< 18 September	20 September >

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of paleoconservative organizations[edit]

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

Category seems superfluous; we already have [[Category: Paleoconservatism]]. Difluoroethene (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists are perfectly acceptable encyclopedia content. I do question how authentic the list is, but I honestly didn't put much research into it and references for a list that is made up of Wikipedia entry is rather redundant. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists and categories are complimentary, not exclusive. Lists provide a wealth of information. Categories are extremely basic in what they provide.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Discriminate. Notable. Verifiable. Can have both a category and a list. Needs some work. Not reason for deletion. Dzlife (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. All of those are good reasons to keep, and the nomination has not refuted the presumption of notability of a sourced list. It could use some better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Defi[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only reference I could find that wasn't nude pics was here: [1]. Her great rack isn't enough to make her notable; there's a complete absence of awards, works, or anything that could attribute notability in the pornography and/or modeling industry. In fact, it looks like she's been retired for a year. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not fulfill the pertinent guidelines at WP:PORNBIO. Shearonink (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:GNG is not met. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans Protestant Church, Bloemfontein[edit]

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

Non-notable church; 900 members is fairly small, and there are a lot of churches (including my own) that have far more members than 900 and yet still don't satisfy GNG. Was created by a user who has a history of creating articles about non-notable topics. Difluoroethene (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per WP:Speedy keep reason #1, the nomination "fails to advance an argument for deletion". Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, isn't "Non-notable church", even more so than others that "don't satisfy GNG", an argument for deletion? Maybe it has no merits in this specific case (I haven't tried to evaluate it), but it certainly looks like an argument. --Lambiam 07:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, IYO, the following !vote stands? Keep Notable church, 900 members is defined as a "large church", almost half way to being a mega church, and there are smaller churches that satisfy GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I gave that recommendation when I could find no nontrivial coverage in independent reliable sources, as required by GNG. I still can't find it. It is quite possible that several smaller churches do satisfy GNG, as notability in the Wikipedia sense is not a requirement for, and neither a consequence of, size. --Lambiam 10:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Also, in stating "almost half way to being a mega church", I think you are confusing attendance with membership. --Lambiam 10:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable. No coverage in reliable sources; just one of many local churches of the Afrikaanse Protestantse Kerk. --Lambiam 07:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to pass the GNG. Having 900 members is certainly not a guarantee of automatic notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - the Qatar Stars League is a fully pro league but no evidence that he has played a game there. Separately, the consensus is that he fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syaffarizal Mursalin Agri[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, youth player who just started training with first team .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never appeared in senior team, never called up or played for his national team. Has only been called-up to national under-23 team but he even failed to accept the call-up and show up for the training camp. Definitely fails WP:NFOOTY. — MT (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural nomination after an attempt to nominate by an IP editor. consensus - all comments keep, no objections (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

François Asselineau[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An IP tried to renominate this but didn't finish the process. Notability is apparently still in question. Ten Pound Hammer and company • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if an unknown IP tries to delete this article, we have to go through this process again? I thought majority of Wikipedians reached an agreement ... 6 months ago. Why a single IP can re-question that consensus? Anyway, in addition to the 19 sources already used in the article, Mr Asselineau was aired on many radio and TV programs:

BFM TV in "Les Experts de l'economie" (economics experts), 16 september 2011
Africa n° 1 in "Le Grand Debat" (The great debate), 7 september 2011
Beur-FM in "Forum Debat", 6 september 2011
Africa n° 1 in " Le Grand Debat", 20 June 2011
Radio Tropiques FM in "Midi Dix", 16 June 2011
RCF, 10 June 2011
Radio Notre Dame in "Le Grand temoin" (The great witness), 11 May 2011
Yvelines Radio in "Tous en politique" (All in politics), 10 April 2011
Generations 88.2 in "Ca fait debat" (it creates debate), 13 March 2011
Choq FM in "L'autre monde" (The other world), 14 February 2011
Divergence FM in "Provoscopie", 17 January 2011

Keep Because of plenty of source, I do not think there is a need to go again for a deletion review.

--Lawren00 (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not this again. We already did an AfD that was then taken to DRV, which decided that it should be relisted at AfD again, which ended in a Keep decision. We really shouldn't have to go through this all over again. In addition to the sources listed above, just look at the article talk page, where all of the other sources are listed. Yes, I know, it got deleted on French Wikipedia. Their standards for politicians are higher than ours and Asselineau also appears to be a negatively politically charged figure in France, which potentially biased their decision. I'm not sure and i'm not making any accusations, but it is quite clear that he meets the requirements of a politician here, which we decided on last time. Silver seren^C 04:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Numerous sources, many reliable, on the article's talk page here satisfy general notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep The last one was six months ago. There are ample sources found, including those listed on the talk page as Northamerica1000 pointed out. Dream Focus 01:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW; non-admin closure. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Reunion[edit]

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

Production has not yet begun, too early to have a page magnius (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Really? Did you bother to read the page? It completed filming in this past summer. Per WP:NFF we make film articles when principal photography has begun filming, that threshold has been met. The article is sourced from top to bottom. It's a major feature film. Obviously this is a keeper. —Mike Allen 23:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — —Mike Allen 23:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a film that has completed filming with a very, very high likelihood of being released. Magnius, the article says that filming took place, and the film has received significant coverage from reliable sources to warrant its own article. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the obvious error in nominator's statement. Sorry Magnus, but production HAS completed, and the article itself both states and sources this. Reading the article or a little reserch would heve revealed this to you. Specifically, please go and read American Reunion#Filming. Let's close thiis and move on. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and sanction for frivolous use of this function for nominator. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Ridiculous claims don't hold water. Filming has finished and is in post-production. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:50 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep with a free dinner of a certain type of fish to Magnius for not actually reading the article. Definitely coming out if filming is all done and it's scheduled. Nate • (chatter) 05:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Article passes WP:NFF due to numerous reliable sources and significant coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Downs[edit]

