Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 8

< 7 September	9 September >

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 No consensus to delete. Angr (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allan R. Bomhard[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any reliable secondary sources on the subject. Every source on the subject seems to be either a social media site, or a mention of his books. I understand that the WP:PROD tag was pulled since he has authored and co-authored several books, but I can't find anything that makes the individual himself notable. In fact, the only source for the article mentions nothing that is stated in the lede; it just says that he is working on a linguistics study. Ish dar ian 05:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's a reasonably notable academic -- but among other scholars, probably known more for his earlier work on tentative Semitic / Indo-European correspondences etc., rather than for his later work in full-on Nostratic mode (which is heavily emphasized in the article). AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is a borderline case. The guideline is WP:SCHOLAR, and that requires that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". His few papers have been cited quite a bit, but just in passing. Could go either way on this one. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weal keep?. We can look at the numbers for comparison with other linguists. GS h-index is 11 in a fairly low-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete - I would fall on the side of deletion. He seems to have minor notability but not enough, in my opinion, to warrant his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsZippy (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 September 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, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He does seem to be a recognized expert on Nostratic — as an example, in Georg's review of a book by Salmons and Joseph he is included in a list of three prominent supporters of Nostratic. He has decent citation counts in a low-citation subject, and is doing remarkably well as an unaffiliated academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lahey[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher currently not with any affiliated minor league team. He last pitched in affiliated baseball in 2010. Statistically, he did nothing of note to merit an article. References are lacking. Alex (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources; it's just that no one has taken the time to put them into the article. I'll see what I can do. I'm just happy I happened upon this before it was actually deleted. — KV5 • Talk • 14:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I've gotten this to the point where the AfD can be closed as Keep, as there are now reliable sources proving notability, and there are a plethora more here in a Google News search covering from the beginning of his college career to the present day. — KV5 • Talk • 01:11, 6 September 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 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reliable sources that verify notability of the topic [1], [2] and [3]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could've sworn this guy did have at least 1 MLB appearance. Based on KV5's work, I say this just barely meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to KV5's effort to rescue. While this article is sourced, I am not seeing the WP:IMPACT this person has aside from some statistics that prove he played. I consider him a WP:Run-of-the-mill player, although he has lasted in the minor leagues for quite a few years. WP:GNG "establishes a presumption, not a guarantee" for inclusion, and "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." —Bagumba (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So because I did the hard work to make this a verified and reliably sourced article, you're opposing keeping it? Even when additional sources beyond what's already in the article have been provided? — KV5 • Talk • 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not "because" of your hard work, "in spite of" your hard work :-( —Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Understandable. I'll just make the comment that WP:ROTM and WP:IMPACT are essays, not guidelines, and that I still think these sources, and the additional ones available, confirm notability due to the basic notability criteria for people: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources provided are independent of each other and the subject, and there are now quite a few, as compared to none before. If I have to, I will try to devote some more time to adding additional sources, but I don't have a lot of free time. There are seven non-statistical sources independent of the subject and two interviews with the player used as supplements in addition to Baseball-Reference.com. — KV5 • Talk • 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are essays, but Wikipedia's five pillars says Wikipedia does not have firm rules. In any event, we all interpret in good faith and consensus will rule in the end.—Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 23:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis (color)[edit]

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

Non-notable shade of green. Only usage seems to be a one-line entry in a catalogue of 2000 colors; far short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few similar articles are at AfD:
bobrayner (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable name for a shade of green. A mention of the shade itself should be made at Green. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have attempted to search for any reliable source coverage for this commercial term, and have not had any luck. This fails WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another batch of articles is now at AfD:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Color names are chosen arbitrarily and different at each paint manufacturer. There is no standard on what each color should be named (if anything, colors are defined by a Pantone number). Moreover, some of these color articles have no content other than a weak dicdef (WP:NOTDIC). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 23:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenic (color)[edit]

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

Non-notable name for a shade of grey (or gray). Unsourced. No evidence that this has actually been used as the name of a hue in the real world. RGB values apparently pulled by article creator from one photo of an arsenic sample. bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Color names are arbitrary and only become notable when they have received significant coverage in reliable sources. This article is unreferenced and should be kept only if such reliable sources are produced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few similar articles are at AfD:
bobrayner (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have attempted to search for any reliable source coverage for this commercial term, and have not had any luck. This fails WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another batch of articles is now at AfD:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Color names are chosen arbitrarily and different at each paint manufacturer. There is no standard on what each color should be named (if anything, colors are defined by a Pantone number). Moreover, some of these color articles have no content other than a weak dicdef (WP:NOTDIC). The articles on the primary colors could have a list of names of some common shades of that color. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 23:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bear (color)[edit]

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

Non-notable shade of off-white. bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Kerauos pretends that by measuring a color patch in a book he gets a "sourced" color. Not so. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few similar articles are at AfD:
bobrayner (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable name for a shade of colour. I suggest a brief mention should be made at the article White though. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this term has ever had any significant use. Of the two references given, the one which is online does not even mention "Polar bear", and the other one is just an entry in a list of colour samples, which certainly does not establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have attempted to search for any reliable source coverage for this commercial term, and have not had any luck. This fails WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another batch of articles is now at AfD:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Color names are chosen arbitrarily and different at each paint manufacturer. There is no standard on what each color should be named (if anything, colors are defined by a Pantone number). Moreover, some of these color articles have no content other than a weak dicdef (WP:NOTDIC). The articles on the primary colors could have a list of common names of some shades of that color. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 23:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caution (producer)[edit]

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

Notability in question, google search doesn't bring up much, only sources provided are blogs, facebook and twitter. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that other people have written about him, at least not to the level mandated by WP:GNG. --Jayron32 22:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is an autobiography that has been previously speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#A7. The original version Caution Cobain (Music Producer) has substantially the same content, although this current version does a better job asserting notability. Sourcing is the same. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - nothing whatsoever to support it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arguably a speedy, but lets do it the slower way and make it stick. No sources whatsoever, and only vague claims about producing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nickelback. v/r - T P 23:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bottoms Up (Nickelback song)[edit]

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

Currently contains no additional information than that from Nickelback. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:TOOSOON and WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Has not charted or even been released yet. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelback for now, as the band's upcoming album from which this song will appear does not have an individual article at this time. The song does not yet appear to meet WP:NSONGS, as I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 02:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 23:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WEFUNK Radio[edit]

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

This University radio station weekly program is not notable. Gorrad (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has been expanded significantly since it was nominated, with sources added, and I think notability is now established. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This deletion was already discussed when the article was created. As you can see, it still exists. While unknown to most humans, the show has been on air continuously for over 15 years. It continues even if both DJs have finished their studies. They also both tour worldwide yearly to represent the show. It is also the web (if not the worlds) most well known broadcast radio show concentrated on Hiphop and funk. 12000 people have joined the Facebook group. Irishgeek (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may all be true, but without reliable sources attesting to the show's notability, it doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to CKUT. Covered with an interview in the Montreal Mirror, and covered in the McGill Student paper. This does not establish notability, but it does make for a good case that some selected material could be merged into the CKUT article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT* I am a reliable enough source. I read, and edit, Wikipedia daily. I am the creator of the WeFunk Playlist Project, as mentioned in the article (not by me, but its in there). As Irishgeek stated, this is a major piece of internet radio history. Not just some semester-long college radio project. It should stand as its own article. Certainly you could find better candidates than this page for deletion. Haxwell (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Stating you are a reliable sources doesn't make you one. Providing actual reliable sources per policy would be a good way to keep this as a stand-alone article -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two reliable sources attesting to the show's notability added. Another link added to show archives. Are we done here? Haxwell (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This long-running radio show has received a nation-wide award and received recognition in major print publications. It is also important for its involvement in early internet radio and podcasting. Since the delete nom, the page has been updated with reliable sources to highlight the show's notability. --65.95.15.184 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- International, even. Irishgeek (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I felt free to remove the deletion notice as this issue seems resolved. Irishgeek (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't remove the notice yourself. It will be removed by the administrator who closes this AfD discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 23:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timberwolf (color)[edit]

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

Non-notable shade of crayola. Prod contested with "Other animals have their own colors". bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree that this doesn't need its own page. Most of the stuff on the page is about wolves and is probably duplicated from other articles. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – He didn't even spell it like in the so-called "source". Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment — as a wise man once said, everything looks worse in black and white — perhaps we need to preserve a gray area. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and now that they've taken our Kodachrome away, it's especially a problem. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few similar articles are at AfD:
bobrayner (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A proprietary term for the colour of a crayon, with no evidence at all of any other use. Not remotely notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have attempted to search for any reliable source coverage for this commercial term, and have not had any luck. This fails WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another batch of articles is now at AfD:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Color names are chosen arbitrarily and different at each paint manufacturer. There is no standard on what each color should be named (if anything, colors are defined by a Pantone number). Moreover, some of these color articles have no content other than a weak dicdef (WP:NOTDIC). Mention at X11 color names is sufficient or the articles on the primary colors could have a list of common names of some shades of that color. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 23:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Farnborough & Fleet area[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place for travel guides - that is what Wikitravel is for. Nor is it a place for minority interests such as bus/plane/train spotters - that is why the foundation set up Wikia. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my nomination for those who may not have read the specific guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Adam mugliston Talk 11:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a revised List of bus routes in Hampshire, a county-wide article to match with all of the other List of bus routes in England. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:SAL do not mention buses or anything transport related, while WP:NNC clearly states most lists do not have to satisfy GNG. Adam mugliston Talk 20:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a perfectly notable article which just needs a little expansion, is all. Rcsprinter (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. ad nauseam AFD's of bus route lists will not change consensus. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Saying that WP:NOTDIR do not mention buses sounds like WP:WL. Beagel (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Recommend to move to UK Transport Wiki. Beagel (talk) 23:31, 11 August 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, Rcsprinter123 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and because this list is completely unsourced. As a second choice, transwiki to any other wiki which is interested in taking this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Transport Wiki would be a suitable home.--Charles (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn but I think there is enough participation here for a "keep" close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Bita[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing on Google or in article to support WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Thanks to Brianyoumans. -- Whpq (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable to me - lots of publications, one-woman theater shows. See this three page profile in MainLine Today. Her last book, a volume of autobiography, has 137 user reviews on Amazon, which is a pretty reasonable number for what it is, I think.Brianyoumans (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I have moved the article to Lili Bita, which appears to be the correct form of her name.Brianyoumans (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep No doubt the nominator's search was hampered by the article being improperly titled, but Brianyoumans offering of the corect name and quite extensive article in Main Line Today was enough to show the existance of sources showing notablility as an author, playwrite, and poet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination for deletion With correct name, sources can now be found. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 23:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Beane[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing to support WP:NOTABILITY on Google or in article. Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Crafted vagueness of key statements and references makes this appear fishy to me. Said got an award for "Best director (on 2 plays) in California" without saying who gave the award or the actual name of the award, and then gave an off line reference that said just "OC Register" and the date for that. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some local arts coverage of his theatre company, Insurgo, but all of it localised to Las Vegas. As for material that treats Beane as the primary subject, or with some significant coverage as a secondary subject, I can find none. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 23:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Beam[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing on Google or in article to prove WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of uncleaar notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Article is 4 years old and has zero references. Gut feel is that ability to establish wp:notability falls just short. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find him listed in this book, but the coverage is insubstantial. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 23:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Lorimer[edit]

