< 29 April	1 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Martin (programmer)[edit]

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG for over 3 years now. Ducknish (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No useful sourcing offered in the article or that I can find in web searches. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found some mentions (e.g., [1], copyright notices), but no in-depth coverage. Tried Highbeam and the usual Google searches. A redirect isn't appropriate, but I would leave a line at the disambig page and have that point at Spelunker (video game) instead of here. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 50 Major League Baseball hit by pitch leaders[edit]

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

This page fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What does it mean to be among the top 50 in all-time HBP's? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worthwhile reference. I don't understand the anti-list mentality of the originator of this AfD. Alex (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have promoted six lists to FL status and I have active FLC nominations. To say that I am "anti-list" is a touch simplistic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Spanneraol (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To answer the nominator's question, it means that the players on the list are the 50 players who have sccumulated the greatest career totals in that particular statistical category. The list does not, as he asserts, violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in that it's neither "long" nor "sprawling", and in my opinion "contain(s) sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". -208.81.148.195 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list sprawls and provides no context on what it means to be on this list. That makes it indiscriminate. Explanatory text is lacking, and frankly, I don't think there is any significance to being on this list, which makes it unencyclopedic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you believe that the current explanatory text is lacking, the solution to that is to write better explanatory text, not to delete the list. Per WP:DELETE: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." I'm not sure why you would consider MLB's leaders in HBPs to be less "significant" than MLB's leaders in any other major statistical category. Or do you think that lists of the leaders in other traditional MLB counting statistics are also insignificant (and if so, which? all of them?)? Also, you're going to need to provide some kind of evidence that the page "sprawls", rather than merely asserting that it does (as you did here) if you want people to be persuaded by your reasoning. Where you see a sprawling page, I see one with well-defined inclusion criteria, whose members are listed in a reasonable and intuitive order and neatly formatted in a table. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do with this, but I can't agree that this is indiscriminate or that it should be deleted. This is a valid baseball statistical category, like home runs or doubles. It is less significant than those, but that doesn't make it not significant, nor indiscriminate. And some of these players, like Hunt and Baylor that I can recall, were particularly known for their ability to get on base by getting hit by pitches. So the question is more what to do with it - keep it as a standalone article or merge it to the hit by pitch article? should it be top 50, or top 10, 20 or 100? Rlendog (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list deals with a legitimate statistic of the game. I believe the list has sufficient notability. Stormbay (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge top 25 batters to hit by pitch. Rlendog is correct that some of these people were famous by their ability getting hit by a pitch, like Ron Hunt but I don't see the need of this list as it's not a defining figure for most of these players though I don't see a reason to delete also. Secret ^account 20:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Earlier keep arguments have failed to provide multiple sources that satisfy WP:LISTN to show that references consider this grouping notable. WP:ILIKEIT arguments are not persuasive. While hit by pitch is a an acceptable article, sources are needed to demonstrate that a list of players hit by a pitch is notable.—Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hit by pitch. The latter article's not particularly long. Now what do we do with the other side of the coin: List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aredale, Iowa. Leaving a redirect seems reasonable here Kevin (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Minnier[edit]

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

Small town mayor with no strong claim to notability under WP:POLITICIAN. According to the town's article, it had a population of just 74 in the most recent census, and Mr. Minnier won with a grand total of 24 votes (and that's not the margin of victory, either, but his actual vote total — there were just 32 ballots cast overall.) Although he does seem to have garnered a bit of human interest coverage on account of being a young man who defeated an incumbent in his 70s, it still falls far short of constituting actual sustained notability — after all, he's still the mayor of a town with fewer residents than most individual apartment buildings, and Wikipedia normally requires a town or city to have a population in the tens of thousands before we even begin to seriously consider whether its mayors might be notable enough for inclusion here. Looks like a delete to me, I'm afraid. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To Aredale, Iowa, where his election is already appropriately covered. Stand alone article not yet justified per WP:Politician, currently WP:BLP1E, but sufficient coverage to justify inclusion as a valid search term redirect. Dru of Id (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also willing to support that solution as well. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, or delete. Once appeared on Tonight Show as a joke guest. Puh-lease. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article changed a lot since was nominated for deletion Yasht101 01:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The Dark Side of the Sun (TV serial)[edit]

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

The article was marked as not meeting WP:GNG more than 3 years ago, and still does not meet- no real outside reliable sources. Ducknish (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - television serials, particularly ones shown on a national broadcaster (BBC 1) and with a fairly well-known cast and crew are always inherently notable. Bob talk 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OUTCOMES says TV series from major broadcasters are usually notable, although I wouldn't oppose a merge , on the grounds that there's not much info available about the show, it doesn't seem to have had any influence or cultural significance, and it was part of a larger work (a quartet of series). I've done a search of most newspapers and The Listener, and found a long review in the Times, a short review in the Guardian, and a couple of brief mentions. I've added this to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding these sources, this looks much better now. Bob talk 18:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I suggest a further discussion about the name and spelling of this article, and the possibility, is had elsewhere first. Renominate if deletion becomes a reasonable alternative. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarot island[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Softlavender (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