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

Prod removed by user said to be a marketing manager for the publisher. Prod concern was "No evidence that this author is notable in third party reliable sources. Book may be marginally notable, but author is not," and I do not feel that this has been addressed. This author does not meet WP:BIO. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:AUTHOR part of WP:BIO is relevant here. We need claims from more than a marketing manager with promotional intent. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam, and potential copyvio. See this amazon profile which is author submitted and reads identically to this article. Even if cleared with appropriate license, it's still spam. -- Whpq (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Camerafiend (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Deans[edit]

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

Non-notable young player; has never appeared in a fully-professional league, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Player however is highly likely to make his first team debut in the near future as in six games he has been on the bench six times this season. Obviously article can be recreated when this happens. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has only been on the bench as we only have one senior 'keeper. If Colin Stewart gets injured we'd bring in a replacement on loan on a temporary basis.Salty1984 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) In addition to this, we have just signed a 'keeper from Glens to sit on the bench, as Deans has signed up at college (or something like that)Salty1984 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ejikeme Nwosu[edit]

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

article fails to establish notability. article fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:GNG and WP:RS Amsaim (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: written by one author, may be about himself, definitely fails four mentioned rules. Bar Code Symmetry (talk to me) (What i've done) 19:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1. One highly suspect paper with zero cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
delete— per Xxanthippe. "highly suspect" is polite understatement: I was strongly convinced that having a sound knowledge of its electronic arrangement could elucidate any chemical property of a compound. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was looking around and there was a page called Ejikeme nwosu (without the capitalized n) that was speedy deleted on August 26, 2011 written by the same author. Bar Code Symmetry (talk to me) (What i've done) 21:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cayman Islands#Notable Caymanians. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caymanians[edit]

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

Delete. Duplicate. There are so few notables from the Caymans, that they are kept in the main article Cayman Islands which editors steadfastly defend. So this is merely a redundant duplicate, or maybe even short a few names. Student7 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. There's no reason for the article to exist. Have also started a support/delete discussion section in the discussion area of the article's talk page. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the article Cayman Islands as a section Bar Code Symmetry (talk to me) (What i've done) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section already exists in the article. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I know, but not all names are in that section. I was fearing that names would be lost in the process.~~ Bar Code Symmetry (talk to me) (What i've done) 21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the names in the List article are in the Cayman Islands article because, even though the names in the List article have articles on their own, some of those article subjects probably aren't notable enough to have their own articles. When added to the Cayman article, they have been edited out. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Delete from me now, striking my older thoughts Bar Code Symmetry (talk to me) (What i've done) 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cayman Islands#Notable Caymanians -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cayman Islands#Notable Caymanians (agree with Whpq). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Ursini[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:GNG with zero Google News hits and zero Google News Archive hits. Only reference is to some sort of Altavista clone (self-published). Only reason I didn't speedy for A7 is because the author/subject claims that they have an exhibition in the Louvre. I smell a hoax but I don't have any information that proves it to be other than a gut feeling. OlYeller^Talktome 13:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see sources for a biography on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedy delete. No evidence of notability anywhere. I agree that this appears to be a hoax, for various reasons. For example, I have no doubt that if he had had an exhibition at the Louvre then there would be reliable sources saying so, and the Louvre's own site would have information about that exhibition. Instead, the Louvre site's search facility responds to a search for "Danilo Ursini" with "Sorry, no documents matching your query were found", and the mentions that I can find for the claim of a Louvre exhibition are on Wikipedia, Ursini's own site, MySpace, etc. Likely hoax, and certainly no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

completing nomination: listed at AfD's log - Nabla (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nabla. I was notified today about the mistake and was just coming around to fix it. I use Twinkle so I'm not sure what happened. It looks like it completed the rest of the notifications but somehow missed listing it in the AfD log. Anyway, thanks for taking care of it. I'll watch more carefully to make sure that Twinkle is working as intended. OlYeller^Talktome 18:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Nabla (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this subject is eligible for an article but this is not it. Phearson (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Even if the subject be eligible for an article, the present text would need to be rewritten completely, so it wouldn't help to keep it for later. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible hoax, fails WP:V. Pburka (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dundalk Cricket Club[edit]

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

Cricket club fails inclusion guidelines per WP:CLUB, WP:GNG and WP:CRIN. Slightly confused what league the club plays in as I'm having a hard time finding which one it does play in (don't know if the editor is on about a Division 11 or a Division 2 (11) - eitherway like its fellow Irish cousins it falls short. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mention as a "club of the month" is nice, but doesn't amount to any depth of coverage. Many major sports publications have such mentions (like Sports Illustrated section "Faces in the Crowd") but such one-off "awards" don't really amount to the depth-of-coverage expected by WP:GNG. --Jayron32 17:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the Division is eleven. There really is no comparison between a Wisden award and Sports Illustrated's Faces in the Crowd. The Leinster League is semi-pro and features many international players. More in depth covergae can be found in feature articles on the Cricket Ireland Website http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES4/articles/000024/002400.shtml which is the governing body of Irish Cricket and Cover Point the Irish cricket magazine http://www.cover-point.com/post/Dundalk-Cricket-Club-Leinster-Division-11-Champions.aspx

The achievement of winning the Division in their debut year and being the only unbeaten club in the whole of the 14 Divisions is a not incosiderable one. EddieLu (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are kinda working against yourself: Being the best in the 11th division of anything in Leinster isn't much of an accomplishment. Leinster is a beautiful, awesome place, but being the 81st best cricket club in a region with a population of about 2.5 million people isn't really a whole lot to hang a Wikipedia article on. The results of league championships, no matter how small or miniscule, is frequently picked up by by some media somewhere, and I don't see where this counts for much. Yeah, they went undefeated in a league against the 82-88th best cricket teams in Leinster. That's not an accomplishment that usually merits a Wikipedia article, if that is the best that can be said. If this was a top-flight club in any sense, we'd be getting somewhere. But this isn't. --Jayron32 18:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok whatever, I'm clearly fighting a losing battle, the governing body of Cricket in Ireland and the Irish Cricket Media think the club has achieved something, but it counts for nought in Wikipedia. EddieLu (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage so fails WP:GNG and Wp:CLUB. Mt king ^(edits) 04:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you like, I don't really care. The club exists it has done something quite significant in Irish cricketing terms despite what the "editors" of Wikipedia may or may not think. BTW Jayron32 I found your remarks rather patronising "Being the best in the 11th division of anything in Leinster isn't much of an accomplishment." I'll let the guys know they've been wasting their time effort and hardwork over the last two years then. EddieLu (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while its achievements are good, it still doesn't merit notability. Firstly it plays in Division 11, as one user says this is simply too low a league to imply notability. For English clubs we only have articles for ECB Premier Leagues teams. Take my own cricket club, we've boasted P. G. Wodehouse, Ewald Steenkamp, George Wilder and William Whitcher - those are notable people/cricketers, but it doesn't make the club notable. Some of the Irish clubs in Division One of their respective ICU struggle to get articles due to there being limited coverage. But keep it up, as part Irish (and Italian) it's good to see Irish cricket spreading, who knows Test cricket might just be around the corner! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the inconsistency that I find difficult, our near neighbours Knockharley Cricket Club have an entry they also play in Division 11, other than being older they are not particularly more notable than us and yet there is no intention to delete that article. EddieLu (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Wikipedia is a big place, and merely finding another article that should be deleted doesn't mean that references about the Dundalk Cricket Club will magically appear. --Jayron32 11:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 you really are a very annoying individual, I'm 47 not 7 years old, I was simply making a comparison with a similar club. I'm not bothered as to whether the article is deleted or not, I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency. EddieLu (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article you mentioned is also up for deletion now, I like to keep it fair - if one article which fails notability guidelines is up for deletion, then similar articles are put up for deletion as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's Episcopal Church (West Orange, New Jersey)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Mark's Episcopal Church (West Orange, New Jersey)

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

Does not qualify as a notable Wikipedia article. Further, other then being on the National Registry a search for articles and references about this church on Google, Yahoo, Webcrawler and other prominent search engines does not yield many if any information at all about this church. In fact the local Episcopal church in New Jersey does not even show it as an active congregation. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable structure, since it is on the National Register. Notability is not temporary, so if the congregation went out of business they and their building would still be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. See coverage: "New Jersey churchscape: encountering eighteenth and nineteenth century ". The building is called an "outstanding example of Gothic Revival architecture" by Preservation New Jersey. The building now houses a Methodist Hispanic congregation and from 2004-2009 a "Lamb of God Fellowship," leased the building from the Episcopal diocese. The St/ Mark's congregation went on to other nearby Episcopal congregations, per [2]. The diocese still maintains the cemetary adjacent to the church grounds. Edison (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. NRHP listed buildings and places are notable. The listing means that the documentation exists to expand this article from a stub. It's a matter of retrieving it. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion on its country's national register of historic buildings is sufficient indication of notability, and User:Edison has cited specific sources on its architecture. There will also be the application for it to be included on the register, although these are not always on-line. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found one of the sources mentioned by Edison on my smartphone about 7 hours ago, but couldn't cite it properly, so was delighted when I got to a computer and saw what Edison has discovered in the meantime. Great work, Edison. This article is about an architecturally notable structure, and the history of the original congregation and subsequent congregations using the building is interesting and worthy of mention. However, the notability of the building itself seals the deal for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of quotes and references to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic buildings are notable in their own right. Not appearing on the internet is not a reason for deletion (not another editor who thinks internet searches are the be all and end all of notability <sigh>!). Not having an "active congregation" is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per reliable sources added to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. The consensus is that being listed on the National Register of historic places is at least one factor for the notability of a church building. (Saying that "other then being on the National Registry" is like saying, "other than an Oscar, this actor is not notable....") Another factor is that it was designed by the prominent church architect of the mid-Nineteenth century. It's been vastly improved since nomination. Print sources and government websites are acceptable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. Past outcomes have kept houses of worship that are shown to be notable generally; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eisenman Synagogue, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agudas Achim Congregation (Alexandria, Virginia), for example. I have my own set of guidelines I've developed. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Actually it was Withdrawn at a time when consensus was to Keep.(non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Gershkovitch[edit]

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

This text is copied from an article I am currently working on in my Sandbox. Please delete this unsourced, copied text, which could also be considered content forking at this time. Another Believer _(Talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note for background: I am currently working on the article for the Portland Youth Philharmonic in my sandbox. The text appearing in this article was taken from that sandbox. I will be moving content to the main article in the near future, but in the meantime having a separate article for Gershkovitch is unnecessary. My goal is to get the PYP article to GA or FA status. If, during the review process, a separate article is needed for any of the conductors of the orchestra, one can be created then. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows notability as he has received significant coverage in many reliable sources. Though it is strange for another editor to bring material out of your sandbox to main space, the material is encyclopedic and the topic is notable. You don't own the content, Another Believer. It is for anyone to edit and develop as they see fit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Perhaps I jumped to XfD too quickly when I should have started a merge or content fork conversation. My argument here is not ownership. I want this content to be displayed on Wikipedia, but I figured it belonged on the Portland Youth Philharmonic article, especially since the current form is so short. Perhaps the current Gershkovitch article should be merged or I should go ahead and transfer my content to the PYP and/or Gershkovitch articles? --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My initial concern here was content forking. Because I think the Philharmonic article will become rather long once expanded, I will go ahead and insert my Gershkovitch information over the copied, unsourced version. Please keep the article and close this discussion. Thank you, and sorry. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity Code Coverage[edit]