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

Article is not notable; this seemed likely before, but now that claims have been checked, their nature is seen to be weak. Many of the claims on the website before today were obsolete or simply not notable; those that do have supporting websites identified today carry little weight - for example, All Hallows House Foundation is a registered charity, but it is behind with its returns; the University for Spirit Forum exists only as a one-page website with a membership form to be sent to another organisation (Wrekin Trust). It gives the impression of self-publicity - a common problem with biography of living persons. The bibliography appears real enough but is not particularly notable in itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability here. Worse, it smacks of self-promotion.--BlueonGray (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable accomplishments; the red links are a bad sign. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Among all the non-notable organizations and the academic activity unlikely to pass WP:PROF, the best shot for notability appears to be WP:AUTHOR for his book published by a Penguin imprint. I did find one third party review [4] but I think it's not nearly enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. v/r - T P 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosedale, Lawrence Township, New Jersey[edit]

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

This small neighborhood located within a small township is not notable. Gorrad (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect I'm not sure that there will be anyone looking for this article, but if they do a redirect to Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey should get them through to the material they're looking for. Usually populated places are inherently notable, but the encyclopedia gains nothing from the barest of stubs in this case, so keep the article and redirect. Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete otherwise redirect. Searches conducted for anything that includes the key points (Rosedale, Lawrence, New Jersey) will identify the Lawrence Township article, and the article name, while comprehensive, is unlikely to be exactly what someone types when looking for the information, so there is little value in keeping it. ^Bongo_matic 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 18:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Bahareth[edit]

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

A promotional biography of a non-notable person. There are claims of notability that preclude speedy deletion, and PROD has been tried before, so here we are. None of the claims of notability is referenced and some if it is just insubstantial peacock language. He is an ambassador for an organisation which doesn't have a Wikipedia article and seems unlikely to be notable. He also publishes stuff himself on lulu.com and, well, it seems that's pretty much it apart from having a Twitter ranking. DanielRigal (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no reliable sources out there. An Ambassador of The Arab Business Club is nothing special as it is open to anybody and you nominate yourself [5]. Self published books, one android app, maintainer of a Babylon 5 website... there is nothing notable about him. Bgwhite (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Purely vanity article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 18:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Spread Gem and Mineral Society[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable club. It looks like a standard Rockhounding group. I'm sure it's great, but the sources given do not seem to meet our WP:GNG. LadyofShalott 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 18:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host. The article looks like an advert for the club. No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ORG. Just a local club. References prove existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close; wrong forum. Will open RfD momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Beth Martin[edit]

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

promotional redir to Tea Party Patriots Travis Thurston+ 17:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close- Nominator opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jenny Beth Martin. Dru of Id (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close; wrong forum. Will open RfD momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Meckler[edit]

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

self promotional redir to Tea Party Patriots page Travis Thurston+ 17:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Wrong forum? Aren't redirects covered under MfD? Dru of Id (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close- Nominator opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mark Meckler. Dru of Id (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus but perhaps a merge by decade is a good idea. v/r - T P 17:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street characters (1991)[edit]

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

This article is a list of one with no prose whatsoever Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why its done this way. List of Coronation Street characters (1960), and all the others, apparently just list the new characters that just appeared that year. Shouldn't they give a simple list of which ones are still on the show year by year, with those items then linking to the article for the year they first appeared in which will have all the detailed information about them? There is one new character in the year 1991, who was notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, otherwise that information would be in this article. Since there was a new notable character added this year, no reason not to list them here, and link to where to find information about them. 52 years listed, two of them deleted already, but the rest still there. Seems odd to have any red links at all if you have even one notable listing. Dream Focus 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your argument. If anything the page could get redirected to the character, but it is dumb to have a crap page to avoid a redlink. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:51, 31 August 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is obviously part of a set and so should not be considered in isolation. Deciding whether the set should be merged or otherwise restructured is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. I suggest that they be grouped by decade instead of year. Warden (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominated offers no policy-based rational whatsovever for deletion ("a list with no prose"). So fix it then! Lugnuts (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even speedy delete as A3 just like the CS 1975 and CS 1976 articles. Seeing that many of the other set articles are also rather empty, those should be merged to decade sets instead of yearly sets. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possible~~ Definite speedy per A3 and the template Sp33dyphil found. Otherwise delete for the same reason. Other articles should also be merged, probably by decade and then turned into redirects to the specific section. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Appended 17:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - "This article is a list ..." no, this List is a list in a series. It unfortunately only has one entry, c'est la vie. WP:IAR would make sense in this case. To those that say paraphrased "They all should have this or that done to make them look better", be WP:BOLD & edit them, but deletion of this List would loose encyclopedic information and set bad precedent. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a merge? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What sort of merge? You'd have every year with its own article, except two years were merged as one? The shortness of the article isn't relevant. Dream Focus 18:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is if there's no content other then links... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually like the idea of a merger into articles about different decades. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would think that any large scale merge decision would also have to have the concensus & co-operation of the relevent WikiProject, being that there are more active editors involved with that Project than their are involved in this AfD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:10, 6 September 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 16:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A3 (no content). The template Coronation Street, in any case, already renders this list unnecessary. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At present the contents appears just to be the template, but the characters could and should be listed also. Expansion, not deletion is what is needed. The template mentioned does not go year by year, and so long and complex a series needs such a listing. Decade by decade is too long and too complex; the series is divided into seasons, not decades. Anyway, if deleted in the current state, as soon as such a list were added, it could be recreated without violating G4. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Unreferenced and highly unlikely to be referenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously referenceable, from imdb and similar sources, from the various guides to video series, and, most important, from the preferred source for plot and character related information, from the work itself, which is obviously almost always more accurate than any secondary source. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG that it is probably source-able, but I'd say that as a procedural matter, it should be deleted for now. Better to have a redlink then an empty bluelink. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator doesn't give deletion rationale, many articles are list only. Yes, article is very poor but must be considered in context with rest of series. Agree with Warden: probably better to restructure the series. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Cabaret[edit]

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

Non notable group with no reliable refs. While they have supported some big bands, and played some great nights, notability is not inherited Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 15:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like it was builtby an SPA who subsequently abandoned it. Article is encyclopedic. No real references, but that could be a reflection on the editor rather than the band. Has a lot of history and recording. Looks like signed with a real but not major label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vodka Red Bull[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Article uses 2 sources. One is instructions to dump vodka and red bull in a glass. The second is a legit news story that talks about the ingredients being mixed, but never calls it a "Vodka Red Bull", "VRB", "Vod-Bomb", "Birch", "DVR" or "Vod Bull", all names the article claims the concoction is supposedly "commonly called". Makes a few OR claims about the cocktail. Article is strong on OR and WP:IHEARDOFIT and light on significant coverage about the "Vodka Red Bull". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extensive coverage on the combination. searching "Vodka Red Bull" in gnews returns 4,700 hits, including this in The New York Times which mentions the Wikipedia entry we are discussing, this from the Daily Mail, and this from ABC News discussing the health effects. More than enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG. Any problems the article has can be fixed by editing , so it shouldn't be deleted. Quasi human | Talk 19:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might seem petty to you, but saying "vodka-Red Bull" and "Vodka Red Bull" is not the same thing (note the capitalization). The former, which is what most of the articles say, is simply indicating a mixture of the two while the latter, which is the AfD, indicates an actual title of a drink. I can show plenty of sources that reference mixing "oil and water", but that doesn't mean there is now a mixture called "Oil Water". Similarly, the search, even with the quotation marks, returns ones like this [6], which says "...vodka, Red Bull.." etc. There is a difference between there being a title and simply using the words together. Also note that the NYT entry uses this wikipedia article as "proof" that it has a name.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just silly semantics - any drink with those two ingredients is the same thing. You can walk into any bar in the US and order a Red Bull and Vodka the same way you might order a Rum and Coke. The NY Times article citing the page isn't clear evidence, but the other articles certainly are. See also [7]. Whether or not the other names can be verified or whether the page should be moved to "Red Bull and vodka" is an issue of routine editing, not article deletion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just "silly semantics". Who cares about the words, it's not like we're writing an encyclopedia here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete there are some mixed drinks that are notable for various reasons, cultural (the Martini), historical (the Bloody Mary), and so on. But simple drinks like this are virtually endless. Take any mixer, take any of the "big 5" core liquors and there's a potential article. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic's notability is established per several reliable sources listed by User:Quasihuman above this message, which satisfy each of Wikipedia's General notability guidelines, including the existence of significant coverage of the topic, source reliability and editorial integrity, sources being secondary sources and sources being independent of the subject. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, mentioning the ingedients in the same article and using them as a proper title are not the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mixture of two drinks do not warrant its own article. No significant coverage except for a few brief mentions. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A mixture of two drinks do not warrant its own article." Really? What about Gin and tonic, Rum and Coke, Jack and Coke, 7 and 7, Rye & Ginger and Mimosa (Champagne and OJ)? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've heard this as Red Bull & Vodka, it has been mentioned in the remake of the Piña Colada Song. I personally couldn't care less than I do now if the article stayed or was deleted. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Obviously meets the general notability guideline if you just do a little looking, instead of assuming and rushing to nominate. I've added two more reputable book sources that provide more than trivial coverage, and I also added the newspaper mentions from Quasihuman's statement above. Steven Walling • talk 22:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rush to nominate? Nothing like assuming a little good faith. If you bothered to take a little of your time to look at the article history, you will see I edited as far back at April, then notability tagged it in May. Yeah, big rush, huh. Maybe next time, you should do a little looking instead of assuming my friend.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's even worse. You hung around the article for months and then decided to nominate it apparently without bothering to simply Google for sources. It took all of five minutes to see that there's stuff out there. Steven Walling • talk 22:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand the difference between "vodka, red bull" and "Vodka Red Bull" and after seeing enough examples of where they were used not as an actual title, as the article claims, I decided to nom it. Will there be more commenting on the editor from you? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real difference between "vodka and Red Bull" and a Vodka Red Bull. Just like there's no difference between gin and tonic water and a "gin and tonic". What ensures notability in both cases is an abundance of reliable, published sources that refer to the cocktail. Steven Walling • talk 03:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a difference and that's not even the example I gave. I said "...vodka, Red Bull...". Notice the comma? It's part of a list, not a title. Ok, I get it, you don't care about the wording. I do. The fact that I do doesn't justify your insults.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to me that notability on this one is fairly firmly established. Google scholar alone is giving 50 results, and a typical google search results thousands. If it's the names given that are the issue, fine, remove them... but the article itself should be fine to stand as it is. - Philippe 16:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's disgusting, but the Millennials love it, and have made it notable. Bearian (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 speedy delete, for all the reasons given below. -- The Anome (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repellor vehicle[edit]

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

Original synthesis. S Larctia (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.75.222 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 202.124.75.222 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 202.124.75.222 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SYNTH and WP:NEO. -- 202.124.75.222 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: bollocks AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:BOLLOCKS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Per Andy. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Andy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment – This vote does not qualify any rationale for deletion, because it is based upon user AndyTheGrump's citation of an essay as a rationale for deletion. WP:BOLLOCKS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No common usage of term. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Andy.--Cerejota (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This vote does not qualify any rationale for deletion, because it is based upon user AndyTheGrump's citation of an essay as rationale for deletion. WP:BOLLOCKS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yep, Andy said it. LadyofShalott 02:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This vote does not qualify any rationale for deletion, because it is based upon user AndyTheGrump's citation of an essay as rationale for deletion. WP:BOLLOCKS listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like OR. Zero google books hits. Zero google scholar hits. Biophys (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The above vote by user User:Sp33dyphil does not address General notability guidelines whatsoever, and appears to be based upon the content within the article rather than the availability of reliable sources. Per Wikipedia General notability guidelines, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article may have some forms of WP:SYNTHESIS in it, which would need to be corrected by editing, not deletion of the entire article. The initial rationale for deletion of the article as having or being comprised of "original synthesis" inherent in the article is not enough to qualify blanket deletion. A topic's merits are based upon General notability guidelines regarding reliable sources, not the prose within the article. To start, refer to this simple Google search here. Books exist about the topic, refer to: [8], [9] and [10]. Here's a link to an article about a repellor tank, which is a type of repellor vehicle: [11]. These sources were found with ease after some simple searches, and there are very likely more sources available. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion, as does using the article's content as qualification for deletion, rather than the availability of sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Wikipedia policy of trying to fix problems in articles by editing them is appropriate for this article. Please refer to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is nothing here worth saving. WP:Blow it up and start over. Also "Repellor vehicle" is a WP:NEO: it does not appear in any journals, and the books using the term are books auto-produced from Wikipedia articles. Oh, and your "repellor tank" link is just a fan-made LEGO toy: it's not a real vehicle. -- 202.124.75.242 (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "a vehicle (with a human driver or a virtual operator) that steers away from obstacles" is opposed to what exactly: vehicles that deliberately crash into obstacles? There is no coherent topic to this article. -- 202.124.72.156 (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the rationale above from user 202.124.75.242 about the repellor tank vehicle as not being a "real vehicle" is his or her personal opinion, and is not encyclopedic. Please refer to the definition of "vehicle" from the Merriam-Webster dictionary here, specifically, part 2, ": an agent of transmission : carrier" and part 4, "a means of carrying or transporting something <planes, trains, and other vehicles>: as

a : motor vehicle

b : a piece of mechanized equipment.

The vehicle stated in the repellor tank article here is definable as a vehicle, per the definition of "vehicle." Repellor vehicles are vehicles that can carry things, and are also inherently vehicles. Secondly, the statement from user 202.124.72.156 that the term "Repellor vehicle" is not stated in any journals isn't qualified with any examples of research to back up this argument. It is very unlikely that stated user has reviewed every journal on the planet to confirm this statement, and the statement is obviously opinion, rather than being based upon facts. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Google Scholar finds nothing. If you have a journal reference, please tell us. And I don't think a "cool LEGO creations" web site is a WP:RS for real vehicles. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:Blow it up and start over listed above is an opinion essay, and essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are opinion pieces, are not based upon concensus and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. It appears that user 202.124.72.156 has not performed any research to validate his or her stance, and is basing his or her argument upon the article's content rather than General notability guidelines regarding the availability of sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Northamerica1000's vehement defence prompted a little more consideration, but in the end I have to !vote to kill this article. The first source Northamerica1000 cites is valid, the second is a wikimirror text, the third makes no mention of the subject in its summary (can't find the main text) and the fourth is, well, as 202.124.72.156 said, a toy. Any usable information in the article would be best merged into Driverless car, Collision detection, Maglev (transport) and a host of other articles, rather than synthed here. Yunshui (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to reiterate, it appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Here is a link already within the article that refers to repellors, based upon empirical research, from the Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC - "Virtual Environment Interaction Techniques.", another reliable source already in the article that verifies content within the article. It seems that there may be some potential bias to simply delete the article, no matter what and for whatever reasons, rather than researching sources to qualify or disqualify the topic, per General notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source contains only one paragraph which even mentions the concept of repulsion (2.1.1, Object driven). It doesn't say anything about repellor vehicles, only about repulsion as a movement construct in a virtual environment. Yunshui (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The source discussed directly above this comment, "Virtual Environment Interaction Techniques." serves to verify content within the article, and is empirical. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~It does, in the sense that it's a word-for-word copivio of a single sentence within the source... Yunshui (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)~~ Scratch that, some of the copypasta has inverted commas. Yunshui (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, for all the reasons given below

Comment Nevertheless, just because some of the information in the article is sourced doesn't mean the article as a whole needs to be kept. The source does not discuss the concept of repellor vehicles, and hence doesn't work as an argument for a Keep !vote. (I could write an article about my cat and source the fact that "cats are mammals", but that doesn't make my cat notable). Yunshui (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill publication referred to above is a non-peer-reviewed technical report. This does not constitute a WP:RS. It's also manifestly irrelevant to this article, because it's about virtual interaction, not about vehicles in the real world. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS. And I say this again. WP:BOLLOCKS!. Despite Northamerica1000's vehement belief that quoting an essay is bad, when that essay conveys the reasoning used to support the !vote, it is a perfectly fine way to express that opinion without typing all that stuff out yet again. This article is full of original research and synthesis. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - not only Marshall's usual original research and synthesis, but under the title of a neologism he has just made up. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TuxGuitar[edit]

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

'Delete' On this article's Talk Page I have made an extensive argument that this article does not meet the Notability Guidelines of Wikipedia because it fails to cite any Reliable Sources. I have provided an analysis of the referneces used for this article and have shown that they all fail to meet reliability standards. I have also addressed suggested new sources and have expressed my feeling that they are not reliable and/or "trivial mention" (see WP:GNG) (Lexandalf (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For what I can see, this is popular enough and there are enough reviews to establish notability. I've seen much worse articles, describing less notable stuff which nobody touches, so it doesn't seem to me this should be deleted. Arny (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD has been open since 15 August; however, I see no evidence that it was ever listed on an AfD log. The 7-day discussion period should begin now. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see at least two full-fledged third party reviews of this program, and plenty of evidence that people are using it. The article might or might not need work, but we should keep it. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a popular program. It's referenced, sort of. It would be a shame if this were deleted. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Popularity is a moot point. "Sort of" referenced is the problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because keep votes are simply variations of WP:ILIKEIT. Third party refs are insignificant and do not demonstrate notabilty, merely existence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The only third-party references are boilerplate software site listings. Without reliable secondary referencing, there is no evidence that this subject is of general public note, anecdotal arguments regarding popularity aside. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply not true. There are two reviews among the references, and one of them is from Full Circle Magazine.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I rather think that Computeractive (a print magazine) is a more reliable source than Full Circle Magazine. Nevertheless, I'm happy to concede that those are secondary sources. Are two fairly short reviews sufficient to establish notability here, though? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that's what we are here to figure out! The Full Circle review is two pages, with some screenshots. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Spencer[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion I can find nothing on Google or in article to prove WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think second place in a reality show and some (replacement) starring roles in Broadway shows probably is good enough. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [12], article and video, [13], [14], and [15]. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination for deletion If two people have looked and feel it meets the guidelines, that's good enough to remove my concerns. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Toshev[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of buses[edit]

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

Redundant to Template:Buses, which is at the bottom of just about every bus-related page. It really seems superfluous to have a well-used template at the bottom of a lot of pages, and a list saying the exact same thing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Template:Buses list every bus model? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.74.132 (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list, especially in sortable table form, can be very useful to visitors. I think bus enthusiasts will like it and help expand it. It certainly does not contain the same info as the navboxes. The information could never be presented equally well with categories. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further: It's useful, not only because visitors are able to compare bus brands, such as year of manufacture, country of origin, etc., but are able to compare years, manufacturers, and countries at a glance. Looking at List of car brands, I found it very interesting to see how many different brands a given nation has produced, and in which year. How many produced would give even more insight into their economy, independence, and state of technological advancement, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just a list of bus brands, it might be comparable to List of car brands; but this article lists various models for each manufacturer too. There are a huge number of different bus models, and the article lists a very small number. It might be better to restrict the article to just the manufacturers, with the various models listed on the article about the manufacturer, as has been done at Bristol Commercial Vehicles. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point. Please raise this at talk. Many thanks for the input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator should review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. Redundancy is explained at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the complementary work of their colleagues to be deleted just because they overlap." See also WP:NOTDUP: "...arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is needed as a backbone to most of the pages linked on it, and would not do just to have a template as a list of buses. Rcsprinter (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The template is for types of buses, this list contains models of buses, something completely different. Someone another 21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Debate has already been sorted, please remove AfD!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added all the buses I could find which have articles. There are about 300+, I think. So, not too big. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a useful "list of..." article. However, the scope is not clear from the title and the intro sentences do not help. Need to make it explicit if the topic is make and model of the vehicles themselves (as it appears I think?) of the vehicle vs bus lines ("what buses get me across town?" would not have the same meaning), etc. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should change this to List of bus models.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very useful for identifying an unknown model.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When does this AfD go?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When someone who has read the policy on how deletion-discussions works and is not involved in the discussion itself decides so. DMacks (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gh87. Of all votes, the majority voted "keep" for this person's significance to the British arts and entertainment industry. If this AfD were opened a little longer, the debate would have resulted "kept". --Gh87 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Wilcox[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The actress's notability as an actress of Man About the House may be enough to some. However, her accomplishments are nothing more than... accomplishments that require importance and references. Even I think: the series that she appeared in is more notable as the British predecessor of Three's Company than she as the actress of the series. This article may appear well-written with filmography and other resumé and a prose and list formats; however, it has no citations and appears to be based on entries from other website databases such as IMDB. I have not seen her name in news and other references yet. Also, I have not seen her non-actress activities anywhere aside from Personal Life. It does not meet WP:N guideline. Gh87 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More reason: This was proposed for deletion per WP:PROD; it was contested because she was an actress of Man About the House. --Gh87 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It looks as though Paula Wilcox has been spending much of her career on the stage and thus gets few good references (except presumably in the local press) there are cites around but they are mostly blogs. However "The Stage" a reputable enough site has many refs including [16], [17] ,[18], [19] and many more. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great start — too bad I'm not sure for whether using them or not. These references are reviews of mainly the works she was in; well... they are more about the works themselves than the actress. Actually, Wikilinks of arts and other non-Wiki works may be enough for me. See Wikipedia:OVERLINK, WP:CITE, and WP:CITEKILL. By the way, ~~use strikethrough formats next time~~ (<strike></strike>)--Gh87 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a significant career on British TV, and in British theatre - a cult figure as Chrissy in Man About the House -, but she has done a lot of other work - the article isn't great but that can change ( its easy to tag stuff, why not try and improve articles) -- she is easily notable enough . Sayerslle (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep Is this a joke? She has been a regular face on major programmes on British terrestrial television for nigh on forty years. If she doesn't far surpass the notability threshold then about 90% of all articles on here will have to go. Keresaspa (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm a little concerned about the nominator's motives here. I would suggested s/he reads WP:NACTOR before proposing/nominating any articles for deletion. Bob talk 17:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are also plenty of references available online ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) to say nothing of print references. Can somebody just WP:SNOW this? Keresaspa (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[[reply]
Strong Keep I thought the PROD notice was daft - but this takes the biscuit! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 08:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously.--Michig (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and rename. v/r - T P 17:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jame Gumb[edit]

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

Article was merged and re-directed on 25 October 2004 following result of first deletion discussion. Article was re-created 13 August 2008.

The character is not independently notable outside of the book/film, and the three references do not feature criteria that help meet WP:GNG. The Salon.com reference in the article does not mention Jame Gumb. The reference to crimelibrary.com mentions Ed Gein and Ted Bundy as being similar to Jame Gumb in their M.O., but these two small paragraphs from one single source do not likely meet "significant coverage". Sottolacqua (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the character appears independently notable. For example, Rhetoric Society Quarterly has this article, and Google Scholar Search results show examples like "Skinflick: Posthuman Gender in Jonathan Demme's The Silence of the Lambs" in Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media, "The Transvestite as Monster: Gender Horror in The Silence of the Lambs and Psycho" in Journal of Popular Film and Television, and so forth. Obviously coverage of the character involves coverage of the book or the film, but in cases where the coverage is especially focused on the character (as in not just mentioned as part of a reviewer's rundown of the plot), a stand-alone character article is warranted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These Google Book Search results also show how well-covered the character is especially regarding his gender identity. The book and the film cover a wide range of themes such as feminism and horror (not to mention Hannibal himself), so it seems that a character article is particularly useful for focusing on Buffalo Bill and his gender identity. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Silence of the Lambs. I see no reason at all that this needs its own article. While there is no specific notability criteria for fictional characters, I happen to agree that this does fail WP:GNG as that, while I'm sure that the information therein is reliable, it does not have the necessary source material to back it up and lacks the significant coverage necessary to make an article. Trusilver 03:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Changing position to Keep and Move to Buffalo Bill (character) with a redirect on the current page per Erik's suggestion below. The added section and references tip the scales (as far as I'm concerned). I see enough notable content and verifiable sources now to easily satisfy notability requirements. Kudos to Erik for his work on the article. Trusilver 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guideline is that a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. There are both Google Scholar Search results and Google Book Search results that cover the fictional character and his gender identity. With these sources covering the character directly in detail, why can there not be an article about him? Erik (talk | contribs) 04:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's sources that directly cover Pokemon #238 in detail. Do I think that that it's ridiculous that a tangential fictional character has it's own article? You bet. Such is the case here as well. Trusilver 06:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Pokemon article should be evaluated on its own merits. Its sources, which are reception-based, are very different from this topic's sources, which are academic in nature. Buffalo Bill is not a tangential fictional character either; the beginning of Yvonne Tasker's BFI Modern Classics book about the film says, "The Silence of the Lambs centres on the search for a serial killer, known only as 'Buffalo Bill', who abducts young women seemingly at random." The sources discuss his gender identity in particular. Why do you think all the coverage focused on him can't be used in this article? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, at least for now. The "article" is little more than plot details written up as a fictional biography. Sourced analysis that exceeds the scope of the main article could probably be used to create a proper article, but the current content isn't that by any stretch of the imagination (except, apparently, Erik's). Wikipedia mainspace pages should never serve as "placeholders" for proper articles. Either there is a proper article, or there isn't -- and in that case, the page should be deleted or merged. --213.168.108.201 (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to have one of these reasons for deletion. In addition, WP:BEFORE says, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Basically, if an article is messy but the topic valid, then we should keep the article. We should make an effort to reduce the in-universe information, but if you think that the coverage exists to have a hypothetical article about this character, then we should keep the article at least as a stub. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge and redirect for now, based on the state of the page. Personally, I wouldn't have nominated the page for deletion and instead boldly redirected it, incorporating what little valuable information there is into the book's main article. If and when someone takes the time to write a proper article, that material could be spun off from the main article. Until then, redirect. Period. --195.14.223.218 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep independent based on the length of the article and the independent references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—The length of the article is not a factor used in determining whether this meets WP:GNG. The three references listed aren't applicable to most of the content in the article. Two references relate to which real-life individuals the character is based upon. The other is a parental guide about the film content, which mentions the character briefly, but is more related to the graphic content of the film. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I concur. The majority of the article is unreferenced. The references are (in two cases) irrelevant to the article and, (in the third) supply only two paragraphs that are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusilver (talk • contribs) 16:55, September 13, 2011
Comment: I added an "Analysis" section to the article that uses three references that I accessed through Google Books Search and Amazon.com. There is more coverage to be found in academic journals. I ask everyone to review the section and the results that I posted above. If the article is kept, I suggest moving the article to Buffalo Bill (character) as the character is most commonly known by "Buffalo Bill" and not "Jame Gumb". Erik (talk | contribs) 22:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue, please list at redirects for discussion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Iran[edit]

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

The redirect contains a potentially nationalist intent to label a sovereign country of Azerbaijan as North of Iran, misleading a reader. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree that the redirect to Azerbaijan was incorrect; I couldn't find any uses of "North Iran" in English to refer to Azerbaijan. I have changed the redirect to go to Azerbaijan (Iran) instead, which is about the Azeri provinces inside Iran. They are factually the northernmost provinces of Iran, so calling them "North Iran" seems reasonable to me. Perhaps the redirect should go to Iran instead, but I'm not sure we need to remove the article completely - I could see someone searching on this term, the question is where it should redirect.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I see now. Thanks for redirecting it. It would make sense that it is the north of Iran, but I don't think there are any articles redirecting from North to any provinces. For instance, there is no North France or North Denmark, etc. Correcting the redirect is fine but I just see no use for the term "North Iran". Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schock Metallwerk[edit]

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

Company article with no indications of notability. No sources can be found other than routine business directory entries. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article indeed does have the necessary notability. E.g. the CEO Martin Schock, son of company founder Richard Schock, is for many years member of the board of directors of the Industrievereinigung Möbelzubehör (IVM) e. V. which was mentioned already in 2006 :

http://www.moebelkultur.de/news/vorstand_besttigt/5329.html

Dhoefer (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This German business apparently makes metal roller slides that drawers attach to in furniture. The article is referenced only to internal sites, and I find only one incidental mention in Google News and catalog and directory listings in GBooks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that external links are a prerequisite for this article. It would be not a problem to add many external links e.g. to the further development of the other companies formerly belonging to the Schock group. Some of them are no more existing, others changed their business completely or are working under new company owners with new company names. I was focussing on the history of Schock Metallwerk which is the only one working in the U.S. with an own affiliated company. Therefore I keep on thinking that this article should not be deleted.
Dhoefer (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links are not a prerequisite for an article here, but multiple, independent third-party sources are. They can be books, web links, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another independent source: http://www.emas.de/fileadmin/user_upload/umwelterklaerungen/alle-EMAS-Umwelterklaerungen.html
Dhoefer (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just one in a long list of companies who have received a particular certificat. Dhoefer is strongly urged to read the criteria at WP:ORG and try to provide some evidence that this subject meets any of those criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Snurnitsyn[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails criteria of WP:NHOCKEY as well as the GNG; never played professional hockey nor met the criteria for notability of a junior player. Player died in the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash, but this is a WP:ONEEVENT issue. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 10:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or Redirect~~ to the crash article. Unfortunately this is a WP:BLP1E situation. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Fayerman has found enough for me. Just need to add them to the article. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Green (talk • contribs)
~~Redirect~~ to Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash#Team players. As the creator of this article, and with my sincere condolences to this young man's family and friends, while it is likely that foreign-language press has more coverage about this talented young hockey player, until it can be demonstrated that he passes WP:GNG, I agree that this article should be redirected. Dolovis (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by Fayerman demonstrate that this player passes WP:GNG. Dolovis (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've no objection, of course, to a redirect. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 14:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Played at least 100 games in fully professional minor leagues such as the American Hockey League, the International Hockey League, the ECHL, the Mestis, the HockeyAllsvenskan or other such league; (115 GM - Minor Hockey League) [32] JukoFF (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MHL is a junior hockey league, not a professional league. Patken4 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're wrong, it's professional league. Here is information from the official website of the League: "It was founded by 20 professional clubs in the Continental Hockey League (KHL), KHL and holding Ice Hockey Federation of Russia." JukoFF (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the professional clubs in the KHL created the league for their junior teams. The league itself is a junior league not professional. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:NHOCKEY states that if a player played one or more games he is automatically notable. Hence, a player could play all of 5 seconds of a game, and thereby become notable, yet a player whose debut in the major league never eventuated due to a disaster isn't? If anyone, that is only going to make them more notable than a player who has played all of 5 seconds. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to find news articles about this player prior to the crash then. Otherwise its a pure case of WP:BLP1E. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment, it is a little difficult to find news coverage, merely due to his name being mixed in with crash members. However, I say why abide by some guideline for notability in which, as I mentioned above, someone who plays five minutes of a single game is notable, yet someone who plays over 100 games for Loko, and has represented his country in U-20 comp, and who was only a few hours away from playing his five minutes, is deemed unnotable because he died in a highly notable crash. I say we ignored those silly guidelines and look at the bigger picture here. He is likely to get coverage at some stage anyway. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do realize the sub-guidelines just say when there is likely to be GNG sources not when someone is actually notable or not. I am more than willing to say he is notable if we can find multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of him as is required of wp:n. As for he is likely to get coverage at some stage anyway...that falls into both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ONEEVENT since any coverage he receives is likely to be because of the crash. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: To be brutally honest, the "bigger picture" here is that the subject is dead. He is not, in fact, ever going to play senior hockey. He is not, in fact, ever going to gain more acclaim, or do the things that garner notability. Snurnitsyn isn't non-notable because "he died in a highly notable crash." He's non-notable because he's never done anything that Wikipedia recognizes as noteworthy. Far from being "silly," Wikipedia's policies and guidelines set the standards for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Snurnitsyn did not, at the time of his death, meet them, and his tragic death does not alter that fact. Ravenswing 17:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSnurnitsyn seems to get press coverage in Russia, and this article is notable enough for the German, Swedish, and Russian Wikipedias, it should be notable for English Wikipedia as well. --Hockeyben ^✉ 14:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as per nation-wide Russian news source that provided coverage on Snurnitsyn way before the crash: Aug 8, 2011 news by kp.ru --Fayerman (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Can you provide links to the media sources which have covered Snurnitsyn? Dolovis (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might have missed the source in my prior post, but here's more: Jan 16, 2011, Jan 17, 2011, April 8, 2011, April 16, 2011, etc. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be pendantic but do you have any not from kp.ru? Since we require them from multiple source, this is just one. You are clearly better with Russian than me or I would look. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Aug 8, 2011, Aug 24, 2011, Sept 3, 2011, etc. --Fayerman (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Komsomolskaya Pravda, as provided by Fayerman, is a media source. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The Sept 3, 2011 is a game summary. The Aug 24, 2011 reference is a roster list. The Aug 8, 2011 reference is a two sentence paragraph which mentions the subject as such: "Among the 28 players is forward MHK "Lokomotiv" Pavel Snurnitsyn, a 19-year-old forward with the team in Finland for training camp." Period. All the rest of Fayerman's links are game summaries. All these links are debarred under WP:ROUTINE as being routine sports coverage, and none of them meet the GNG's standards of discussing the subect in "significant detail." Wikipedia routinely rejects such links as supportive of notability. I strongly recommend that people take any further links that Fayerman proffers through Google Translate - which works just fine on them - before assuming that they meet Wikipedia standards. Ravenswing 18:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am sure the other participants of this discussion can examine the referenced news articles without relying on Ravenswing's hearsay statements. Note that Snurnitsyn's photos are prominently featured in some of those before-the-crash articles -- that adds to the notability factor. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: In point of fact, it does not; photos published in a newspaper are not referenced in any notability criteria. That being said, I am pleased as punch to have other experienced editors review your links, where they will come to the same conclusions. And that being said, I rather believe my seven years on the hockey Wikiproject, my 33,000 edits, and my experience in several hundred AfDs speak for themselves as far as "hearsay" goes. (Come to that, you were expecting the non-Russian speaking editors to take your word that the articles you claimed discussed the subject actually did, hadn't you?) Ravenswing 19:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get worked up Ravenswing. I too thought the references were a bit on the weak side but I am sure with this many borderline ones found easily that there are probably others. I used google translate myself to look at the references I am sure others would as well. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - Even if not notable on his own, there is a suitable - indeed ideal - redirect target, so the most that should be done is redirect. Given the coverage of the plane crash, it would not take much non-crash related coverage to meet GNG. I am not convinced that Fayerman's links quite get there, but they at least inch him closer, and I am not sure how to search for Russian sources myself. I suppose I am leaning keep, giving the non-crash sources the benefit of the doubt, but I can understand a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per there appearing to be enough notable coverage of this person to justify having an article of him here. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Shuvalov[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails criteria of WP:NHOCKEY as well as the GNG; never played professional hockey nor met the criteria for notability of a junior player. Player died in the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash, but this is a WP:ONEEVENT issue. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 10:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Max is a player in the junior national team of Russia, and with it won the bronze medal world championship. 100 matches for the club lights not because it was transferred to the main part and flew the first official game for the first team. Sorry for the bad english. JukoFF (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Junior players don't meet the requirements of NHOCKEY. Have to play for the senior team. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to the crash article. Unfortunately a WP:BLP1E situation. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash#Team players. As the creator of this article, and with my sincere condolences to this young man's family and friends, while it is likely that foreign-language press has more coverage about this talented young hockey player, until it can be demonstrated that he passes WP:GNG, I agree with Djsasso that this article should be redirected (as he boldly did on September 7th). Dolovis (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've no objection, of course, to a redirect. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 14:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Winning a medal on a national championship counts for something. Alternately, one could merge this into a one-paragraph section of the article about the crash.Ryoung122 18:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might "count for something," but one of the things for which it doesn't count is meeting any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a WJC gold medal by itself does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. And being involved in a notable plane crash by itself does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria either, due to WP:BLP1E. But I am not convinced that winning a WJC gold medal and being involved in a notable plane crash is not enough. Rlendog (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets press coverage in Russia, and is notable enough for 5 other language Wikipedias. --Hockeyben ^✉ 14:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Can you provide links to the media sources which have covered Shuvalov? Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Even if he does not meet notability requirements, given that there is an appropriate, indeed ideal, redirect target the most that should be done is redirect, and deletion should not even be an issue. Keeping does not seem unreasonable since, given how much coverage the crash has received, it would not take much more to get over the GNG bar. Although I have no idea how to search for appropriate Russian sources, by analogy with North American players, it seems unlikely that he would have (1) played well enough as a junior to make the Russian WJC team, and (2) win a gold medal at the WJC with the Russian team (which also received coverage for its behavior in the aftermath of its victory) and not receive any coverage that would put him over the top (so to speak) for GNG when combined with his crash coverage. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the analogy is that there is almost no coverage of the WJC outside Canada and a little bit in the US. Its mostly considered a North American tournament that no one outside NA cares about (which is why they draw very low attendance in Europe). So getting a medal there doesn't necessarily get you any coverage if you aren't Canadian. But as I mentioned above I agree with redirecting. I did it prior to this being taken to afd. -DJSasso (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim any expertise on the level of coverage the WJC gets outside North America, although I do know that the Russian team was pretty excited about winning, given the aftermath - they didn't seem to regard it as some North American tournament that people back home barely care about. But part of my point is that it is a team of top under 20 year olds representing their country. And to be one of the top under 20 hockey players in Russia is to be one of the top under 20s in the world. And it seems unlikely that one would be a top under 20 in Russia - good enough to make their WJC team - and not generate enough coverage to push their notability over the top when combined with the coverage from the crash. That said, until and unless someone actually produces such coverage, I have no problems with redirecting. Rlendog (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call, but I'm leaning towards keep. As Rlendog says above, being one of the top hockey prospects in Russia also makes you one of the top hockey prospects in the world, and although the following statement is obviously pure speculation, I'm pretty confident Shuvalov would have gone on to have a fine career as a professional if he had lived. Fwiw, I'd also like to point out that there are several en:wp articles on junior/college players in other sports who never made it to the professional level because of an early death. Examples: Len Bias, Chris Street, Leon Bender, Ian Frodsham, Kiyan Prince. –Badmotorfinger (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: ... and who have been demonstrated - not surmised, demonstrated - to meet the GNG. Of course, whatever career as a professional he might have had is, by WP:CRYSTAL, cannot be considered as establishing notability, even were it not the case (which it is) that many sterling young prospects never make the pros, let alone succeed in them. Ravenswing 17:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because - he was an elite level hockey player who won a Bronze Medal for his country in a major international tournament (the World Junior Championships); and because he was the 38th overall draft pick by the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl in the KHL Draft; and because he was travelling with this elite level professional hockey team towards the first game of the 2011–12 KHL season; and because he was killed as a result of the most tragic sports disaster the world has ever known; and because his death was all the more tragic because he was the youngest player killed in the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash; and because a Gnews search for his Russian name “Максим Шувалов” returns over 50 hits demonstrating GNG[33] - he is a notable subject. Kugao (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets and exceeds WP:GNG by way of pre-crash nation-wide coverage in the Russian Federation. Examples (my translation):

"Rating of the NHL Central Scouting Bureau Led by Maxim Shalunov", pub. 18 Nov 2010 by The Soviet Sport;
"Only One from Yaroslavl Will Go To the Junior World Hockey Championship", pub. 12 Apr 2011 by Arguments & Facts;
"Defender of the Yaroslavl 'Loco' Maxim Shuvalov Noted With Efficiency Rating Of 'Plus 2'", pub 15 Apr 2011 by The Komsomol Truth.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shiek Mohammed Rashid Bilal[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion I could find nothing on Google or in article to support WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notbility. 4 year old article with zero references. Also insider wording, cryptic to our readers. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to determine notability due to a lack of sources. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find anything corroborating this person existed, much less that he was the person described in the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: This person could be real and could be significant within his own particular context, but there is no evidence of importance (or even existence) here.--BlueonGray (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost certainly the same person as Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Bilal. As I suspect that Shiek is simply a misspelling, there seems little point in a redirect - if anyone thinks there's anything from here worth copying to the other article, merge, otherwise delete PWilkinson (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Problem tags for years.--Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sher[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing on Google or in article to suggest WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of dubious notability for the last 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete No indication of wp:notability. No specifics in text indicate likehood or even possibility. Sidebar: section names have jokes in them as if this were in a sandbox. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' for the same reasons as above. Whomever wrote the article wasn't even taking the subject matter seriously and seemed as if the article writer was the person in question. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability; minimal publication history.Novangelis (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And so what if he's an expert in a rare hormone-secreting tumour? WP:PROF fail. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doko (song)[edit]

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

Nothing in this article shows that this song is notable. TJRC (talk · contribs) insists that it is notable and reverts all efforts to redirect this to the album page, but no evidence has been presented of it being notable. In its present state, nothing is given that shows that this article meets WP:NSONGS guidelines for notability. Unless WP:RS can be found to show its notability, this should be redirected to the album page. either way (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Move the one sentence to the artists page. I don't understand how the "single" can have a track listing of 4 tracks, but don't see any album to redirect to per nom. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Singles with four tracks - two songs along with an instrumental version of each - are common in Japan, and releases of this type are indeed called singles there. Typically the instrumental versions are simply the same song minus the lead vocal track and are intended for singing along to. Ibanez100 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and merge what little is there with an appropriate album page, artist page, discography, or something. I also don't see anything here to prove this song notable per WP:NSONGS. Ibanez100 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth coverage. Can be redirected to Hocus Pocus (Kaela Kimura album). --DAJF (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy Trax[edit]

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

No notability or assertion of notability. Has been tagged as missing references since 2009 but still no references or in-line citations. A small record label apparently Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. 6 year old article with ZERO references. Wording is badly promotional and unenclyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, nothing to recommend that it stands above other small record labels, and little to no results in a Google search other than what the company itself has put out. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Real Madrid C.F.. v/r - T P 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Club of the Century[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:GNG. Though Real Madrid having won this poll is noted in a few places there seems to be little third-party coverage of the award itself in any depth. Note that Template:FIFA Clubs of the 20th Century has just been deleted. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the information should be tightened and merged into Real Madrid as there isn't enough coverage to justify a separate page. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete as above; no evidence this award is independently notable. Giant Snowman 10:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As above. No substatial coverage that merits a stand-alone article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe each of the top five clubs could get a mention in their article? But this shouldn't be an article. Adam4267 (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete IMHO, it should not be removed but detailed in the case of an FIFA award. That article is similar to this one. If the problem is the uniqueness of the subject of the article would have to merge both in an article called "FIFA Century Awards" or something...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dantetheperuvian. Perfect reasoning. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 01:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Autobots. v/r - T P 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellion[edit]

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

Poor and inappropriate source to assert character of questionable notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or condense and merge to Transformers A character from Transformers. Too much unclyclopedic detail. No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Autobots. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mini-Cons. v/r - T P 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dualor[edit]

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

Unreliable sources to assert character of questionable notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or condense and merge to Transformers A character from Transformers. Too much unclyclopedic detail. No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mini-Cons with his Mini-Con buddies. Mathewignash (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Beast Wars Neo characters. v/r - T P 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longrack[edit]

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

Poor sources to assert character of questionable notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or condense and merge to Transformers A character from Transformers. Too much unclyclopedic detail. No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, considering all the other Beast Wars Neo character got merged to List of Beast Wars Neo characters, we probably shouldn't leave the 2nd in command of the heroes from that series out. Mathewignash (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skyblast[edit]

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

Insufficent evidence of notability that is supported by sources, The only so called sources is to an internet forum Dwanyewest (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or condense and merge to Transformers A character from Transformers. Too much unclyclopedic detail. No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per existing precident, as well as WP:N. No one's talking about minor characters in a real-life context. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi Around the Art[edit]

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

Contested prod. Art magazine with no assertion of significance, no third-party references. Fails WP:NMEDIA. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Team – past squads[edit]

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

Complete (possibly) list of every fictional player to appear in a TV drama about a fictional football (soccer) team. Not encyclopedic at all. Far too much info/detail to merge to article about show itself. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, this is nothing but WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 09:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. – Pee Jay 14:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above, this is a clear example of WP:LISTCRUFT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure cruft. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sow And Grow Everywhere (SAGE)[edit]

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

created by single purpose editor with obvious name indicating conflict of interest. fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits [34]. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable spam. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ORG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gay Byrne. v/r - T P 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Byrne Music Show[edit]

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

Almost certainly non-notable; Google finds very little on it, and creator has added nothing to it since 9th August. Unlikely ever to make a decent article. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly non-notable. Why not? Read WP:TVSHOW. This article covers a show with a national geographical range noted in reliable sources. "Google finds very little on it..." Well, Wikipedia is not an internet search engine. "...[The] creator has added nothing to it since 9th August". Read WP:NOEFFORT. Lack of edits for a month is hardly grounds for deletion. "Unlikely ever to make a decent article." This may be true but such prognostication is frowned on. However, even though I've been bashing, I actually agree with you a bit in spirit but the solution in such case is to merge the content with Gay Byrne or some other article and redirect it, not to delete it. — AjaxSmack 08:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Gay Byrne. ww2censor (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per non-notable, even the article concedes it is just "filler". Merge to Gay Byrne at best. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imanuel Alexander[edit]

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

Heavily promotional articles of a WP:FRINGE religious numerology theory/following failing WP:NOTABILITY. Created and heavily edited by two editors with conflicted interest, they have previously removed deletion templates from the two articles as well as uploaded various images related to this thing which have been deleted. The only references provided are for the group's own websites. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person, no third-party reference for the theory, advertising & unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find reliable independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ironholds (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011[edit]

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

Insufficient content even to call it a stub, really! Suggest this goes to AfC for more work and comes back (maybe!) when there's a bit more to add! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't disagree about the current quality of the article but seeking article improvement is not a correct rationale for listing here: see WP:BEFORE. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really "seeking improvement" for now, just suggesting it should go onto someone's back burner until it's no longer a future event, at which point someone can decide whether it's worth keeping! (adding)A possibility might be to userfy it until it's relevant. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crystal ball reading of a future event. Should have been stopped at the gate. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not enough info, and the competition hasn't ended yet. I think this article is very specialised. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a logical component of a whole hierarchy of articles and templates about this competition (which I'd never heard of until stub-sorting this article), and I've cleaned it up and found a source for it. PamD 07:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And have also amended {{Bulgaria in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest}} to link to it. PamD 07:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Rojas[edit]

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

Probably not a 'notable player' - Google finds very little (if anything) outside football database and stats sites Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The teams in his career list feature in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues so he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. (As with others: WP:BEFORE). AllyD (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Passes WP:NSPORTS for presumed nobility. Bgwhite (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was having real trouble finding any sources other than 'passing comment' types! I did try .... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played at a notable level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SNS Radio Network[edit]

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

Non-notable? - Google seems only to bring up hits with listings, YouTube, etc. This article would also require major improvement if it were to be kept. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could have been speedy deleted as WP:CSD A7. - Brianhe (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another non notable podcast/Shoutcaster. A7, indeed. Nate • (chatter) 20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 17:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lemon (author)[edit]