An article already exists on the correctly spelled Tarout Island. This new and completely unreferenced article should therefore be deleted, or merged into it (whatever of it is coherent and verifiable and salvageable). Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: do we know that "Tarout" is the appropriate spelling here, however? The island is even called "Tarut" by the Saudi Tourism website.-Well-rested ^Talk 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Well-rested, I'm honestly not the expert; I assume it's a matter of transliteration choice, and in any case alternate transliterations can be linked via redirects so that all spellings are linked. It seems evident however that the "u" sound is preferred over "o" as in "Tarot", no? Google Maps, and the citation in the article, say "Tarout". In any case, the issue at hand is that the new article needs to be deleted or merged. Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To give credit where credit is due, User:Myrtlegroggins discovered this duplication and brought it to light at the Teahouse, in this thread: "Tarot Island?". Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another issue is that the title of the original article may more appropriately be without the word "Island" because the place name exists independent of that word in most or many venues. However this is an ancillary issue, but I bring it up because someone moved the article from its original title Tarout so it cannot now be re-moved there without administrative deleting of that redirect page. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To confirm that both articles refer to the same place, they both give coordinates of 26N50E. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another major problem with the Tarot island article is that it is mostly gibberish, apparently created by using something like GoogleTranslate on an Arabic-language source (the creator of the article is Arabic). In fact, the bulk of it seems to be a GoogleTranslate version of the Arabic Wikipedia article: [2]. I say this lest someone think there is much of anything in the article that can be salvaged for merging. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I started a copy edit but apart from lacking sense; confusion about the name of the island itself and another pre-existing page about the same topic, I suspect the content has been copied from this website Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a GoogleTranslate version of the Arabic Wikipedia article: [3]. No point in attempting a copyedit because it's so incomprehensible that there's no possible way of accurately knowing what the original said or meant, and no possible way to source any of it. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we just Redirect it to Tarout Island and call it day?--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't personally advise that because it implies the spelling is correct, which it isn't. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed problematic if we don't know it's right name, I'll post the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saudi Arabia, perhaps they could tell us what's the best local name for this island.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nominator). Softlavender (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dual diagnosis. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-occurring disorders[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion per WP:NOTESSAY. Appears to be an essay containing original research. May be a worthy topic, but this attempt is not encyclopedic. West Eddy (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay, and presumably covered elsewhere in an encyclopedic fashion (such as Comorbidity). Hairhorn (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no salvageable information), then replace with a redirect to Dual diagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dual diagnosis per WhatamIdoing. "Co-occurring disorders" and "Dual diagnosis" are synonyms. (While I have no specific objection to deletion before the redirect is set up, I don't see the point.) --Lambiam 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, in any case remove the existing material, which is pure OR. Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yasht101 01:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Sri Sangamitta Balika National School, Matale[edit]

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

not notable, not referenced, no introduction providing enough detail RichardMills65 (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consensus is that all verified secndary schools are notable and it does certainly appear to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a verifiable high school and no reason to suspect that, with sufficient research, that the necessary sources cannot be found to meet WP:OR. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 at this point is unmistakable. but If good sources can be found, then recreation might be possible DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale City[edit]

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

The sources currently in this article are utterly inadequate, either irrelevant or unreliable.

"Affordable shopping" is about Kenanga Wholesale City, whose homepage is http://www.kenangacity.com.my/, not http://www.wholesale-dress.net/. Also, according to the page, Kenanga Wholesale City is "a development by KWC Sdn Bhd, a company within Kha Seng Group of Companies", completely unrelated to the subject of this article.
"A whirl of attractions at KWC" also is about Kenanga Wholesale City.
"Wholesale-dress.net: New Business Model of Fast Fashion" is a press release from PR Newswire.
"Wholesale-dress.net Benefits From Fast-growing Social Networking" is a press release from PR Newswire.
"Wholesale-dress.net Offering More Than Cheap Products" is a press release from PR Newswire.

I ran a Google search for "Wholesale City" "Hangzhou" and "Hangzhou Wholesale E-commerce", both of which retrieved zero results.

There are zero reliable sources that provide any coverage, let alone significant coverage, of this company.