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

I PROD'd this article for being unsourced. In response, the author of the article / developer of this software added a link to his website, and to a book description page on Barnes and Noble and removed the prod template. The page on Barnes and Noble says 'Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online.' - so this cannot be a reliable source. I've looked, and I can't find any independent reliable sources. I believe this article fails the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was going to suggest redirecting to Code Coverage#Tools for Java a la Cobertura which is a very popular open source code coverage tool, but this appears to be an abandoned unfinished project. There isn't even a project website, the link in the article is to Jenkins/Hudson's wiki. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to the abandoned unfinished project, which one, Serenity or Cobertura? Niether are abandoned, and Serenity is still very much alive, and getting more and more popular, 300 downloads a month now. I would imagine that it is being used in at least 100 companies. There has been no development on Serenity as there are no requirements, quite simple it is complete, and I dare say practically bug free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.couck (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You mean the same Cobertura that's available on SourceForge, has an Eclipse plugin, and active developer logs as the developers try to find time to release version 2.0? Yeah, it's still an active project. Your project on the other hand doesn't have any reliable third party evidence of its use or even existence. Serenity doesn't have a project website, changelog, anything at all. Even in the Wikipedia article you just have a link to Jenkins' wiki as the project's website. This is probably because your actual website according to the version 0.1 Maven POM, which I found here points to some login prompt saying that it'll be opening soon: http://ikokoon.myshopify.com/password. Your links to books are complete and utter hoaxes, they either are unreliable or don't exist. Serenity in Action is a fake (with a dead link) which is obviously trying to pass itself off as a volume in the very popular In Action series from Manning, and "Serenity Book" is a poorly named link to a book called Serenity Code Coverage that is exclusively Wikipedia content from some academic research publisher according to their research. Now that I've dug a little deeper, it looks like you're constructing a fraud here. But what I do know is that Serenity is completely non-notable by Wikipedia standards. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asmir Suljić[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The only contributor of substantive material has concurred in deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ikube Enterprise Search[edit]

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

I PROD'd this article for being unsourced. In response, the author of the article / developer of this software added some links to his website and removed the prod template. All sources currently in the article are the author's own website. I've looked, and I can't find any independent sources. I believe this article fails the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite right, there are no independant sources(yet), feel free to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.couck (talk • contribs) 11:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was OTRS declined, speedy deleted G12 by Lectonar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri lanka Armed forces Conduct during war[edit]

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

Contested prod. Regardless of the status of the pending OTRS ticket, this article serves as a UN-issued opinion piece against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and, once the biased content is removed, does not expand upon Sri Lanka Armed Forces and Sri Lanka Army. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No content it should be biased, NPOV was maintained throughout its creation. If you have concern regarding the content, please raise those in talk page of the article before bringing them here.Distributor108 (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be using this material as a source to expand the aforementioned articles, not reprinting it verbatim. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That will be done at a later stage, however this article on its own is a good new addition to WP. Distributor108 (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Christian and Jericho 09:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verbatim copy of a government report, and NPOV as such.--Dmol (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a text dump, if it is a reliable source it can be uploaded to wikisource and/or used as a reference in other articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork from Sri Lanka Armed Forces (see article creator's comments in this thread). An article which is basically the Sri Lankan army's take on why what the Sri Lankan army did was right, without any alternative viewpoints or sources offered - it's the very definition on POV. Not to mention being written in a completely unsuitable format, and way too long to boot. Yunshui (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection Please indicate clearly which part of the article is in violation of NPOV. Distributor108 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was I not clear enough? It's the part where you use one, primary, biased source as the text of the entire article. Yunshui (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection This article is still under construction, references and citations will be added for each statement. Distributor108 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Distributor108 has recently been blocked from editing, and as such, will not be able to respond to further rationale for deletion. Yunshui (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this has actually been released into the public domain this belongs on Wikisource. It's clearly not an encyclopedia article. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete belongs on WikiSource. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the OTRS tag and decline to certify the content. No statement from the site or content creator has been received in ticket 2011091910012951, only the word of an anonymous emailer who then told me to make costly international calls to receive undocumented statements on copyright that cannot be referenced in court should a copyright issue arise. And they were rude to top it off, asking whether I sought a UN resolution on the matter. OTRS certification declined. – Adrignola talk 13:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the OTRS refused, this falls - for the third time now - under WP:G12. Tagged for speedy accordingly. Yunshui (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Richmond (inventor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Whilst it is a CSD:A7 candidate in it's current form, the pre-stubbed version is an autobiographical CV, with no significant coverage able to be found in independent reliable sources. Previous AFD was withdrawn with no participation from anyone other than the nominator. The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bio should be expanded to discuss Richmond's early influence on sound design for theatre, and his inventions for theatre show control. In the 1980s, he wrote a monthly column in Theatre design & technology published by the United States Institute for Theatre Technology (USITT). He invented the MIDI Show Control (MSC) protocol in 1990 and led the MSC Working Group (within the USITT) which developed it. His invention the AudioBox won a Thea Award in 2000. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that award notable? It appears it may have been self-nominated. I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if significant coverage is added from independent reliable sources.The-Pope (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Thea Award is very notable in its market segment, given by the Themed Entertainment Association. In your link, the note about Charlie Richmond submitting something appears to me to refer to the information following the notice—he submitted the list of people who helped the project become successful. Above the notice is the fact that Richmond won the award. I cannot infer from this that he nominated himself. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Binksternet makes a convincing case. Google books for the guy's name and "inventor" shows some results. Keyboard: Volume 17, Issues 7-12 mentions something he did, but only a snippet is viewable for free. I restored the content of the article that was removed by someone previously without a legitimate reason. If you believe an article should be deleted it, you send it to the AFD, you don't just erase 99% of it, and leave but a single sentence remaining. Dream Focus 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per sources I've added to the article, and, as a result, GNG. As a reminder, claims that someone is notable "because they did X" are always just a little stronger if you actually supply a source that says they did X. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, based on the professional sound article, which does go into some depth about the subject (rather than the products, inventions, or companies associated with the subject). I'd like to find 1-2 more like that, seems like there should be something out there. I do think the article will need a severe trim, and it is largely unsourced, but AFD is not cleanup. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is covered in several reliable sources. See article for some of them. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Quinn (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage past WP:NTEMP and WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo^[online] 13:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 13:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. The two current sources just mention him in a list of players in those games. GB fan 13:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aye get him gone, has not done anything other than play in semi-professional leagues and has received no exceptional coverage. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Tastily kept. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huangqiao Sesame Cake[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a manual. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion it is possible to compile a decent article about this cake, see for example the book Food and Chinese culture:essays on popular cuisine (Long River Press, 2005, p. 171, available at G-Books). (The entry starts with: "The fame of the Huangqiao Sesame Cake probably has much to do with its geographic location and its cultural environment...") The article needs cleanup, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable source in article, reliable source stated above by user Vejvančický, and a high likelihood of additional available reliable sources to further establish notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see below) A notable (or at least reliably sourced) foodstuff. Article needs a complete rewrite of course... Yunshui (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources cover this, as others have pointed out. Its a perfectly acceptable food article. Dream Focus 04:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a perfectly valid food topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; considerable improvement with references since this version, which was current at the time of nomination for deletion. Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5, creation by serial sockpuppeting hoaxer SPI:Akshata Sen —SpacemanSpiff 12:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Bakshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. Google searches revealed nothing significant -- no high-quality articles about the subject. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Dubrov[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources to support the claims made on the page that assert notability (e.g., the "pioneer" of "Kabbalistic realism" should be mentioned in a news article or two). Can only find auction results, official pages and blogs. Nik thestoned 09:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 09:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 09:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Information is not verifiable by independent reliable sources. Young artist with interesting works, I hope to see him becoming notable in the future. Marokwitz (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless more substantial references can be found. I tried looking for sources in Hebrew (בוריס דוברוב) and the best thing i found was announcement of an exhibition, but it's not really a reliable source, but a press release. No prejudice against keeping if better sources would be presented. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. On GS I only find a link to his webpage; on Google Books I only find mentions of someone else named Boris Dubrov who was "a Jewish cultural activist and refusenik who arrived in Israel in July 1989"– older than this Boris. Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G12 by Rhaworth. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 12:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol abuse namibia[edit]

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

I see nothing wrong with the topic at all, what i am wondering is in its current state, should it be deleted? Bailo26 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article's worth keeping or not, it's a COPYVIO, and I've tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:G12. Yunshui (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh is it? i did check for copyvio, but i must have missed it. My apologies Bailo26 09:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely the article creator is the author of the original as well, but he needs to go through WP:DCM first. Then of course, we can address the myriad other problems with this essay... Yunshui (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if this becomes notable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Loop Theory[edit]

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

I was very tempted to speedy this as a hoax, but at the very least it's original research backed only by a reference to the author's personal website, and as such it fails to meet the standards for inclusion. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable: lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And this is one of the very rare cases where the material does indeed seem to be original research. Speedy would not have been appropriate. Thincat (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A grand total of five Yahoo hits. Blueboy 96 12:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a theory of everything created through reductionism of the building blocks of life to the energy level. If confirmed, it effectively solves every method of quantum theory including wave-particle duality, quantum superposition, quantum entanglement, quantum decoherence and more importantly allows us to measure and observe super-sub-atomic particles. The proposed method would also allow for manipulation of our environment at the subatomic level without breaking or even observing energy bonds. Sounds like a fringe theory to me, and judging from lack of Books, News, and Scholar bits, not a notable fringe theory. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did write this article on this theory to include it as a source of information. IT IS NOT MY THEORY. It is also... a "THEORY" so I'm not so sure why you expect their to be multiple sources as though it's fact. It could take decades for the community to understand the concept but by deleting it you are censoring knowledge. Feel free to edit the page to conform with Wikipedia layout but there are not yet many sources for reference for obvious reasons. Wikipedia is supposed to be a way to share this kind of information, not delete it because it's not already known worldwide. Use your brain people. --Oninementor (moved down here by — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have made some remarks at User talk:Oninementor. Thincat (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its not really sense Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn after article improvement - no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArcSoft ShowBiz[edit]

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

Non-notable software stub. Marked as single-source since 2007, the single source is link dead. Three incoming wikilinks, the software producer (which has the software in a list, with no content), a disambiguation page and a list page. PROD contested in 2009. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PC magazine has one of its editors review it and the bundle it comes with. [3] "On the video-editing front, ArcSoft's ShowBiz has evolved into a competent editor that's generally more usable than Dazzle's MovieStar program, providing more configuration controls, better preview features, and a much greater range of fun effects. Integration with MyDVD is simple: When you're ready to render your project, you select Create / My DVD Project and ShowBiz outputs a file that's automatically inserted into MyDVD." I'm going to add that to the article and then look through the hordes of other sources a simple Google news archive search shows. Dream Focus 05:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to a New York Times article stating it "it was one of the three most dominant bundled titles" and reviews from two reliable sources. Dream Focus 06:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nomination Based on recent edits and references, withdraw the nomination, it now looks notable to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bran Hypothesis (The Big Bang Theory)[edit]

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

TV episode article that fails to establish notability. The only reference is tv.com, and this only establishes the original air date. The article is essentially just a plot summary and therefore fails WP:PLOT. The article was redirected to the appropriate entry in the episode list article but the article creator restored the article, which is why it has ended up here. AussieLegend (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following recently created, related articles, for the same reason:

