< 24 January 26 January >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Rosellini[edit]

Will Rosellini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Online resume/CV of an otherwise non-notable individual. Fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Poole[edit]

Damon Poole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability outside the company he founded, AccuRev (which is of questionable notability itself but the discussion of which I will leave for another editor/day). Subject has apparently edited this article, indicating the WP:COI that is apparent from the hagiographic tone. Ultimately the only actual sourcing is a couple of articles in which is interviewed/mentioned in the context of his company and its product. Nothing substantive out there per WP:GNG to warrant a WP:BLP Kinu t/c 23:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 page created to a dab page by author before this AfD's close. Can some editor kindly clean up the dab page? Right now, simply closing this AfD as no action required. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional western medicine[edit]

Traditional western medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article as it stands is currently original research and synthesis. It has two sources, but neither of them refer to the concept of "traditonal western medicine." I can see some potential avenues this article could take, but all of them are problematic. Using the article to describe historical western medicine would duplicate the existing article at History of Medicine. Using the article to describe current pseudoscientific practices might fall afoul of WP:FRINGE and would still fail to fix the underlying synthesis problem of this article, as there are no sources describing a unified concept of "traditional western medicine." Therefore I am nominating this article for deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment What we have here is a collection of random, sourced bits of historical medicine, but nothing to tie them together. Give me one source that describes the scope of "traditional western medicine" different from simply historical western medicine. The absence of such a source is why I nominated this article for deletion. Most of the sources you cite are primary sources, and tying together primary sources is the definition of original research. I'm not saying the subject is inherently non-notable, but the article needs a secondary source that ties together its various sections and differentiates it from History of medicine. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started the article because of shifting use of the expression by alternative medicine practicioners. First they say that they are an alternative to traditional western medicine and are measuring helth by a different standard, referring to modern science-based medicine, then they bash TWM by using the expression to refer to historical European pseudoscientific occult-based medicine. I am not going to call any alternative medicine site an RS, but others may. Google Scholar search is probably the best place to find RS, not just a Google search, which turns up mostly alternative medicine sites. Again, I have no strong feelings about trying to keep. (I do feel strongly to keep material in other articles, e.g. bad faith.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page and did most of the edits. I redirected Traditional western medicine to a disambiguation page, which directs to articles for the two different uses. I am marking this page resolved. HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This debate does not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (but mostly-good idea, and kudos for showing initiative). - 2/0 (cont.) 07:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article has been speedily deleted as requested by the author (CSD G7). See the last comment below. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig E. Carter[edit]

Craig E. Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. ttonyb (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – The pictures were removed because there was no indication they you or anyone else had, "...full rights and they are released for public use." They were appeared to have been taken from a copyrighted website lacking a license compatible with Wikipedia requirements. ttonyb (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The existence of other articles has no bearing on this article. All articles must be evaluated on their own merits. It could very well be there are other articles that should be deleted because they do not meet Wikipedia criteria. Please see WP:WAX. BTW - Press releases are not considered valid secondary sources. ttonyb (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ntcpfma (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muse (Valery Leontiev album)[edit]

Muse (Valery Leontiev album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, written in an unencyclopedic manner, and weak, if any, claim to notability Sven Manguard Wha? 21:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE the nominator has not given valid reasons to propose deletion, but instead indicated that the article needs improvement. There are already edit tags to that effect. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:44, 11 January 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) 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I can't find any either. But the artist is indisputably notable, and the album was released before the days of the internet, so its not out of the question that the coverage is there and just not easy to find. And while notability isn't inherited, it is common practice to allow for articles that feature artists that later became notable. See The_Moon_Is_Down_(album), The_Himalayans, Goo_Goo_Dolls_(album). I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is far from an airtight argument, but I would hate for us to be applying a different standard to American artists just because it easier to find coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:54, 18 January 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As a "soft" delete, this decision may be reversed upon request at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight of Spring[edit]

Daylight of Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, no assertion of notability, contents duplicated on the page for Sodagreen. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator and I have already discussed the reasoning behind this nomination, which was copied verbatim from a previous PROD. Using prose like "Unsourced, no assertion of notability", indicates poor quality as the reason for deletion. According to WP:NOTCLEANUP, that is not a criterion for deletion. Meanwhile, according to WP:BEFORE #9, a lack of sources IS a criterion for deletion, if the nominator makes a good faith effort to determine that such sources do not exist. The nom's prose gives no indication that this was done. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 11 January 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) 00:11, 17 January 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomparable Beauty[edit]

Incomparable Beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, no assertion of notability, contents duplicated on the page for Sodagreen. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE the nominator has not given valid reasons to propose deletion, but instead indicated that the article needs improvement. There are already edit tags to that effect. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:45, 11 January 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) 00:12, 17 January 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging into Uechi-ryū is an option, to be worked out as an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pangai-noon[edit]

Pangai-noon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable martial art without third person sources stating why its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Uechi-ryu based on user Jmcw's improvements. Astudent0 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have re-written the article with references. Please review it again. jmcw (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is much improved, but since it's already in the uechi-ryu article does it really need its own article or should this content be merged into that article? Astudent0 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we save any paper? Do we get any points for the number of articles we delete? jmcw (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We weren't talking about deleting the info. I simply was asking where the best place to put it was. Thanks for the sarcasm. Astudent0 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the sarcasm. Why do you think this teacher should not have an article? jmcw (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I now think the current article is fine as a stand-alone. Astudent0 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! jmcw (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is reasonable, perhaps even preferable, but that can always be done later. The main thing is that the information should be kept. Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 23 January 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Train Your Dragon (TV Series)[edit]