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

Not notable. Look at creator's talk page--he's tried it in half a dozen different ways, and I guess sheer volume (see the article history) is the only reason it wasn't speedied. Anyway, not a notable author, no reviews, no significant coverage except for a few small newspaper articles. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Not a notable author; all I can find (using all the bookseller resources at my disposal) is one co-author credit for a book of photographs published through the highly specialist McWhiney Foundation. His proposed other two books aren't even on the radar, and most publishers list this information up to a year before the proposed release date. Page would be more appropriate as a redirect to the genuinely notable Mark Lemon. Recommend salting the page to prevent this SPA creator from repeatedly recreating it against consensus. Yunshui (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep but in stub form without all the excessive detail. WorldCat shows that The illustrated Alamo, 1836 : a photographic journey is being distributed by an academic press and is housed in 124 libraries.[35] LadyofShalott 12:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was reviewed in Wild West, Feb2011, Vol. 23 Issue 5, p73-73, 1/5p. LadyofShalott 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria at WP:AUTHOR require that he:

be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
be known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
has work which has either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

At present the only criterion he stands a chance of passing is no. 3, and one review in a specialist periodical does not, to my mind, constitute "a significant or well-known work" with coverage in "multiple independent periodical articles". Yunshui (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady, has it come to this? Will we be split by a lemon wedge unaccompanied by gin or tonic? I'm sad. Do you have a link for the Wild West? I'm interested in looking at that review. If his book has been the subject of significant reviews in notable publications then I might start singing a different tune. With my apologies for mixing metaphors and drinks. And grammar. Also for syllepsis. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can get the full thing to open for me here. I was only able to see the abstract at home. I'll probably have to email it to you if I can open it. LadyofShalott 17:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what I thought was an abstract was actually the full text. Check your email, Drmies. Vote revised to very weak keep. LadyofShalott 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons listed by Yunshui. Not enough info or notability to really warrant keeping. He's released one book that has very little notability as it is and has done nothing that would be notable beyond that. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 13:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Totally non-notable author. Also suggest warning article creator for COI again. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as product advertising, although it's difficult to tell from this stubbed out remnant. I had to go back to an earlier version to see what all the fuss was about and found a very detailed and promotional piece, with this tucked in at the end: "Tony Caridi - In August of 2011 Tony Caridi, the director of marketing and public relations for the Alamo, agreed to represent Mark Lemon and create a brand product and intellectual properties licensing of all Mark Lemon works, including printing, publishing and imaging rights." Oh, now I get it. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, when I removed it from the article it even had an image of them shaking hands on the agreement! —SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to clean up this article a while back thinking there might be some notability somewhere and then asked Drmies to take a look. After a few weeks I haven't been able to find anything significant (except the AJC source which provides some background info) and the Lady's finding of a mini-review doesn't sway my opinion either. —SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muswellbrook FC[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 09:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to me like a local club with no media coverage which never played for the national cup. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 09:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The High Trees[edit]

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

Non notable band. Diego talk 02:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An unsigned band with one self-released EP with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 2 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They list three external links: to their website, their myspace page, and their last.fm band page, the last of which which indicates a grand total of 12 listeners since beginning of 2010. Non-notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of cricket clubs in Ireland. v/r - T P 16:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurelvale Cricket Club[edit]

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 03:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mt king ^(edits) 03:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A second secondary source has been added to the article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, a secondary source that is self-published, without an apparently valid ISBN, no record at WorldCat and minimal hits at Google (209 GHits, including sellers, no GBooks hit at all, no GScholar) , Even the reviews at ulstercricketer.com share the domain name used by the author for enquiries about purchase. I know that Google is not everything, but is this good enough? - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this. Whilst I am well aware of AGF, a lot of books of this type contain tables etc and I am concerned that this may be just a passing mention (just because the club is listed in a book would not in itself indicate notability, and a single page mention does not seem like much). Could you possibly either mail me a scan of the relevant bit or transcribe onto the article talk page? Use a throwaway email account if you want. It would be so much easier if these clubs had actually won the Senior Cup or the top tier of the league at some point (as indeed one did, the AfD of which I opposed recently for that reason). - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to the insulting comment immediately above, clearly in breach of AGF. (You seem to have plenty of time on your hands: order the book from the library if you don't believe the reference to be genuine.) But just to refute the first allegation, the ISBN is 0-9545892-0-3. Mooretwin (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the existence of the ref, just that is appears unlikely to address the subject [club] in significant detail so even with it it sill fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, like all the others listed in the nomination, existence does not equal notability. Mt king ^(edits) 01:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom - No notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of cricket clubs in Ireland, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CLUB.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lance scheduler[edit]

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

An article about an open source software projec. The article has no sources and has no assertion of notability, so clearly fails WP:GNG. I can find no evidence that such notability is likely to exist.: as far as I can tell this is a imnor hobby project with no real users and that has so far had no impact. Speedy delete request was (rightly) declined, the Prod was removed by the original author without comment, so here we are. Claviere (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA so possibly promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 16:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Centre for Vedic Learning (Jabalpur)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic about an unbuilt tower. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Been proposed, no real reliable source coverage. —SpacemanSpiff 07:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems silly to have an article about a building that hasn't been constructed yet (especially since the project has been in the pipeline for what must be decades by now), but I'm tentatively in favour of hanging on to this. It's been the subject of considerable coverage and speculation for years now, and even if it never gets built, the concept seems to have had enough mentions to be notable. Yunshui (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is not notable enough and does not deserve its own page. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Building is still only in the "vision" stage! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiral of Life Mural Series[edit]

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

Non notable art mural. Article does not have any references and EL are to non-independent sites. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References and independent site have been added to the article. Scholarly articles are mentioned. DRC10 (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert "Bob" Fifer[edit]

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

Article on non-notable subject which relies on single (functioning) source. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found all the references working and wikified them into the article. I also added more references. His book was well-received and he is cited in other books and case studies (which I didn't include). Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bob Fifer passes WP:AUTHOR (3) because of the reviews and coverage he receives for his books—"Humble CEOs May Make the Best Bosses" from U.S. News & World Report, "Why earnings can surprise Wall Street" from USA Today, "Life in Escape: Great Falls resident Bob Fifer shares business and life lessons learned in his new book 'The Enlightened CEO.'" from Great Falls Connection, and "How to Double Your Profits" from Fortune. Goodvac (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Footnotes already showing indicate a sufficient public profile for this business-book author to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welf Herfurth[edit]

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

No reliable sources can be found to establish Herfurth's notability. To be sure, he has a voice and sources can be found linking to his writings, but not much in the realm of any independent sources writing about him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any independent reliable sources discussing Herfurth in significant detail. Does not pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Chich[edit]

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

Current article consists of a single line and contains no references. The topic may indeed be notable but there are no English language sources that I can check to verify this. Unless someone fluent in Vietnamese can provide reliable sources this article should be deleted. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows ample coverage of this Vietnamese historical figure in English, Vietnamese, French, German and Italian. Clearly notable, and the stub should be improved through normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect to Lê Lợi). Just because an article is a stub on a topic is from a faraway land and time is not reason enough for deletion. Google is not the best place to research Lê Dynasty Vietnam anyway. — AjaxSmack 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with AjaxSmack. Added a reference to a French language source. No doubt more material is available in Vietnamese. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the availability of reliable sources, [36], and reference added to article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the book search results and what's been said. This person was notable. Dream Focus 15:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would really feel silly saying "no consensus" here because nobody is saying "delete" but the two "keep" !voters are really not sure. The idea of redirecting makes sense but let's give the article's creator a little time to "show us the money" and we can then revisit this issue in a month or so which is the customary waiting time for a standard "no consensus" close anyway. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Media[edit]

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

Article was deproded without addressing the concern. It still appears to fail WP:COMPANY. I am unable to find substantial reliable source references in secondary sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary keep The article is very new and it appears that wp:notability is possible for the subject. Give the editors a few months to put sourcing in to establish wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added references for "Stone Silence" as an award-winning documentary. However, is that sufficient for the production company's notability? AllyD (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'd feel more confident in voting keep if this had an article on Polish Wikipedia. I do think that the director and owner, Krzysztof Kopczyński is notable. Some if not all of the productions, same. But the company... hmmm. Probably, as the organization behind dozens of documentaries? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:CORP since I cannot find "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" about the company. The company's relationship with Stone Silence and the director does not count because WP:CORP says, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable." I am willing to change my mind if significant coverage can be provided. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to director's article is fine since it is a plausible search term. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Krzysztof Kopczyński where this production company is already spoken of in context to the filmmaker/founder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Akehurst[edit]

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

Young political writer and activist, but does not yet meet WP:GNG (or WP:POLITICIAN - the UK youth parliament does not legislate). Note that the Parliamentary Press Gallery writing award, though a considerable achievement, is awarded to about a dozen young people each year. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:33, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Askariz[edit]

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

Band which does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. No released albums, no coverage in reliable sources indicating that WP:GNG is met. Previously speedied. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate as a BLP with unclear sources. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Nicos Pourpourakis --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicos Pourpourakis[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. The article was BLPprodded shortly after its creation but was removed with this edit when an offline source was provided. That source has since been removed and there is no telling what that source verified. I searched using both the Greek and English spelling of his name without any luck. J04n(talk page) 21:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have reverted the removal of the general references from the article. There's no telling though what they verify and how much they say in the absence of their use as inline citations. Meanwhile, this Boston Globe story is behind a paywall, but the abstract indicates it may very well be substantive treatment, (i.e. not just a mere mention). My other searches, including of the massive newspaperarchive.com, found nothing. A user fluent in Greek might help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Due to two references added by Aglaiadakis concerning a television interview and separate radio interviews. These references still need to be cross-referenced in to the text of the article to support the content as per WP:BLP. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Shamah[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist with no third-party refs. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 September 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, BusterD (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JB Video[edit]

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

Significance is certainly asserted but it is not supported. The article was written by someone named MannyJB and the company is owned by someone named Joe Baily. The article says that Reuters called it "one of the studios that dominate the foot fetishism U.S. porn industry" however not only is JB Video not mentioned in the article neither are any foot fetishisms either. The other source is a blog. Clearly self promotional written very carefully in as little promotional language as possible. v/r - T P 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article. Fails WP notability guideline. Keb25 (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm sorry Monty, you make a decent argument about roles in "notable but minor" films but it doesn't seem to have convinced anybody. Perhaps there should be more discussion on that issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Swenson[edit]

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

Non-notable actress and producer, mainly of direct-to-video productions or in minor roles. Musician in a band which is a redlink. A speedy deletion tag and a prod tag have both been removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. My search prior to PRODing the article turned up no sources that provided significant coverage of the subject. The sources that do exist and mention the subject only do so in passing while discussing movies, which is insufficient to establish notability. Further while some of the movies that the subject was involved with may pass the minimum threshold for inclusion for themselves, they are not notable enough to make this subject notable by association. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me Monty, In looking at very new article's history and sourcing, I can understand your wish to bring this to AFd without delay. I wish to chirp in though, that even mentions, if they that can be used for policy mandated verifiability, need not themselves be "significant coverage". However, sources that address the subject directly and in detail DO exist (see my "keep" below). Under WP:CREATIVE, if her work is the subject of critical commentary and review in secondary sources, that notability IS hers as the work's creator. And Unfortunately, your last sentence does not reflect the applicable guideline stating "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," as guideline does not instruct that the productions must be on a par with Star Wars, only that they be notable per Wikipedia standards set at WP:NF, and that the roles not be some minimal descriptive, but rather a named charater who is significant to the plot of the film. In looking at Eliza Swenson#ilmography, I see far more bluelinks than red. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your assessment. To break them down, WP:GNG requires that the subject has received "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Very few of the sources do more then drop her name into the articles. The ones that do, talk about here only briefly, and certainly not to the point that she was one of the main topics of the article. The interview at [37] is the only exception I saw in the sources you provided, but I question whether rockeyes.com qualifies as a reliable source. WP:ENT I think the criteria that comes closest to being met is 3 The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I would read that to require that the works be more then just minimally notable, for instance a major motion picture. Certainly there is room to differ on that, but I don't think the criteria is passed. WP:MUSICBIO I'm not sure which criteria you are arguing has been passed. WP:ENT includes Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. But again, I would argue against allowing inherited notability on the basis of films that are rather insignificant themselves, even if those films do pass the minimum notability threshold. I would also mention that all of the other notability criteria are meant to identify subjects that most likely pass WP:GNG, however I maintain that this subject does not pass it, at least based on the sources I have reviewed. Also, while not really important, I'm not actually the one who brought this to AfD. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting or WP:ENT, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. As "Eliza Swenson", we have her work as a composer and as an actress being the subject of critical commentary and coverage in multiple sources. And too, under her AKA name "Victoria Mazze" (lead singer of the goth band The Divine Madness (band)) she, and the works of the band itself, are the recipients of coverage and critical comentary in secondary sources. We can use many of these to properly expand and source the article... an addressable issue that does not require deletion. RockEyez Monsters & Critics 1 Monsters & Critics 2 Monsters & Critics 3 Geek Tyrant 1 Geek Tyrant 2 Filmofilia Monsters & Critics 4 Monsters & Critics 5 Monsters & Critics 6 Monsters & Critics 7 News Times Heavy Dread Central But yes, addressable issues do require addressing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per stated above, "she, and the works of the band itself, are the recipients of coverage and critical comentary in secondary sources." Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt`s findings. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MichaelQSchmidt's findings are convincing, the subject passes notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Honeyford[edit]

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

Local councillor. Quick search on google did not give evidence of being notable through other fields of society. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Nothing on google news or web (well, nothing of note), but I haven't spent too much time searching. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Warriors 2008[edit]

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

not one notable participant. I wish these could be speedily deleted because previous strong consensus is obvious. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More routine sports coverage that fails to make any claim of why it's notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is already listed in the AfD for K-1 World MAX 2008 World Championship Tournament Final 16. However, discussing it separately works for me. Astudent0 (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine sports coverage of an event that lacked notable fighters or significance. Papaursa (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rename. v/r - T P 16:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest global software companies[edit]

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

Obvious original research, which purports to compare three different lists of "large software companies". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - a perfectly encyclopdic topic for a list article which will be of interest to many readers. The article does already have a couple of quality citations but is in need of work. That is not a reason for deletion however.Rangoon11 (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I am also nominating the following related pages:

It seems to me that this article, formatted more conventionally like a list, shares the same problem as the main nominated article, and ought to receive the same result for the sake of consistency. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whatever else happens, strike the word "global" from each title; as a means of calling attention to size, importance, or reach, it's been pretty much emptied of meaning; and "list of the largest software / technology companies" strikes me as a more neutral and objective title in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the word 'global' adds nothing.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what constitutes a "large" software company? Revenue, employees, etc? I think the title should be renamed. If not, I'd say delete as the title is too vague. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What constitutes the largest software companies is perfectly verifiable through reliable published sources. Steven Walling • talk 02:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chetan Bhagat. after deletion, to remove all the coprighted material this included. Sorry to say, this was a G12 candidate for most of its existance, so keeping the history around is highly problematic. Courcelles 04:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution 2020: Love, Corruption, Ambition[edit]

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

Upcoming, probably non-notable novel. Hasn't been published yet. WP:CRYSTAL. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to the award-winning author's page Chetan Bhagat. Much like a planned film that might be spoken of somewhere even if not in a separate article, for a novel getting so much press, WP:FUTURE suggests it might be mentioned. As its planning IS sourcable,[38][39][40][41] we can at least speak of it IN the author's article in context to his other works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now found out that almost the entirety of the article was plagiarised. I have reduced it to a one-sentence stub. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. No opposition to resurrecting the article when the book is published and there are numerous reviews from reliable publications. I suggest leaving a note at Talk:Chetan Bhagat to make sure editors know about the redirect and can undo it when the time comes. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Laribee[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Sure, he struck out seven times in one game, but is that notable? Is every obscure minor league record notable and worth an article? Hardly. He was a career minor leaguer who spent most of his career in the mid to lower minors. Alex (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - For the same reasons as was discussed 3 months ago. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still say delete for the same reason I said it three months ago. At best, his one career "accomplishment" falls under WP:BLP1E, and otherwise his career received only WP:ROUTINE coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Longest professional baseball game. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll say what I said before, since this is being rehashed so soon: "The inclusion-worthiness bar for professional baseball players is so low (play 1 game in the big leagues) that there is a tendency to want to keep out anyone who can't pass that measure. The fact is, there are other ways to get to the dance. Riendog cites a couple pieces of evidence that this is an individual who is the subject of multiple instances of independent coverage. One might argue One Event. One might argue that a holder of a professional baseball record is notable. Me? I'm an inclusionist. What possibly would be gained for the project by deletion? Carrite (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)" — Carrite (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not clear on why this was renominated only a few months after I nominated it. To reply to your potentially rhetorical question, though, I don't see what is to be gained for the project by keeping this article that isn't already obtained both by the mentions of him at Longest professional baseball game and Golden sombrero. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longest professional baseball game, otherwise delete. Information can be preserved by redirecting to appropriate article where he is already mentioned per WP:BLP1E. In any event, stand-along article is not warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – passes GNG as demonstrated by Gnews search[42] which includes SUPERSOURCE article like The Morning Record and Journal - Jul 9, 1980 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kugao (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GHITS is not a valid reason to keep, nor does it establish GNG, as most of those sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Gobind Singh Sikh Center[edit]

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

It has been marked for needing WP:RES for well over 4 years now, when I did a seach on it I only found 4 articles from Newsday, and those articles just mention center are not about the center and the scholarly article just mentions that the paper was presented there, It uses weasle words, and basically reads like a G11 or A7 The Terminator t c 16:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. — The Terminator t c 16:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — The Terminator t c 16:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no sources or evidence of notability. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Columbia University Medical Center. v/r - T P 16:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rothstein Lab[edit]

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

Laboratory that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Most sources appear to be self-published, and I'm having difficulty finding information about the lab itself. A majority of information that tangentially discusses the lab is about Prof. Rothstein himself and his research (as the principal investigator); he possibly meets WP:PROF and could be a reasonable subject for an article. However, I'm not seeing evidence that his actual physical laboratory is an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Kinu ^t/_c 20:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But... I can't find anything on the lab, but the fellow it's named after seems very notable, as head of the lab/department, winner of the 2009 Genetics Society of America Novitski prize or based on his citation count. If that were created then this should then be merged/redirected there.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Rodney Rothstein and repurpose accordingly. LadyofShalott 23:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant notable research in medical and DNA research was pioneered at Rothstein lab, which is also a notable laboratory at Columbia Universtiy Medical Center in New York city. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Columbia University Medical Center. The professor-founder of the lab, Rodney Rothstein, is notable, but his laboratory itself (12 or so people) is not independently notable. The lab should certainly be mentioned in the Columbia University Medical Center article. Neutrality^talk 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Columbia University Medical Center or Columbia University. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit 56K[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable play. It doesn't seem to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. (Some reviews are linked in the External Links, but it's not clear that they're reliable.) The author doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and there's no record of the play ever being performed. This seems to be an entirely insignificant work of fiction. Robofish (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CE very difficult[edit]

I copyedited this article (it was on the list), in February 2011, although I did not understand much of it! At the time I stated that I had not removed the CE tag because I believed that the article still required a lot of work. Since then it has been CE'd any number of times.
Re-reading my own comments on the talk page, I could hardly de-cipher them, (likewise User: Lenoxin's)!

If the article cannot be saved, I would say there is nothing wrong with deleting it. It doesn't seem to improve Wikipedia, get rid.

RASAM (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find the significant coverage at reliable independent sources as required. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to any notability, let alone proven. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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