The Luminous Fish Effect (The Big Bang Theory) does not include references or even a plot. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article needs expansion, I do believe the episodes deserve an article. The series is nominated for the Emmies I believe. We just need people to add info. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The series is notable, the individual episodes are not. Any coverage of the emmys is in the main article, The Big Bang Theory. Notability is not inherited. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. What I do not understand is why all episodes of the simpsons, american dad, law and order, etc. are notable enough to have their own article though. There are some double standards involved here. Dont get me wrong, I really dont care that much if these articles are created, but I dont understand the rationale for deleting these and keeping all episodes from other series. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood they're not notable enough. It's probably just the case that nobody has nominated them for deletion, or that too many fans and not enough people following policy and guidelines have voted at the AfD. Unfortunately that happens all of the time and it's one of the reasons that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists came to be. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that does not support your argument per se. The second paragraph clearly states "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." Anyway: what I am saying is: if you delete these, your rationale should be that no episode of a TV series is ever notable enough to have an article. Clearly others disagree with you, since there are 1000s of articles on episodes (I even think some have been featured on the main page). If these articles are notable, the ones you are nominating are also, because it is a well-known tv series with high viewing rates and is even nominated for an emmy. What more is needed to make them notable? Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is, and should be, treated on a case by case basis. There's no reason why there can't be notable and non-notable episodes. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The pilot episodes of most programs are usually notable because they meet the general notability guidlines while others aren't because they don't meet the guidelines. The mere existence of an episode article doesn't mean that the article's creator disagrees with me. Often the articles are written with absolutely no regard to the episode's notability or lack thereof. The Luminous Fish Effect (The Big Bang Theory) is a case in point. Glee episode articles are usually started well before the article is aired, often as soon as its inclusion on an airing schedule is announced. TV episodes are like any other subject; some are notable and some are not, and articles about non-notable subjects are created all the time. Some go to AfD and some don't. These are three articles that have. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, but I hate the randomness of it all. Either we (the editors of wikipedia) decide episodes of well known shows are notable and add them, or we decide they are not and delete/merge all of them. Just because there are enough fans of a certain show active on wikipedia, all episodes get an article, while other shows are not eligible for seperate articles because nobody will defend them against AfD. I'm sorry, but that is not a good policy. I would think an episode watched by millions of people world-wide is more notable than lets say a US town with 4 inhabitants. Anyway, I'm not arguing about it anymore. These are not my articles and not the kind of articles I work on, but it just struck me as odd when I saw them nominated. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that disambiguation is not required in the article title and previous, now redirected, versions of these articles exist at The Big Bran Hypothesis, The Fuzzy Boots Corollary, and The Luminous Fish Effect. The versions of these articles before they were redirected, primarily for failing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (as these new versions do), are here, here and here respectively. -AussieLegend (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article because it is just a retelling of the story with no secondary references. I would like to see WP establish a policy that individual episodes of any TV series are not notable (except for very rare cases) but I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. BigJim707 (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge all to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1), as I did when this article was first created. That page can have its plot sections increased with more detail in the future. This episode is not independently notable of the entire series. Per Aussie Legend, the disambig is unnecessary. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1) as non-notable episodes of a notable series. While I too believe there are too many articles for individual episodes of other series, that is not the debate here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Episode wasn't nominated for an Emmy nor does it have any other notable characteristics. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Anti-Tank Ditch[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in major australian search engine trove. [4]. gbooks shows 2 small mentions from the same book [5]. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found this http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2008/09/stockton-sands.html 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's one bit of coverage, we need significant coverage for WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article will help for educational purposes in the future. I believe that, although this article is a stub, it is quite important. Being a stub, however, can prove one's editing skills. If an editor on Wikipedia knows information on this article and has references to support their information, have a go now! --Rhain1999 (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you have provided absolutely no evidence of significant coverage. See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Nor have you addressed how it meets any notability guideline. See WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Lake Macquarie Council website states that this has been heritage listed: [6] (see page 33) as well as several other parts of the fortifications built in the area during World War II. Defensive works such as this were highly unusual in Australia during World War II, and I'd be amazed if offline books didn't also discuss this. That said, this is pretty marginal from a WP:N perspective, and would be better covered as part of an article on the defences of the Newcastle region rather than a stand-alone. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As an additional note, Trove is a pretty poor source for this topic as newspapers would have been unable to report on its construction during World War II due to censorship. I also don't think that Trove includes any of the newspapers from the region yet (the main one being the Newcastle Herald) so any post-war coverage will also not be included. Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bluckert[edit]

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

This is mostly a vanity / puff-piece. He is a non-notable person co-founded a non-notable organisation (EMCC) which does not have an article on Wikipedia, and probably never would. The references given only really confirm that he exists, not that he is notable. Biker Biker (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Reliable sources establish topic notabilty: Google Books and Google news. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - would you care to explain which of the search results you are basing your opinion on? Without any actual analysis of the sources, a bunch of search results says nothing about notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage about the individual to meet general notability guidelines. He is part of the staff at the Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School, however it does not appear that he meet WP:ACADEMIC. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing independent notability. Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saikumar Appoorwa[edit]

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

Subject isn't notable - doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE Dkchana (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. References don't appear to support article. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable by Wikipedia criteria. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked for athletic records in India and been unable to find them even for top players. This is not a professional athlete, but a good amateur. The claims made in the article are unsourced, because of my own experience I feel that they are also unsourceable in official records, and it is not clear to me that the events in which this athlete competed are themselves notable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeforce Challengers: Gurgel vs. Evangelista[edit]

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of useless fighting results that don't meet WP:EVENT. some of these events for a mere few thousand attendees. third party coverage besides sherdog is needed. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All The majority of these articles contain numerous third-party references to provide verifiability. I see no issues with their notability given that even the most basic Google search turns up numerous results. General consensus has always been to keep event articles by major mixed martial arts promotions such as this. The number of attendees is not relevant to their notability since these events were broadcast either on Showtime or network television. The event Strikeforce: Fedor vs. Rogers, for example, which aired on CBS, drew over 5 million viewers at its peak. The noms characterization of these articles as "useless fighting results" is not consistent with the page views these articles receive, or the careful attention they have garnered from editors and members of the MMA WikiProject. This nomination appears to be the result of a misunderstanding of what constitutes independent third-party coverage (despite previous attempts at constructive discussion with the editor to find common ground) and a personal standard for notability that exceeds general consensus for these types of events (well documented mixed martial arts events held by top-tier promotions). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Strikeforce is a prominent mixed martial arts organization, easily the UFC's biggest rival until it was acquired by Zuffa. Articles for its events easily meet WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT, lasting effects being that the results of these fights determine champions and rankings of contenders. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Per argument posited by user Nintendude64 above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Appears to pass WP:GNG IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all If you find an article that doesn't have reliable sources in it already, then just search for the names of those participating plus Strikeforce. Example: "Strikeforce" "Gurgel" "Evangelista" shows some results to look through. [7] Always follow WP:BEFORE and don't just nominate something because you don't like it. Dream Focus 04:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I would also add that obscure does not mean not notable and lack of familiarity with the subject should foster doubt, not a rush towards deletion. This is good advice for any AfD nominator. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strikeforce Challengers: Gurgel vs. Evangelista and Strikeforce Challengers: Woodley vs. Bears which are current unsourced. Keep the rest. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unsourced doesn't mean it should be deleted. It means it needs to be sourced. Sourcing doesn't change the fact that all of these are notable. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strikeforce Challengers: Gurgel vs. Evangelista should be easily to find sources for. [8] Strikeforce Challengers: Woodley vs. Bears doesn't have an AFD notice on that article. Finding sources shouldn't be hard though since all these fights get coverage somewhere. [9] Dream Focus 17:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Weak, but enough to keep. Article needs further referencing though. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The World of Synnibarr[edit]

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

there seems to be not a single reliable source which discusses this game, hence not notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not meet the notability criteria as stated in WP:NBOOK. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contrary to nom, there are multiple reviews from a reliable source cited right on the page, and probably more out there. This is a curious case, because where the game is mentioned, it is mentioned as a poor example, but it does have some ideas (like "anti-GM rules") that seem to be expressing themselves in more recent games. If I believed in using the moniker "weak keep", I would. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment— i'm sorry, if there is a consensus that rpgnet is a reliable source, then my nomination was in error, and i will withdraw it. this is not an area in which i have expertise, and since all the mentions i could find were on what seemed to me to be blogs, i thought that there were not reliable sources. is it the consensus of the gaming community that rpgnet is sufficient to establish notability? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would honestly have to admit that it is debatable. It has recently been defended as notable, but much of its content is user-generated and/or webforum. It does have an editorial staff, staff reviewers (of which one of the listed reviews is by), and the review section has a more strict publication process than the webforum section. At the very least, it is certainly not self-published. In this time where print magazines on RPGs are harder to come by, and after the decline of ENWorld's review section, RPGnet is one of the more reliable remaining sources of new rpg reviews. - Sangrolu (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ok. perhaps i'll leave it up here, so we can see what the community thinks, then. does that sound reasonable to you? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; finding consensus is the method here. As mentioned, I consider Synnibar a bit of a borderline case, but would find treating of RPGnet itself an an unreliable source a decision that would have deleterious effects on establishing notability of somewhat more significant RPG products. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep the staff review at RPGnet is reliable IMO. This game system is also famous in a not-good way. But reliable sources seem light. I will link to a passing mention at Salon though it's not worth much [10]. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of RPGnet - searching the WP:RS archive brought me to this debate and this existing article. My interpretation of this is that RPGnet reviews are only acceptable sources if they're by a notable and recognised expert and even then should be backed up by other citations. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest a new discussion at the RS noticeboard might be called for. That is a fairly small number of folks (one basically) to use to make a binding call. It doesn't distinguish staff reviews from other (not sure if staff reviews existed at that point) which I at least think is pretty important. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the site still states reviews can be sent in by anyone (and I can't find evidence that the reviews quoted are anything other than fans with an opinion), this really falls under WP:SPS. With respect, I feel that if anyone considers the site to be a reliable source, the burden is upon them to demonstrate it.
I still feel WP:NBOOK ("The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.") is not met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MacLennan is or was a staff reviewer. I have no idea about the status of the other reviewer, so agree that this may be a borderline case (since it does amount to one staff review). Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that a given review will be published; it requires action by a staff member to publish the article. I'm not so sure that it's appropriate to conclude that all non-staff reviews at RPGnet are suspect. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, I honestly don't know anything about the site (other than reading about it on it's Wikipedia page) but in this context is the review at somethingawful reliable? Hobit (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two more book sources were added. Mathewignash (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The World of Synnibarr. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raven c.s. McCracken[edit]

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

fails WP:AUTHOR with flying colors. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:AUTHOR guidelines are not met, nor can I find evidence that WP:GNG are either. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unlike his also nominated game, the author really does not appear to meet the guidelines (in this case WP:AUTHOR). - Sangrolu (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to The World of Synnibarr (assuming it survives). Redirects are cheap and he is mentioned there. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see no problem with a redirect. But it much of the material in the existing article worth merging into the Synnibar article? - Sangrolu (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point really. I think given the nature of the coverage of the book (negative) it might be best just to redirect as merging could make this a BLP/COATRACK problem. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as nominator, i see no problem with a redirect either, i'd just like to say. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Eat Butterflies[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK - coverage appears to be one online review. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails notability - kindle and lulu release have no barrier to entry and no sources suggest any notability. Failedwizard (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd suggest a merge to the author's page, but that looks likely to be deleted too. Hobit (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to VCU Rams. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 VCU Rams football team[edit]

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

Fails basic notability standards. It's a club sport. There are hundreds of thousands of club sports teams across the United States and maybe 0.0005% of them are notable. The fact that this is VCU's first year fielding a football team of any kind also does not make it notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Club teams are not notable. Merits a paragraph at best in the VCU Rams article. Blueboy 96 12:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club Football teams do not meet basic notability standards, and there is no reason to see an exception here. It's possible that a club football team might be formed with the hopes of advancing to the NAIA or NCAA for competition, but if that is the case it should be mentioned on the school's athletics team page rather than having a stand-alone article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. The article has no sources. Furthermore, the article appears to be inaccurate in terms of listing the club's schedule. The club's own web site lists no upcoming games, and certainly they aren't going to be playing the varsity North Carolina Tar Heels next week as this article implies. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a club team, not an officially-sanctioned NCAA football program. No sourcing to establish notability. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Hero's 2007 in Korea, procedural keep the other three. Consensus that Hero's 2007 in Korea fails WP:GNG. The other three were not AFD templated, nor was the creator notified, so interested editors may not have been aware of the AFD. No problem with immediate relisting. TerriersFan (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hero's 2007 in Korea[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hero's 2007 in Korea

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

also nominating:

Hero's 10
Hero's Lithuania 2007
Hero's 9

another sprawling series of non notable fighting results that fail WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Routine sports coverage that lacks independent sources or indications of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree with the comments by LibStar and Astudent0. Papaursa (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom and WP:ROUTINE. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

András Gángó[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was conetested for procedural reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to hlsz.hu, Gángó has never played in the top Hungarian league so he fails NFOOTBALL and the sources included in the article appear to be routine coverage insufficient to pass the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hero's Lithuania 2005[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hero's Lithuania 2005

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

also nominating:

Hero's 2005 in Seoul
Hero's 3
Hero's 2
Hero's 1

another series of useless fighting results that fail WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Articles on MMA events that just give the results and fail to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of these are just routine sports coverage--no reason given why any of them are notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejustice against undeletion/recreation if more sources are found The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Manav[edit]