Goodvac (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you check to see if there were any sources in Chinese? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually didn't, so thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, looking at http://www.wholesale-dress.net/, I don't see a Chinese name that could be a plausible search term. I tried Google's "Translated foreign pages" feature, but searches for "Wholesale City" and "Hangzhou Wholesale E-commerce" retrieve nothing promising. Goodvac (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-promotional advertisement. I also could find no independent sources about the company. As the nominator stated, three of the sources given are merely reprints of the company's won press releases, and the other two are about a totally different company altogether. If the company is actually what the press releases say it is, there should be adequate information available in English. That there is none strongly suggests that the press releases are greatly exaggerated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources I added when declining the prod (the first two in the above nomination) were about a different company, and I've removed them from the article. I apologize for the error. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Graham Clark (Emmerdale). Kevin (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Pallister[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER for multiple significant roles. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with Graham Clark (Emmerdale), his best-known character. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 22:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skrita Sila Mudrevo[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that there is a strong indication of notability, however notability has not been proven and there is no reliable information which establishes notability. Sites checked include Soccerbase, Soccerway, FootballZZ, Playerhistory, Transfermarkt and RSSSF. None of these sites indicate the existence of the club, let alone establish any notability. Cloudz 679 20:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. A G-search of the club's Bulgarian name (thanks Phil) shows a Facebook page and is mentioned on a few blogs, that's it. Giant Snowman 15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the Google News search? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In reply to the nomination statement, here is confirmation of existence from Soccerway, Playerhistory and RSSSF. The other sites listed make no claim to cover any level in Bulgaria below A PFG, so it is unsurprising that there is no mention of this club in them. More importantly than existence, notability per WP:GNG is clearly demonstrated by the reliable sources found by the Google News search that I linked above, including Darik Radio[4][5], Sportal.bg[6], Dobruja Tribune[7], Monitor[8] and many others. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN & also fails WP:GNG hasn't received significant media coverage. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have demonstrated above that this club has received significant media coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't demonstrated that whatsoever. The 2nd reference refers to the fact Miroslav Miroslavov scored 9 goals, the 3rd reference no more then routine if X beats Y they play Z. The 5th is about injustice & possible match fixing but doesn't refer to the team in any depth. The first is probable the best but just confirms it is a little known obscure club & the 4th I admit is difficult to decipher but it's about restructing of the club, hardly exhibits notability. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's much better sourcing than we have for most of the clubs at the tenth level of the English pyramid that are routinely considered notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"most of the clubs at the tenth level of the English pyramid" are not being discussed here. Cloudz 679 11:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Combate (channel)[edit]

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

Nominating after declining speedy. Not sure if this TV channel is notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of so many other non notable things that have no place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 22:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I see verification of a few things, but don't see sourcing that would meet WP:GNG. No complaints with keeping *if* we have a clear precedent of inherent notability for channels, though. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rj anirudh[edit]

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

A radio host. Being a radio host is not inherently notable. Only reference given is to the radio station's web site. The article had him listed as a film director, but he hasn't started filming anything. Found alot of YouTube and social network references while searching for him, but didn't find anything that goes to detail about him on a reliable site. Prod was contested with unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails to approach the verifiability or notability thresholds. One of the two sources provided is essentially blank and is this article about "Anirudh Chawla" or "Rj anirudh"? (Also, that capitalization must be fixed if this article is improved enough to survive.) - Dravecky (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 22:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the 19 Google News results, mosts are Press Releases. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of sourcing to evidence notability via WP:GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Hollingsworth[edit]

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

Not notable. Most sources used are unreliable (blogs, youtube) or primary AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not have the time nor the energy to fight this. I believe the individual is notable, but so be it. Have a great day! -MedievalMorticus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievalmorticus (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability here, a major case of bombardment to hide the lack of notability. Nothing past a little local interest coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2012 (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, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | talk _ 22:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's rationale. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources such that the subject passes WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 23:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Vanispamcruftisement Plutonium27 (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourced evidence of notability argued or provided. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quaid-e-Azam Model School[edit]

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

Non notable school with no reliable source supporting its existence. SMS ^Talk 16:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can confirm it exists, but I can't yet tell whether its equivalent to a high school.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 22:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we'd need good evidence that this place even exists before we have an article on it. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any evidence that the school even exists, let alone is notable enough to warrant an article here. --DAJF (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: until proven it even exists. All highschools are considered notable per WP:NHS but there's no reason to believe that this one is actually a real one. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Video Productions Inc[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this video production company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. this is a vanity page, no coverage, no refs.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 22:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage from established reliable sources = deletion time. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:PROMO. I found nothing either. -- Trevj (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:JamesBWatson under criterion G4. Non-admin closure. "Pepper" @ 10:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Titus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable photographer, who's claims to notability appear to be that he has taught a course at a university, has a failed gallery and is now publishing a coffee table book. Deadly∀ssassin 21:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have received any significant coverage . . . unclear what's changed since the first AfD. ^Bongo_matic 22:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-delete as (i) the re-creation of an article deleted via AfD and (ii) containing very little that's sourced and (iii) obviously promotional. And promptly salt, because (i) mere deletion isn't having a deterrent effect and (ii) successive AfDs are a waste of people's time. Somebody interested in Titus would of course be able to appeal at DRV for encyclopediaworthiness of an entirely different article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling boy bands[edit]

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

List article entirely consisting of original research. Despite the very clear cut ranking of bands, determining which bands should, or should not, be included is not. So those included in each list is purely at the opinion of the contributing editors. Omissions and arbitrary decisions therefore affect the rankings calculated and shown. