prioritize improvements for maximum impact." actually mean?) :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Smartse as "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement". Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Trent[edit]

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

Person exists; books exist... but I don't think she's notable (WP:AUTHOR). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its a difficult one.But I think the complete lack of sources works against it.I could not find any particular third party reference for this author.Wp says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed" & "When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in more reliable sources",thus it fails WP:BLP.Moreover it fails WP:RS because there are no reliable sources.The books are self written,but to verify the biographic details we need sources(details are available at the author's own website,but it is not reliable source).So, it lacks verifiability and thus fails WP:VERIFY.Vivekananda De--tAlK 06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, the whole article is a word-for-word copy of her entry at her publisher's webpage, tagged for G12 accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudos. I searched for it, but couldn't find the link. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Truly magical !! Couldn't find this link in my manual search.Vivekananda De--tAlK 10:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We booksellers have our uses... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - I presume Trent herself (or her publisher) put the identical text here and on the publisher's website, so the problem is not really copyright violation but a) spamming/self-publicity and b) lack of Notability / Verifiable sources. However it comes to the same result - delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is very much a puff piece. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sterne[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards. No particular claim or evidence of notability, even before cleanup for WP:BIO/WP:SPS reasons. This article's been around for over two years without any development beyond a spammy CV. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search only brought up promotional and sales links, with a few blog articles and other things that wouldn't be considered a reliable source. He just doesn't meet notability guidelines at this time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN. Jab843 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lack independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability whatsoever. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 02:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emetrics Summit[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, in particular WP:CORPDEPTH as to coverage. It makes zero claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that this passes our inclusion criteria. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable conference that fits the profile: a conference on measuring the success of a website.... has expanded in subject matter to online marketing optimization. And you misspelled "emetics". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely lacking reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A non-notable conference. I can find no reliable Ghits about it. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is AfD becoming -- a guessing game? --have any of the people commenting above thought of checking for references. If a good check finds none, then we judging on more than appearances. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 02:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Book of Arda[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This work may be popular among some fans, but a lack of critical reception means it fails WP:NBOOKS. St Anselm (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, both (a) due to lack of any significant coverage, and (b) due to the article's own admission that it's a low circulation unauthorised fanfiction never released outside Russia. The article also appears to substantially consist of original research. In the event that the article is somehow kept, I'd also note that it's ridiculously over-detailed for an article of this type, and pretty much everything outside the lead paragraphs should probably be snipped. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Surprisingly, no significant coverage in reliable, independent media. My research in English came up with zero, the Russian language version isn't any better sourced, and right now the article prose seems to be supported by a WP:SPS/blog. I was kind of hoping to find something in the realm of copyright wars, but I haven't found anything to support an encyclopedic article. JFHJr (㊟) 04:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fanbase might have discussed this at some point, but there aren't any reliable sources that have covered this enough for it to have an article on wikipedia. It might merit a mention in one of the various fan-run Tolkienpedias out there, but not here. Ultimately this is just a fanfiction that got more notice than your average offering. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another fan-fiction. Sure, it's much more popular than most fanfics out there, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not notable. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Not to be confused with the similar The Last Ringbearer which is notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to renominate after a suitable grace period in the hope of getting a more lively discussion, but as it is, no counter-argument has been made to the argument that the events are notable by virtue of the participants' notability. However, the lack of a counter-argument to an argument that does not necessarily reflect consensus or guidelines is not in itself sufficient for a "keep" result. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of further information about the propriety of some of the participants brought to my attention following the close, I amending the result to delete all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hero's 10[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hero's 10

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

procedural listing as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero's 2007 in Korea. also nominating:

Hero's Lithuania 2007
Hero's 9

LibStar (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than half the fighters are notable.Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a criterion for notabiility. a weekly English Premier League match would have all notable players, but we don't create articles for these matches. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should create such articles. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable sporting results.--Phospheros (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any lasting notability for these events. Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to participation of notable fighters, which gives the event historic importance. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:SPORTSEVENT. This is just routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:GNG. Meets no section of WP:EVENT. Not all sporting events are notable. Zero sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all due to notability. Google searching does seem to turn up sources independent of the events. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and are just routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as special events. Besides, what would we rather have be a blue link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero's 10 or Hero's 10? I reckon the latter is more useful fro people than the former. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G11 by 5 albert square (non-admin closure)--Breawycker (talk to me!) 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock rave[edit]

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

non-notable event, written like an advertisement Breawycker (talk to me!) 02:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriate Archive Centre[edit]

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

With just over 19.000 internet hits, 2 Google Scholar, 0 (zero) on Google news and 7 on Google Groups, there are not so many really independent and reliable sources. A lot of hits are local websites, blogs or the own website. I regard this organization as not notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and no sign that I can see of notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:19, 11 November 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, v/r - T P 01:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Activities don't seem notable, and lack of coverage indicates it fails WP:NGO/WP:ORG. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus below is that the coverage of his career is sufficient to justify an article even though he never played in the majors. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Bradley[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:BASE/N as he never played in the major leagues and he fails WP:GNG. Most coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seven sources that discuss the subject, some in more detail than others, but certainly sufficient to establish GNG for this former top prospect (Baseball America rated him #20 in the country, he participated in the All-Star Futures Game). The sources certainly do not cover him in a WP:ROUTINE way; that would be game recaps, mainly. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promising minor-leaguer bombs out after 5-6 injury-plagued years. Available sources indicate that he might have become notable had he stayed healthy. But he did not. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't dependent on anything: either you are notable or you are not. The coverage he received establishes GNG. Available sources indicated that he might've passed BASE/N, but established GNG when they were published. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Muboshgu above - signicant coverage in several reliable sources spanning a seven year period is more more than enough to pass WP:GNG. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. Seems to easily meet GNG. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hot pitching prospect blows out arm and never makes it to the majors. A story made many times. The media coverage is routine.- William 02:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding sports, WP:ROUTINE speaks of mentions of sporting events, leading me to think of box scores and the like. Coverage this player received is therefore beyond routine coverage. He became notable before he blew out his arm, and blowing out his arm can't take notability away. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Muboshgu states, he meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. He was named a High School All-American, which passes WP:NCOLLATH in principle.--TM 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage from reliable sources establishes WP:GNG. WP:ROUTINE shouldn't be thrown around as a reason to delete when there is coverage that is non-routine. WP:ROUTINE needs to be actually read before attempting to be applied to an AFD discussion, instead of reading the definition of the word routine on Wikitionary. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 against re-creation should better coverage be found or become available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edison's Children[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edison's Children

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

After a good faith search for reliable sources and reviewing the notability guidelines for musical acts, I do not believe this band meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Per: WP:BAND --SarahStierch (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the external links and reference are from Edison's Children themselves. Fails WP:GNG. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability - Please note that Edison's Children is the new "solo" effort (though featuring Eric Blackwood as his partner) by Pete Trewavas who has sold over 15 million records worldwide with Transatlantic, Kino and Marillion who are certified Platinum by RIAA. Though the sources may be limited at this time, much of this information will become public knowledge, in soon to be released worldwide interviews with many magazines and industry periodicals within the next few weeks. At that time, far more notes of sources will be immediately available.— Digitalballparks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
New sources just added from www.Transatlantic.com, UK Web Magazine - Fall 2011, Marillion.com, Roman Midnight Music Radio Interview with Eric Blackwood— Digitalballparks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:37, 5 November 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, v/r - T P 01:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Transatlantic, Marillion, and Eric Blackwood are not sources independent of the subject matter as they have all worked with him previously. I also find it curious that "UK Web Magazine" is unavailable on the web. Finally, you say that information is forthcoming. Well, I think we can wait. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If you want, you can request that this page be put on your userpage. When good sources are available that support the notability of the artist, it can then be rewritten on the article mainspace. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the latest publicity, the release of the album is scheduled for 18 November 2011. I suggest userfying this article until that happens and there is some independent coverage of the release. As a release involving an otherwise notable artist, some content about the new record will be appropriate either as a separate article or as a section of Pete Trewavas. However, the current text of Edison's Children is terribly bloated and will need some serious cutting in either case. Also, it should be noted that the wikilink to Eric Blackwood actually leads to a Canadian aviator by that name--as far as I could see, there is no article or other coverage in Wikipedia about the Eric Blackwood who's in this band.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Abbott[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball figure, de-prod'd with Alex with a blank edit summary. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant managing information to the pages for Tulsa Oilers, Memphis Chicks, and Charlotte Hornets, as these teams went to championships during his management. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any strong record of where he played, but the managing information can be merged into those pages. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coach at the Major League level (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/A/Pabbos801.htm). Adam Penale (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He coached in the majors. I think Muboshgu needs to read WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N before making any more AfDs. Alex (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No, I just need to be more careful when I multitask. Nomination withdrawn. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus below is that the sourcing is sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Bowers[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. His running through an outfield fence, a la Rodney McCray in the 1990s, may have received limited coverage when it occurred, how that one event does not seem very notable. Alex (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. See [44] and [45] among others. Appears to have been the first black coach of the Lookouts and an agitant for the rights of black players. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DustFormsWords. Sources provided are multiple, significant and independent--TM 20:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources and notability claims from DustFormsWords. Passes WP:GNG. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I see no compelling reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Campos[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. While she's covered many stories, there's no significant coverage about this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 05:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable reporter for a local news station. Local news reporters are almost never notable. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pel Austin[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball figure, contested PROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASE/N Adam Penale (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most people seem to agree that this articles redundant to existing ones and/or that the content is confused as to its subject matter. I would suggest that the title might be a useful redirect or disambiguation page and that a more precise title (see comments by Signalhead) be found and created (whether as an article, dad, or redirect) if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railway switching networks[edit]

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

This article is a very badly translated concatenation of several extant articles. The translation is very confusing, & the focus wanders badly off-topic from e.g. interlocking & track layout to area control. I propose it's deletion for these reasons. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:08, 3 November 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shows promise and is an interesting topic, needs cleanup not deletion seeing as no other articles are related. Jab843 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete. , yes it does look promising. I looked around a bit and there are articles on the components of railway switching networks, but this article could address how they are laid out and organized. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete given Signalhead's arguments below. If this is duplicating articles already on Wikipedia then we don't need it. Of course any useful portion should be merged in to the appropriate article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this has the potential to become a good high-level article about railway switching networks in general and the various methods used. As Richard above notes, we have articles on individual aspects and various components but nothing that brings them together and introduces the topic. Needing cleanup (and compared to some articles it's not in that bad a shape) is not a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems capable of supporting an article, and the rest is a matter of editing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, Wikipedia already has a carefully structured suite of articles on railway signalling topics and it's difficult to see where this one fits in. Its intended scope and purpose are unclear and seem to have been lost in the course of being translated from Russian by someone unfamiliar with English terminology. It doesn't help that the title is somewhat ambiguous; what on earth is "railway switching networks" actually supposed to mean? "Railway" is clear enough in meaning but in a railway context, "switching" can mean shunting but it's also a telecommunications term. "Switches" can mean points too and I suspect the author was struggling to find the proper word for "signalling" or "interlocking". So where do "networks" come into it? Perhaps "systems" is what the author really meant. So it seems that this could either be an article about "railway signalling systems" or "interlocking systems", both subjects that already have their own articles. Now to examine the article's content: It seems to start off with a general history of signalling development worldwide, then becomes more detailed and country-specific, without actually specifying which country. I'm a UK-based railway signalling engineer and I don't have a clue what this article is about and I would challenge anyone saying "keep" to explain it to me and which parts of its scope aren't already covered by other articles. It is very telling that, other than those made by its original author, nearly all the edits made to this article have been copy edits etc. as opposed to changing or adding technical content. If there is anything to be salvaged from this article then maybe, just maybe, some parts of it might form the basis of a "Russian railway signalling" article, but my recommendation is for deletion. –Signalhead ^< T > 22:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tiny amount of unique content to a paragraph in Centralized traffic control on russian systems and then redirect there. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see the logic behind a merge there (I don't agree it's the best solution though), but I think redirecting this broad to a specific country's implementation of one possible meaning would be a poor redirect. Far better than a redirect would be a dab page per Signalhead's comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Signalhead's comments. I am inclined to trust the assessment of an established editor who is a subject matter expert. Sandstein 08:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. I came here expecting to support retaining this, but Signalhead convinced me that this is probably better off gone. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Russian railway signalling. Signalhead's arguments are persuasively written, but "bad english" articles not fitting into an existing suite of articles aren't automatic reasons for deletion. Keep, rename and improve. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 European Court of Human Rights. Sandstein 07:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights[edit]

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

Redundant content fork of European Court of Human Rights that simply has selected some criticisms of the court at random and placed them in a new article. Any material that is judged to be valuable can be put in that article. Having a whole article that is just "criticism" of the court in isolation is not helpful. Ajbpearce (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 3 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Did this really need a deletion discussion? You're not advancing an argument for deletion when you acknowledge that the material (even just some of it) could be valuable to the main page. The material is sourced and can simply be moved over to European Court of Human Rights. Content issues can be handled over there. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Deletion would be appropriate if there's nothing to redirect to, or if nothing at all is noteworthy about a subject. Information should be merged judiciously (pun moderately intended) to avoid bloat or undue weight. If that might be a problem, the best thing to do is discuss on the main article's talk page, but probably not nominate for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 04:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redundant content fork of European Court of Human Rights - no, it is an article covering a sub-topic in a manner more detailed than it would be suitable in the main article. that simply has selected some criticisms of the court at random and placed them in a new article - is criticism by the members of the highest courts of states subject to ECHR jurisdiction, and by former member of the ECtHR itself "selected at random"? - Any material that is judged to be valuable can be put in that article. - with this approach that article would become too long. Having a whole article that is just "criticism" of the court in isolation is not helpful The Wikipedia community considers articles on "just" criticism to be able to be helpful, as is shown by the Category:Criticisms. If you consider it to be too isolated, it's a question of putting more wikilinks in the articles, not of deletion. Satiksme (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. See Wikipedia:Content_forking#Acceptable_types_of_forking Satiksme (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to European Court of Human Rights or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11, WP:CSD#G12 all applied. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seavest Inc[edit]

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

Large, unwikified, promotional article created in one edit by a single purpose account; likely a copyright violation but I haven't been able to find the source. Even if this company is notable, the article would need a complete rewrite. —SW— ^express 00:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 Unambiguous copyright infringement is prevalent on the article from the company's own webpage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Shapiro (news meteorologist)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. reddogsix (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same editor has been adding other non-notable news people from the same station. One was already deleted at AfD and another one is at AfD. All are from one of the smallest stations in the country. All don't have any reliable, independent sources to be found. Bgwhite (talk) 06:59, 4 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fine example of a subject that doesn't come close to the WP:BASICs, especially significant coverage about him. JFHJr (㊟) 05:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable reporter for a local news station. Local news reporters are almost never notable. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not the subject of independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Cruiserweight Championship[edit]

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

Unsourced; only fought for once; little to no background on the topic Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 27 October 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, Davewild (talk) 18:51, 3 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a seach of google shows the title is not unheard of. The Wrestling Press e-magazine and Premier British Wrestling cover it. It's not a lot of coverage, but enough to maintain the article with no original research. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. not unheard of ≠ notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG requires coverage to be 'in depth' I'm afraid Richard - otherwise you'd have saved it I think. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garo Tavitjan Junior[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable musician. Claims of awards and such were made (see the history), but this strikes me as a puff piece since none of the claims were ever verified. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[46]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.30.150 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 November 2011

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not the subject of sustained coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see any reliable sources to back a notability claim. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Webster[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this author; "unreliable" sources seem to indicate that most "famous" book was self-published, and later reprinted by a non-notable publisher. Article claims book was "widely reviewed" but provides no examples. Without references I can't see how notability is established. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 3 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any WP:RS other than the tate link which has only two images and a paragraph of text. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability, only source we can find is only a paragraph. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Samir 07:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memeplex (Vargotah album)[edit]

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

Unreleased album by non notable band (band page contains no refs, has no gnews links, and no google hits that arent WP:Mill or routine. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is going to be virtually the same as my comment on the band's AfD. All the sources seem to be linked to the band, so no independent evidence of notability. The band website suggests that all their music is either "coming soon" or "out of stock". Even the home of the non-notable, youtube has one video which lasts er... 0:00. Suspect hoax. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tigerboy1966's reasons. ProfNax (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Asseo[edit]

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

Makes a very weak claim to notability: "first Hispanic citizen to be appointed to the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights." - but the only source I can find is the one I added to this article in the BLP push last year, and no real reliable discussion of the subject in secondary sources so fails GNG Ajbpearce (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This claim isn't anywhere in the ballpark of support for notability for politicians. With no coverage in other sources, this individual doesn't meet the general notability guideline either, and so I'm gonna have to go with deletion on this one. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete? Are you kidding? He's the first left-handed Hispanic citizen to be appointed in a month ending in R to the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights while standing on his head in a ballerina costume. Isn't that notable? No? OK, then...
Delete EEng (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails most if not all WP:BASIC requirements, especially significant coverage. He was appointed to a non-notable body and hasn't ~~so much as fathered a Bieber baby~~ done anything encyclopedically notable. JFHJr (㊟) 05:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I'm assuming that it's great news that there are non-whites on the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, getting appointed doesn't make one notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Salehi[edit]

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

Articles appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Most of the info wasn't sourced, and the bit that was used things like Facebook and Blogspot. Clearly an editor eith an inflated ego. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:08, 4 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Even if all the claims were true and could be adequately sourced, it still wouldn't garner notability as far as Wikipedia:ATHLETEs go. JFHJr (㊟) 05:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aqua Teen Hunger Force (season 7)#Episodes. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbot Redux[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. As a sidenote, this article was already deleted after a proposed deletion and was recreated without the history being restored. Neelix (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the season list.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:39, 21 October 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, JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:50, 3 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources expect for a few odd reviews here and there, and the article was deleted already to begin with. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / redirect to the season list. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Further discussion of redirecting/merging on the article's talk page is encouraged. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Kravitz[edit]

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

Not a player, more of a nobody. Run amok in the country (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Mentioned a single time in the book listed on the page with no substantial detail. I could not find Kravitz discussed in-depth in any other books or news sources. Doesn't meet notability requirements for WP:BIO. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—There's no question that sources are hard to find. I couldn't find much outside of proquest, but there's plenty from the NYT from 1929 through 1939. I put about a fifth of them into the article, where they can be seen and evaluated. There's more to add about his involvement with Lepke and narcotics importation, but I don't have time tonight. here's the proquest search if anyone else wants to take a whack at it before I can get back to it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through these articles using my university account access. He is mentioned in each of them, but only in passing as a lackey of Lepke or in a list of a slew of other associates that Lepke had. He is given all of two sentences in this article, "2 New Witnesses link Lepke to Ring":

She subsequently received $12,000 dollars from Katzenberg "that he got from Louis Kravitz," she went on. Kravitz, a fugitive in the case, had previously been described as a business manager for Lepke.

There is also an article briefly describing an active police search for Kravitz, noting that he went under another psuedonym. Really, this doesn't seem substantial enough for its own article. His involvement with Lepke is certainly verifiable, I'm not sure if it's notable enough for its own article because there just isn't enough coverage of him specifically. Perhaps it might be better to merge relevant info to the Louis "Lepke" Buchalter. I've struck my delete above. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see that this case is borderline re: notability. The thing that tipped me into a keep was the $1000 reward 2 years after the big Lepke drug ring roundup, but I'll certainly still be able to sleep at night if this gets merged to Lepke's article.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources currently in the article. While they are behind a paywall, they appear to establish topic notability per the General notability guideline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources may mention him in passing, they don't establish his notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have access to the paywalled site for the references in the article to verify your statement? Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-documented mobster over a ten-year period, as attested by reliable sources. His arrest was also a test case for inchoate offenses. Louis Kay was famous in his day. Once notable, always thus so. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article about the crime since he does not appear to have any notability that is not somehow connected to that particular event. The sources I find refer to him as "Louis Kravitz" rather than "Lou Kravitz", so I'm wondering if the article title should be changed if the article is kept. A photo of him can be found here on page 245. Location (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Hendrixson[edit]

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 27 October 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, Wifione ^Message 08:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The subject of the article has won first place at some of the most notable international "electronic sports" competitions in the world such as Electronic Sports World Cup, Quakecon, and Gamescom. More information about these competitions can be found at Electronic sports. His ESWC win can be seen here which in my opinion, would satisfy point 1 on its own. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:09, 3 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tenative Delete~~ One major problem with the article is that there's no source verifying these awards that the subject has won. Even the one you point to is from FNATIC, which is a gaming team, not an independent news source. Unless the awards can be reported by a source from the tournament or one that is sufficiently independent of the subject, they don't support the notability of the subject. I'm going to do a search to see if I can find something official from the ESWC. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found official rankings through ESWC's website and the Internet Wayback Machine and have added them to the article. But there are several more awards here that are not verified. If they are not verified, they can removed. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the most notable professional gamers, actually. Per OlYeller21. causa sui (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is widely considered one of, if not the, best Quake players; this is not like one of your standard cases of a non-notable or unidentifiable DotA players, Ridernyc. That being said, this article could use some expansion. DarthBotto_talk•cont 07:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Zone (play). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zone (book)[edit]

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

No sign of notability, and no third party references. Article was restored after a WP:REFUND request, even though it had been deleted almost 2 years prior (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article title is not much use for finding sources - I suggest Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL instead. Using this, there are plenty of Google hits. The play (not book) was the first major success for its author, Marcel Dubé, and still seems to be performed regularly - the problem looks like being filtering out the one-sentence title checks in short biographies of the author and the one-line notices of yet another performance, and then seeing what's left. I think it quite likely to be enough for notability for an article separate from that for its author, but can't be certain. PWilkinson (talk) 13:00, 5 November 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, →Σ τ c. 00:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Zone (play) Is this really about a book, though? I mean, I know that's what it says in the title, but the lede reads: Zone is a French-language three-act play written by French-Canadian author Marcel Dubé. I am not sure they are different things. According to this article, the play won "top awards" at the Dominion Drama festival in Canada during the 1950s, so I think that qualifies for notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Zone (play) per PWilkinson and I Jethrobot. Here is another mention of the award [47], and it is also mentioned here [48] as shown by the Google snippet. Some more coverage [49] [50] [51] — frankie (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is useful, please don't delete this page, it helps those who are reading the play in french. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.68.150 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Zone (play). notability established with the award. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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