How to Train Your Dragon (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way too early for such an article. A producer is aiming for a 2012 premiere, but he says "But I’m not positive". Source says the TV series "in the very earliest stages" and it's "really in the early going. We have a sort of plan for it, but the scripts are just starting." Very premature. Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, a much better idea. Don't know why I didn't think of that! How can I close this AfD? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copper L-aspartate[edit]

Copper L-aspartate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable nutritional supplement. The refs only support that it exists. The chemical-indexing leads to minimal database entries that do not have lit refs supporting notability. Heck, half the database entries don't even agree on the structure or formula (see my recent edit-summaries to it). The lack of notability applies to each possibility, the lack of specificity just makes the article that much more hopeless. DMacks (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Michaela McAreavey[edit]

Murder of Michaela McAreavey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not a cold-hearted person. I know what it is like to lose someone you love and who is irreplaceable. I was saddened when I read online about the murder (not on Wikipedia). I assumed a good portion of Mickey Harte's page would deal with his daughter's killing. However, I must question whether this murder is notable enough to warrant its own article. There are thousands of murders and millions of tragedies which occur every day, not all of which are inherently notable, especially when the victim, with all due respect, was not well-known in her own right when she was alive, although obviously her father is, which is why I think the salient text should/can easily be merged into her father's article. I know the timing could be better, but if I put it off I'll forget, and we may as well nip this contentious matter in the bud now. I am sure her family couldn't care less about what's going on on Wikipedia anyway. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out to Shearonink that Mickey Harte, Mrs. McAreavey's father, is not "well-known in the UK", although he is well-known in much of Northern Ireland. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, and I knew that someone would mention the funeral, I strongly disagree that the murder is notable just because Adams, McGuinness and Mary McAleese attended the victim's funeral, particularly since attending (certain) funerals is a de facto part of their jobs. A person's notability is usually not derived from the attendees at his/her funeral or even necessarily by being the victim or related to the victim of a murder or other crime which makes headlines. Does anyone whose funeral is picketed by the lunatics from the Westboro Baptist Church qualify as notable per se? Is Christina Taylor Green notable? Would Christina Taylor Green's death be notable (for the purposes of Wikipedia, I mean, not for those who knew and loved her) if it had not occurred during the attempted assassination of a congresswoman? Are her parents notable because they were invited to attend Barack Obama's State of the Union speech? Is Mark Kelly notable because his wife, Gabby Giffords, was shot? Notability derives from the sum total of a person's life and the way in which the world was impacted by his or her actions, for good or ill.
I can see the way the votes are headed and I fear it is the result of undue sentimentality. I respect the process but I stand by my initial opinion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my reputation here as being unemotional. I think that some standards for "death of X" articles need to be made, and having a funeral attended by heads of state and of government indicates some evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator (although maintaining article's non-notability) moves herewith to close out this AfD as WP:SNOW. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G4 recreation, along with two other articles also deleted at AFD last week. I have SALTed all three. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Shot (2010 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Last Shot (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability. Note that the Emilio Rodriguez link points to a completely unrelated bicyclist. Only source is local incidental coverage; no notable people involved. Not sure if this is G4 but if it is, please to be salting — it's been deleted at least twice already. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Elizabeth Dare[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rachel Elizabeth Dare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:N. Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 96747 Crespodasilva. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy D’Escoffier Crespo da Silva[edit]

Lucy D’Escoffier Crespo da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined this PROD as it seemed not quite cut-and-dried enough. Article about an undergraduate astronomer who took her own life, who did have scholarly work published on asteroid spin determinatins, had an asteroid named after her (an exception to the usual minor planet naming rules), and there is some coverage because of that.

I don't believe the sources I've found establish enough notability under GNG to preserve the article, but I do think that a redirect to 96747 Crespodasilva might be found to be a sensible resolution rather than outright deletion.

I've added one more source to the article (bare URL which doesn't actually show the text, but what's behind the hood is relatively predictable from the source and verifiable by the appropriate Google search's snippet in the search results), and excluded a second I found (the book "Solar System", by various), the latter exclusion because it appears to be a wikimirror. -- j⚛e deckertalk 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Killarney RFC Match Reports 2010-11[edit]

Killarney RFC Match Reports 2010-11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not encyclopedic, basically per WP:NOTBLOG and/or WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Electrorheological fluid. —SpacemanSpiff 18:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electrorheology[edit]

Electrorheology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has multiple issues, mainly that a page Electrorheological fluid already exists to explain the effect and applications, that the page Electrorheology reports on just one groups work, and that a citation to this work has already been removed (in Jan 2009) from Electrorheological fluid Aarghdvaark (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another chapter from the History of National Museum, New Delhi, India.[edit]

Another chapter from the History of National Museum, New Delhi, India. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another OR / copyvio article Travelbird (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinus Show[edit]

The Sinus Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable defunct local stage production in Austin, Texas, tagged for notability for two and a half years now without improvement. Related to the self-promotional articles Owen Egerton and How Best to Avoid Dying, which I'm also listing for deletion. Qworty (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Alison ‎ (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Socialism[edit]