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

Judgîng by the article, he was a very good man - but morality alone does not satisfy our notability standards, which he appears to fail. The article's English is not the best, but we can at least assume that it was not written by Manav himself due to this edit summary, which refers to him in the third person. He appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Inter change able|talk to me 02:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing noteworthy here and I see nothing noteworthy in a web search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Eddy (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A somewhat înteresting feature is that right in the middle of the the fourth paragraph, the writer suddenly refers to him as Dr.'Manav' and remains that way for the rest of the article. Inter change able|talk to me 14:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Northamerica1000 has tagged the artîcle for rescue. I don't understand this and don't believe that it can or should be rescued. Inter change able|talk to me 18:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is certainly in terrible shape, but these two articles [11] [12] suggest Manav passes WP:GNG. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete fails WP:BIO. THe 2nd source above merely confirms he joined Facebook. There is no coverage in multiple sources. WP:AUTOBIO concerns as well. LibStar (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second source also calls him "well known". When an independent source from a culture I'm not very familiar with calls someone "well known" it's a red flag for me. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - he has some noteworthiness (at a local level) as has received notable award - Padma Shree for Social Service 2008, although he has not been added there - Padma_Shri_Awards_(2000–2009)#2008 and other recognitions, but the state of the article needs improvement and there is the issue of coverage in reliable externals. The lack of a single attempt to improve the biography in the twelve days since the rescue template was added is not filling me full of hope for the improvements this article needs to be kept.. Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as an argument to avoid, though it may prevail. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion here or in my search of getting over the WP:GNG - Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - though the subject seems potentially notable, sufficient time has been given for the production of the necessary reliable sources, and they have not been forthcoming. Consensus is that the notability standard has not been met. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Springthorpe[edit]

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

Unverifiable self-promotion BLP, violating WP:Autobiography, WP:Notability, WP:Conflict of interest (see editing history). -Kez (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing notable here; it reads like a resume.West Eddy (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not for WP:Prof but for musical activities. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - I do not know who created this entry in the first place (personally I woudn't know how to!), but I have, of late, been keeping it up to date. Everything here is verifyable. If you Google titles of books and names of choirs, for instance, all the fact are easily found on-line. I would ask as a courtesy that the lists of academic publications remain - these are here not as a point of vanity but rather to show researchers where to locate important articles on aspects of 18th century musicological research - surely that is what encyclpaedias are for? - the dissemniation of knowledge? Also, it would be normal for encyclopaedic entries on composers to list their works. In the case of Beethoven this would be by opus no.- with Mozart it is by Koechel no. I do not have opus numbers but this is a list of all the published works, which is growing all the time herev theybv atre listed by publication date. I can see perhaps why you might feel this article is a bit like a CV - what is absent, perhaps, is more biographical detail - and perhaps this should be added, but I have been extremely shy to do this myself and have not wished to unduly change the wording of original article - whoever wrote that. You have seen much more activity of late with the editing since it has been a rather productive year with some 20 new musical works being published and 6 new text books in the last 12 months. I would be extremely disppointed if you felt that the article shoud be deleted. I would hope that as a contributor to some of the most prestigious musicalogical publications in the world and as a composer whose works are perfomed all the way around the world that 'Nigel Spingthorpe' would merit an entry on this encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.56.193 (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing yourself to Mozart and Beethoven? Really? The article is not lacking biographical detail, because the neither biographical detail, nor the list of published works is notable. This is self-promotion, not the "dissemination of knowledge" and the lack of verifiable references confirms that this is a (non-notable) vanity project. Nobody voting to "Keep" has thus far adequately proved the article's notability, and nor has there been any attempt to address the clear conflict of interest in the article's construction. -Kez (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC – his publications and his role as Trinity College examiner. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does being an examiner establish his notability? It clearly states on WP:ACADEMIA that "School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. They are rather evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession" - and so this article does not pass the test. Just because he has had works published does not mean that he has had a "substantial impact" in the field. -Kez (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
In particular, I urge the anon editor to add the material he has available: additional publications would certainly help. So would reviews of his compositions, if available, and information about professional performances and recordings. I agree it's usual to list all the works of a composer; as for publications, we normally list only the peer-reviewed formal published ones, not unpublished presentations. And might I suggest articles on JG and JC Rollig? They'd be useful in any event. If the Boult prize is notable, an article on it listing the awardees would be good also.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another clear-cut case of vanity. When will these people realize that having a Wikipedia page about them is a liability when they're not notable enough to afford a P.R. firm to police Wikipedia? James470 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads as a resume, I have been unable to locate reliable source coverage to help pass either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Outskirts, Las Vegas[edit]

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

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. There are no reliable sources that can verify that this term is used to describe these neighbourhoods. The talk page indicates that it is an informal name used by the residents. That may be true, but it needs to be verified by reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete— wikipedia seems to be really the only place that this phrase is mentioned, let alone discussed. i figured it for real-estate marketing spam, but alas, is not even that.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable, and given the state of Vegas's real estate market at the moment, who knows how true it really is? Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The only substantial contributor agrees it's not currently notable, even if Power Girl works there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starlab Group[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this company and the article has no references. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — can speedy myself to close if desired as I created the page: Yes, it does appear that there really is no significant coverage in reliable global information sources. I've not dug into local news at the sites where the company's facilities exist. Suggest deleting without prejudice for re-creation based on emergence of reliable sources supporting content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nothing in gnews. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Average Joe (TV series). Courcelles 06:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Peoples[edit]

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

This article fails to meet notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence clearly states that: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." My point is that: how winners of seasons two (Gil Hyatt - redirected to Average Joe (TV series)), three (Samantha Trenk), and four (Nathan Griffin - redirected to Average Joe (TV series)) of the same show, Average Joe, shouldn't have articles but the winner of season one which is Jason Peoples should?? If "winning a national reality TV contest is an assertion of significance", then it should be for all, right? also it is not a "national reality TV contest" anyways, since a national reality TV contest is a contest with competitors from all over a country and not just a very few certain cities. Also it only has one reliable reference and other information are still unclear to be true. Wholly unreferenced biography of a wholly non-notable person. His short-time "Fame" has never gone beyond reality TV, therefore fails Wikipedia:Notability. JuventiniFan (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Average Joe (TV series), just like the other two series winners mentioned above, which could have been done without an AfD. Not enough coverage to come close to meeting WP:BIO, but it's a plausible enough search term and enough people are reading it to make a redirect sensible. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Alzarian. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Alzarian. -Kez (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Average Joe (TV series). Fails general notability guideline, only known in relation to TV series. Norespectasip (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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