Racial Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe ideology. No refs as of yet. No google hits that use the term as described. Beach drifter (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug is correct, this article could stand on its own, but with completely different content. I feel the content, if any is salvagable, should go to Creativity, this article should become a stub about the actual term, and then I should withdraw the nom. Beach drifter (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penda Jonas Hashoongo[edit]

Penda Jonas Hashoongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and except name and age not verifiable. Played in the Namibian U-20 team and is captain of an non-notable Polytechnic team, consisting not even of semi-professional players. All this is backed up by one listing of a few hundred names, and one non-independent source, again only listing name, age, and position. All other claims are unsourced. But I admit that technically, he might be playing on highest level, because there are only 8 male basketball teams in Khomas Region. Is that sufficient? Pgallert (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to not meet the criteria at the criteria for notability. RandomTime 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfied to User:Andy5421/Traces of Death III. Traces of Death III now tagged for G6. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traces of Death III[edit]

Traces of Death III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear and unsourced. All of the content is simply a plot description, I presume the article is about a movie, which itself may not meet the notability guidelines. Possibly userify for Andy5421 (talk · contribs) so he can work on it outside of the main article space. (Author contested prod.) OSborn arfcontribs. 18:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom, endorse userifying for Andy5421. OSborn arfcontribs. 20:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

userfy it Andy5421 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Ny[edit]

Marianne Ny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person only mentioned in passing as Swedish prosecutor of Julian Assange legal case. Not notable. aprock (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources are just barely sufficient, but WP:NOTINHERITED puts her under a cloud. For the third time, a consensus does not seem to have emerged, I'm afraid. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Edwards[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cate Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person, although probably a good one. She is known only for her role as the daughter of John and Elizabeth Edwards. The article has been nominated for deletion twice and kept as "no consensus" both times. Looking at the opinions expressed in the discussions it probably should have been deleted. Borock (talk) 09:09, 18 January 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, -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Abbott[edit]

Lucas Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. ttonyb (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trooper Taylor[edit]

Trooper Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable assistant college football coach, fails WP:N and WP:GNG. College football project essay WP:CFBCOACH also concludes that assistant coaches are normally not notable. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Powered exoskeleton. After looking over the discussion, it appears the consensus is that the topic does not deserve an independent article, as no one was able to adequetly refute what was best summarized in ScottyWong's post. However, I am not deleting the article, as I believe there may be some material that can be merged back into Powered exoskeleton. NW (Talk) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Powered exoskeletons in fiction[edit]

Powered exoskeletons in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a huge list of trivia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussions for subsequently moving the article can take place on the talk page of the article in question. Currently, keeping... Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Brown (accused murderer)[edit]

Jordan Brown (accused murderer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page on an accused (not convicted) 13 year old child. Apart from being only known for WP:ONEVENT I feel extremely uncomfortable with having pages on non-convicted minors on here. Travelbird (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Travelbird (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Per WP:BLP1E, if there is an article to be kept, it should be about the event, not the person.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I agree that is not a reasonable title in case this article is kept, it's not the only other option for a name. It's not the person or the murder that is the main reason for potential notability, but the fact that the accused will possibly face trial as an "adult". Thus, per WP:BIO1E, if kept, it should be named after the event, which is really the court case, rather than the murder or the person accused.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Jordan Anthony Brown? The murder and the court case are separate, but intertwined events that center on one person. Location (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the murder is not notable in itself. And I am not suggesting anything until (or unless) the accused does go to trial as an adult. If the accused ends up in juvenile court, then it will be just a fleeting controversy under WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville Knights[edit]

Jacksonville Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor-league football team playing in the Florida Football Alliance, whose article was recently deleted by PROD. The team do turn up sometimes in local papers, but these are mostly passing mentions, nothing I think qualifies as substantial coverage. In fact, this article specifically identifies them as one of "The top 10 little-known sports franchises in Jacksonville history". Cúchullain t/c 14:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De facto head of state[edit]

AfDs for this article:
De facto head of state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is entirely original research. It has been tagged as being unsourced for over a year. Pete (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete by A10. An article actually about Wiredred may be acceptable. lifebaka++ 16:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiredred (Software)[edit]

Wiredred (Software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about software which does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. In addition, it is written like an advertisement. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Omar Khayyám. —SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xayyam[edit]

Xayyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD declined (and I don't know why). According to WP:NEOLOGISM "articles on neologism should be deleted" and as I know we don't have a guideline in WP:N for neologism, but as the inventor of the concept is a scholar this concept should pass WP:PROF. Beside this, no third party sources can be found. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Parchizadeh. Farhikht (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informativeness paradox[edit]

Informativeness paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable (and lacks references). I can find a handful of Google hits, but none that appears to describe what it is - the few I found talk of it in the context of economics, which doesn't appear to be relevant to this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity in art[edit]

Authenticity in art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded as incomprehensible original research, which it currently is. The online sources don't appear to back it up and I suspect they've merely been added because they came from a Google search on art+authenticity. PROD removed by User:Colonel Warden who added a Google books cite which, as usual, is utterly irrelevant to the topic - it is talking about authenticity in terms of genuine or fake art, as opposed to originality of style or use of traditional methods. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above and below, there are already several articles dealing with the various meanings of this title, some of which actually have specific relevant content, instead of vague wafflings. This is not a useful grouping, except for a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, that would not be suitable. Provenance is only one aspect of deciding whether a work of art is genuinely what it is said to be. Art forgery is on the whole more relevant, or authenticity (philosophy). You are right in thinking that this is not a good title for an article on the subject, if only because it is so ambiguous. As I have said above, we do need an article called something like attribution (art). But it should not be under this title. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G has already cited a entry for this topic in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here's another encyclopedic entry. These entries demonstrate by example that an encyclopedic treatment of the topic is feasible. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but this isn't it. Currently it is twaddle, its not even a stub. It mixes forgery and plagiarism, with authenticity of style, authenticity of process, and some form of waccy baccy hippy 'keep it real man' idealism. Which is it? If the article can figure out what it is about then have it in main space other wise bury it along with the other detritus. John lilburne (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the weak argument of WP:RUBBISH. Our editing policy is that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfection is not the issue, no one expects a polished and finished article right from the outset. What the problem with this article is is that it doesn't appear to know where it is going. There are two, possibly three, articles in the current piece. It needs to decide which it is. Move it to user space and work out what its meant to be about rather than leaving it as random jottings in main space. John lilburne (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article you cite just above deals exclusively with Authenticity in popular music, which indeed would be an article worth having. But why lump it in with visual art issues, and historically authentic classical music performance, which are linked only by the word "authentic"? Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even in the visual arts there are issues of authenticity, separate from forgery and plagiarism. For example last year the "BBC Wildlife photograph of the year" was revoked because the photograph was of a 'trained' fox. The fashion and cosmetic industry have similar problems regarding the authenticity of photographs of models. At issue with those two examples is whether everything that is claimed or implied in a work is true or not. John lilburne (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And some of those points could be good examples in an article about staged photos, or photo manipulation, of even photo op. It does not help explain this murky article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
some of the comments above need particular answers because of the need for clarity about the nature of Wikipedia editing: "There are two, possibly three, articles in the current piece. Move it to user space". We could say that about almost any Wikipedia article on a general topic, but the encyclopedia grows by expanding articles in Wikipedia space , and eventually splitting some of them. That's the whole idea of open editing. But sometimes in general topics with amorphous boundaries it is better not to split but to keep the aspects together in one article, for ease of understanding each of them, and because the inquirer may well themselves be confused, and needs to see them all. It's my guess that this will prove to be one such topic: the meanings of authenticity probably overlap. That's the case for a great many topics in the humanities. I note that the multiple articles on this subject in Encyclopedia of philosophy are deliberate POV splits--their policy is to give the expert editors full opportunity to use their own perspective--and if multiple articles are needed to express all expert views, that's what they have. We, of course, try to avoid that—not being experts, and not here to express our individual perspectives. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First we have Authenticity (A) forgery and plagiarism where a claim is made that X was the product Y; this is either true or false. Then we have Authenticity (B) where a claim is made as to whether a performance of a work of Baroque music sounds as it would have done to a 17th century audience; this does not have a true or false answer it is subjective, a meta discussion, employing different variables. The type of Authenticity(A) is not the same as the type of Authenticity(B) you cannot make any meaningful statement that encompasses both types of Authenticity. What this article seeks to do is the equivalent of trying equate Bear (to carry) with Bear (the animal), and probably Bear (market) too. Good luck on that! John lilburne (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is also (C), whether the work expresses the true internal personality of the creator. And that too is subjective, but being subjective does not mean it cannot be discussed, and it's been shown that sources do discuss it. For some things both multi-meaning and very subjective, see the article on Truth, or Justice. (and, btw, the answers to your (A) can be much more than yes or no, & jugements remain in a good part subjective--sometimes on the basis of whether the work meets (C), and for (B), there are both objective and subjective criteria. The three meanings are in fact related.) (&, fwiw, bear market is in fact derived from the animal, while bear a burden is a separate word that in middle and modern english has the same spelling, but different origins.--cf. OED) DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)Well I'm glad you've mentioned dictionary definitions because this is what this article is: a list of definitions (WP:DICT) for Authenticity. They don't mix and match in any real sense. You cannot say that a performance of a Bach score, that doesn't use instruments contemporary with the time, is a forgery without sounding foolish. John lilburne (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I.)When the person is the author of one of the standard books on the subject, or the author of a major article in a specialized encyclopedia, or someone listed in such sources as being an authority, then it very much shows notability. (II) Even if the person is not, but the material is published in a reliable source known for selectivity and editing, we still have the WP:GNG, which remains the most widely accepted standard of notability here. I think it needs to be used with more care than usually done, but I along with essentially everybody here accept it as the major & indispensable guideline. (III) Basically, your argument above, is "I don't think it's important, regardless of the sources," regardless of the sources is the essence of how not to edit Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I have not read the article, and I do not intend to. However, I would like to remind everyone that just because an article on (x) is shit, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on (x). The inverse is true as well: just because (x) is a notable subject, that doesn't mean we need to put up with a shit article about it. DS (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to sound rude, but if you don't read the article your opinion isn't particularly helpful (but it would be appreciated if you did!) But the problem isn't just that the article is, well, sub-par. It is not about anything in particular, and does not really ever establish a subject.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main difference between this article and other major articles you mentioned is that the other subjects' articles, while large and probably complicated to write, undoubtably had a place in an encyclopedia. This article basically takes some things that are encyclopedia worthy (and many of which are already covered in other articles or their own articles) and lumps them with vague theories and concepts which are originally research or simply not encyclopedic. And once again, a professor covering a subject does not make something encyclopedic, as per my comments above. --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, why can't we just take out the bits that are not worthy and keep the bits that you agree are worthy? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the bits that are worthy either already have articles or should be covered under a much more fitting title than "Authenticity of Art." The points about authenticity in music, for example, seem to be possibly worth expansion but are not really related to the other parts of this article, and it would be wrong to try to link them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks for explaining. I do think that the more general topic is sufficiently notable to stand alone from the specifics, such as music, but I understand what you're saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that, my friends, is what you call civility. High five!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, yes - we should give lessons :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In between all the mutual civility and admiration, I think you chaps have hit upon something; the meaning of 'art' is crucial here, and many of the essays referenced take it to mean what used to be called the 'fine arts' - including painting, sculpture but also theatre, opera, dancejaysus help me etc. Questions of authenticity vary with the 'art' under discussion. pablo 23:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So don't read it Tarc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you. Facepalm Facepalm Tarc (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There really is no substance in the article of merit at all. After removing everything that already belongs in another article, it really is nothing more than "this could mean things that concern this."--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would just like to note that since this discussion began there has been no real substantial attempts to either clarify what the article means or improve it, both on this page or in the article itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because most don't have a problem with it. Dream Focus 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ermm, seriously? A lot of the arguments for keeping this article have been that it is weak now but can certainly be clarified in the future, yet I've seen no attempts to do so. Indeed, I'm still having trouble reading it and seeing it as anything more than an outline for an essay, let alone understanding the topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly a topic that most of us are capable of diving into. I mean, there are plenty of theoretical physics and pure math articles that aren't more than sketches, but I'm not complaining that you're not writing those. Read the Benjamin article linked (exactly the essay I thought of when I saw this; had a class that spent two weeks on it), then see if you feel like you can add something. I sure as hell don't, but I'm not going to tear down the house before someone with expertise comes along. --Danger (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was perfectly able to understand what the article said, but it gave no clear understanding of the term or its usage. I'm well aware that there are articles where I stand no chance of getting the point, but that is not what I meant in this case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can perfectly understand something which gives no clear understanding? This seems contradictory. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. I could talk for hours about, say, deforestation, for example, using only sentences which are clear and understandable, without really helping anyone understand what deforestation is or means.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments here do indeed seem to have this paradoxical character. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Irony: The article has 415 (maybe less than brilliant) words. This (keenly argued) discussion has about 8,500. Indicative of something wrong with Wikipedia? --Kleinzach 09:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. One reason that editors like to speak at length in discussions of this sort is that there is little risk of their words being deleted. And they seem free of the usual constraints of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV as they may freely express their personal opinions in a self-indulgent way The discussion thus provides an outlet for creative expression despite our policy that Wikipedia is not a forum. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rich self-reference here is the question of the true nature of the topic and the extent to which contributions are true to it. My controversial addition of a source has been described as "fraud" much as a modern artist might be described by cynics as a fraud when he exhibits a pile of bricks as an artwork. When we create article about a topic, how do we determine the true nature of the topic, to which we should be authentic? Is a topic a Platonic form of crystalline perfection or is it a pragmatic construct which may be somewhat amorphous and plastic? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascinating questions! However in this case it is just a pile of half-translated, quarter-understood crap that nobody will ever bother to turn into an adequate article and will be quickly and quietly redirected somewhere after another AFD in two or more years time. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, however the 'Keep' editors do have an opportunity to prove you (and the rest of the 'Delete' party) wrong. Will they take that opportunity? --Kleinzach 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several editors have improved the article in various small ways. More substantial work must wait upon completion of the AFD as it is not much fun performing in front of hecklers. See WP:INSPECTOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, wait. "More substantial work must wait upon completion of the AFD"? Isn't one of the points of an AfD to give editors time to improve and save an article? And while I do understand your point about hecklers, the house metaphor is a bit off in this case. It's more like someone started building a house, and then after building half of the walls promised they'd eventually continue.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goinedit[edit]

Goinedit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Utterly non-notable software product with zero relevant hits on Google. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM)) andy (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Hamlin[edit]

Janet Hamlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She is a technical illustrator who got a complain because she drew someones nose too big. Does this grant her notability? IQinn (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ergo Proxy episodes. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Proxy media and materials[edit]

Ergo Proxy media and materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft, or the potential for it. Should be merged with its parent article Ergo Proxy or deleted. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went WP:BOLD and I have done that merge, content can always be deleted or discussed on the main article's talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging the DVD info should be no problem as well if that is what people want, if that is done I will just change my opinion to delete here as I think the character info is already covered elsewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all the content from this article is merged to other articles, shouldn't the article be kept as a redirect to one of those articles in order to preserve the page history? Calathan (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think all the content should be merged though but would support a redirect to the character page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/((subst:SUBPAGENAME))|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment A small religion? Salegi, the Seventh Day Adventists have roughly 66,000 churches. If that's a small religion, then I would like to know what's a medium sized religion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It has been recommended that this article be moved to List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup schedule[edit]

2010 FIFA World Cup schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a total content fork to 2010 FIFA World Cup. Every date information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a separate article for schedule. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a basic list, like millions of others on Wikipedia. What substantial information are you expecting it to include exactly? And how would that make it less of a 'pointless' fork? MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's limited in it's information in what it can contain. There's no need for a seperate article just for the schedule. --Jimbo[online] 19:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's as lmited as most ordinary lists on Wikipedia, and such lists don't tend to be of any use if they are crammed with terrabytes of data. This simply isn't a valid argument for deletion to me. And it's not a schedule any more - it's a list of results. If that's what is not needed on Wikipedia, I would have thought the argument would be NOT#STATS, not 'this can be found in another article' (although not as quickly). MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you're talking about removing essential information, the outcome of the matches, from the main article. While content forks in general do have a purpose, this one does not. Generally, a content fork is useful so that a portion of the subject of an article can be treated in more detail without bloating the main article. This article, however, does not provide any detail not already in the main article, and removing any of this articles content from the main article would undermine it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis is it essential to list the results of all 64 matches in the main article for the tournament? I'll put it this way: if the fork was to be used properly, two really good things would happen. First, the size of the head article would be cut down, making it easier for editors, particularly those with slow connections, to access. Secondly, the article could become a proper article, with much more prose and significantly less statistics. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 24 January 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point. However, each of the groups, the knockout stage, and the final already have articles of their own which adequately cover these matches. On the other hand, the articles on every major football event list the results of every game in the tournament in question. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but to me this is very indicative of a consensus that the results of every game should be included. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which shows that having the same information in more than one place is not a reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW redirect of non-notable subject article which is an attack magnet. Dreadstar ☥ 19:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. Scott Connelly[edit]

A. Scott Connelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A. Scott Connelly seems to be creator/founder of MET-Rx. The issue is here seems to be not independently notable from his product. Article seems to be a vandal target. Seems to Fail WP:NOTE as it is no inherited. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum, he gets some coverage for not very flattering reasons (may not be WP:RS though), besides some quotes on andro and what not in the mainstream press— click the news link in your nom. There are also some interviews with him on the bodybuilding sites, e.g. [13]; no idea how notable that site is or even if it's unrelated to him. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the naming wasn't to honor him a research scientist. (I can even tell you how much it would cost you have your name on the door of a lab at the last US academic institution I worked for—6 figures). Connelly was trained as an anesthesiologist, and published a single paper [14] in academic journals as far as I can tell, although some academic studies on Met-Rx were published by others [15]. He's got a bit of personalized coverage in Sports Illustrated [16], the SF Examiner [17], and a local business magazine [18], but it's all in relation to Met-Rx. There's some coverage of him promoting androstenedione in the press [19] and in books chronicling that stuff [20] [21], but that's also in relation to his position at Met-Rx. His other endeavors did not seem to have generated mainstream coverage, discounting paid-for radio shows: [22] [23] Conclusion: marginally notable biography subject to WP:COATRACK attacks (see WP:AN), not worth the hassle of having around. A redirect to Met-Rx seems the best option for now. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Definitely no consensus to delete, but whether it should be merged / where to merge it is unclear from this discussion. As it is an editorial decision, it can be decided later on. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Child Born To Die[edit]

No Child Born To Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Part of a publicity blitz initiated on 24 January 2011 on behalf of a new organization. Deleted prior as G11 CSD and re-created. When G11 was reinstated a second time, it was subsequently removed. Respectfully, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Cind.amuse 03:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this page was created in order to share knowledge and awareness of the issues around child survival and the MDGs - i have used the same approach as for the Stop Violence Against Women page, which seems to be deemed appropriate content by the editors, so not sure why this one should be treated differently. The phrase "no child born to die" is one which is becoming very well known in the public sphere and, as such, i feel it merits a page on wikipedia. This is not purely about promoting a campaign or a cause, but highlighting key issues of humanity on a global level. Please do not delete this.

To note your own guidelines around non-profits at Wikipedia:ORG, "a company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" - and "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability". There is much coverage of No Child Born to Die in many such sources, and this will continue over the coming months and years

In short, the aim is NOT to advertise or promote which i understand why wikipedia must be careful about. If you have suggestions about how the entry can be further edited or amended to satisfy your requirements on such issues, I would be happy to incorporate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcapeling (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the distinction. The current Save the Children article appears to cover the entire international organisation, including the UK. Why not include it here?--KorruskiTalk 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, you cannot !vote twice. I would suggest that you merge this content into the article about the 'loose alliance' under a new section headed something like 'Save the Children UK'. This seems like the best option.--KorruskiTalk 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely asserting notability without reference to policy or to the article is not a useful argument. See WP:JNN--KorruskiTalk 12:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dusti*poke* 07:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maori Composers[edit]

Maori Composers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, unreferenced, unclear. Contested PROD. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to keep/withdraw this nom now, as I see it has been fixed up quite a bit and actually makes sense. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missoula Phoenix[edit]

Missoula Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-professionall football team of questionable notability. Fails WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 11 January 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) 01:10, 18 January 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) 03:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

En Derin[edit]

En Derin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable musician (fails WP:GNG). Lacks any reliable sourcing. Sources used are almost all self-sources (I removed reverbnation.com ones). Claims to fame appear to include participating in a radio call-in show with a psychic... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • ReverbNation.com chart listing. (Issue: if these charts are useable for wikipedia, or not)
  • Cyprus TV and Radio appearances (Issue: only primary sourced[26]. Still looking for independent sourcing...)

Same issue with airplay received in USA, UK, and other countries - only found primary sources[27] so far... Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     10:15, 12 January 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) 01:12, 18 January 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) 03:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pogo (electronic musician)[edit]

Pogo (electronic musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The artist does not meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia, and the majority of the sources used are not authoritative sources. Crashmart (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)— Crashmart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 18 January 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) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Washington Times and The Atlantic are certainly reliable sources and those two articles are certainly significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid two sources with minimal coverage of the artist are not enough to constitute significant coverage. As much as I believe that every artist should have their chance on Wikipedia, blatant advertising of artists that lack the required notability is not allowed on Wikipedia unfortunately. --Karkk (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange but not really relevant. I have made many edits without an account but decided to get an account recently, and coincidentally noticed this deletion nomination page for an article that lacks the necessary notability for Wikipedia.

keep neds cites integrated but it is notableThisbites (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could the deletion notice be removed now please since it was decided to keep. -- RND  T  C  21:51, 22 August 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 keep. Although he is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, he does pass WP:GNG, which is enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Bengur[edit]

Oz Bengur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article asserts no notability outside of the fact that he has unsuccessfully run for office, therefore he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Note also that this BLP is sourced only to the candidate's website and a business listing. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:51, 11 January 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, 18 January 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) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Only one source indepent of subject that is really about the subject of the article (and it's a VERY local source). Interviewing him about someone else does not establish notability. Lack of actual public office preclude passing WP:POLITICIAN. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dawn Gaming[edit]

Blue Dawn Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's an online gaming organization. Article details history and rivalries with other groups that would only be of interest to hard-core clan members. All this information is unsourced as well. Only assertion of notability is that the organization was featured in a CNN International mini-documentary on the gaming community. While that's cool and all, I don't believe that this confers notability in and of itself, especially without any additional third-party sources. Zachlipton (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can trim the history down to key points and get some more references. I only moved it off my page so that it could be developed more by others and not just myself. The main claim to notability is the cnn documentary which the clan was a part of in addition to work with AQA who is well known regionally in Oregon (I'm not sure what the scope of notability must be for Wikipedia). I am new to creating my own article (I have edited numerous times before) so I would appreciate any advice on cleaning up this article. Achilles2144 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 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) 03:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, new to this, assumed that one could after relist. Achilles2144 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.151.5 (talk) [reply]

keep needs work but notableThisbites (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Chef[edit]

Smart Chef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only 'references' in the article are primary sources, if Appshopper pages can even be deemed that; the external links add nothing else, and should all be removed per WP:EL anyway. This is not a notable application. Editor does seem to have a preference for Appshopper; see Montessori on the iPad. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 18 January 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) 03:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GSLPA[edit]

GSLPA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt that an exam that is only administered by one school is notable enough for inclusion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:53, 18 January 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) 03:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki Berenguer[edit]

Iñaki Berenguer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On the face of it this looks like a reasonable referenced article, but looking deeper there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the sources are not independent, and those that are, aren't about him, but his company. And sorry if this might sound like bad faith, but I find it rather surprising that the user who started this article managed to do so with their very first edit, and with perfectly formatted references. Quantpole (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 18 January 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) 03:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyssero[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cyssero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This came up as csd candidate and grounds the article was previously deleted, however a look at the logs suggested the page deleted then and the page as it is now are different enough that a second afd would be better suited for the page. At present the article is short, cites information to what appear to be non-english sites, and based on past instances of deletion may include self published references from the rapper in the article. I have no opinion on the article's deletion, I list it here only because the csd category is backlogged and this seemed an iffy csd claim to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:29, 18 January 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) 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Dowse[edit]

Tristan Dowse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as per WP:BLP1E. gnews reveals a spike of coverage in Ireland and not really a longstanding incident. [30]. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very widespread coverage in both TV and newspapers in Ireland, including a TV documentary. Case helped form public opinion here. Certainly not a BLP violation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:00, 21 January 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) 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Maria[edit]

Tyrone Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD, article about a footballer from Curacao who has never appeared to a fully professional league, and not even to a senior international football team as well; he fails WP:NSPORT, and most importantly WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 13:53, 18 January 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) 03:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olavo de Carvalho[edit]

Olavo de Carvalho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. The entire article, with all its claims and footnotes, seems to offer but a single WP:RS, namely the interview [31]. An article based on this source would not be viable; an article based on the other sources is not properly sourced. Wareh (talk) 19:26, 18 January 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) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a major political writer. Just a funny guy, at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.110.100 (talk • contribs)
Are you sure you consider pt:Olavo de Carvalho to be "sourced"? It seems to me that the English article has one secondary source (an interview), but that the Portuguese article has zero secondary sources, basically only links to the subject's online postings. Wareh (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting, by the way, to note the changes in focus between the various wikis bios of him: in the Portuguese WP, he is presented as a regular, scholarly intellectual, by way of abundant quotes from his allegedly philosophical works; in the German WP, he is presented as a kind of saintly figure, who spent his childhood sick in bed, where he began his self-enlightnment. Alas, as seem on the German Discussion page, it was noticed that he is credited with speaking Classical Greek fluentlyCerme (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a matter of whether the subject is good at his job, or about whether he is ridiculed. A Wikipedia article about a subject is not an endorsement of that subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is an attempt of self-praising, yeas, it is an endorsement. If you, on the other hand, allow the public to know he is ridiculed in the circles he is known, then it is balanced. Cedric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.109.56 (talk • contribs)
My point is that the existence of an article is not an endorsement of the subject's views. If there are reliable sources saying that he is not a good journalist or that he is ridiculed then such content can be added to the article by the normal editing process. They are not in themselves reasons for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Me Jesus[edit]

Fuck Me Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUMS - no sources, no establisment of notability, demos generally fail notability MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:37, 18 January 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) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep mets gnThisbites (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Crossen[edit]

Shawn Crossen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG as mentions of him in second and third party sources are trivial at best and usually not independent of the subject. Also not notable as an author or filmmaker per WP:CREATIVE. Nikki♥311 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it doesn't matter what he did, only what people (other than he i.e. his own book and movie don't count) said about it 25 years later. If no one's written anything about it, it's not notable for Wikipedia purposes. EEng (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Followup As discussed in a related AfD,[39] you've stretched the assumption of good faith past the breaking point with your coy statement that you're "located in the Midwest," which is disingenuous to the point of being a lie: your IP locates you in a small town (pop. 2000) which happens to be Crossen's residence. Unlike the mainspace articles, which will be invisible after deletion, these AfD discussions are available permanently -- perpetual monuments to your sad efforts to keep milking the achievement of your teenage glory years. EEng (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumetal[edit]

Instrumetal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. Word was "coined" today according to previous revision of article. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Previous revisions claiming coined today are incorrect. Term has been used for years. Article being updated and referenced and properly informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadPhallinger (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 January 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) 03:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Afzal[edit]

Mo Afzal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in the article, nor any further information accessible in references or elsewhere, appear to provide adequate demonstrations of notability, as defined in WP:N - specifically neither in WP:ACADEMIC, nor elsewhere in WP:BIO. As far as I can tell the possible reasons for notability are: that Mo Afzal is a particularly inspiring science teacher to sixth form students - organising events such as Showcase Science; that he is Chief Executive of The Afghan Education Trust; and his winning of the Medicine in Society Impact award from the Wellcome Trust. My reasons for suspecting that none of these may be of due notability are that neither Showcase Science nor the Afghan Education Trust appear to be particularly notable, and it is difficult to make a judgement on the Medicine in Society Impact award as the reference attached to it is no longer there. Perhaps someone can advise as to the significance of this award? Gandaliter (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth form students would dispute that he was "particularly inspiring", and Showcase Science has ceased to exist.G N Frykman (talk) 07:36, 19 January 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) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Overblood#Characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pipo the robot[edit]

Pipo the robot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Particularly not notable. I'm not familiar with cataloguing what appears to be a secondary character, and the claim of "Pipo gained great fame"? The only ref is to gameinformer.com. WP:NOTNEWS & WP:BURDEN. Phearson (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon17freeman (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)gordon17freeman I added some more references. Is there something else you think I should do?[reply]

See the talk page. But I seriously doubt this will pass as is. Phearson (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the secondary character Alyx Vance from Half-life also has her own Wikipedia page. Gordon17freeman (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)gordon17freeman[reply]

Could you possibly give me about one more hour to expand on the article? Gordon17freeman (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afrijitsu Combative System[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Afrijitsu Combative System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a non-notable martial art. It makes no claims of notability and has no independent sources. I could find no reliable sources that show it is notable. The original AfD discussion result was to "userfy and delete". Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Smith[edit]

Kathryn Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Losing politician with a detailed drink driving conviction attached to it, what with the so called controversy section and the drink driving section being bigger than her quite limited political notability, I think there are WP:BLP issues coupled with undue weight and a general limited notability I think the wikipedia and the world and the subject are better of without this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources for the London Mayoral voting controversy as one of the Guardian links was missing. It even made one paper's review of the year, although being in 1999 there's obviously not quite as much material online as with more recent stories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Brat Pack[edit]

New Brat Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a distinct lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huron County Library[edit]

Huron County Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Doesn't pass the general notability guideline for such articles written about libraries, nor does it go beyond any other run-of-the-mill libraries scattered around, and also called "Huron County Library". There is some information about the librarian "Miss A. Rose Aitken", but that would warrant an article about her, not the library itself. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that would be a headache--Guerillero | My Talk 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem, unless we are suddenly running out of server space. Edison (talk) 03:22, 25 January 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge as I said before.. Could merge into Huron County, Ontario...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
Thanks for those but I don't personally see how the snippets demonstrate notability. I also personally don't think we should have articles on every school district, unless they can themselves also demonstrate notability. Just because wikipedia policy on the inclusion of articles on schools is messed up is no reason to keep a directory listing on very un-noteworthy local libraries.Polyamorph (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT topics and Confucianism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
LGBT topics and Confucianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was nominated for deletion in October 2008 and "kept" at that time. Since then, no additional text has been added, no additional source has been added. While no longer original research, the assertions are still largely unverified due to its use of a single source (and that single source's own speculative nature). The topic can be more than adequately dealt with in Homosexuality and religion. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little like circumventing the process. Are you that sure the information is reliable enough to be in any article? Wickedjacob (talk) 07:56, 19 January 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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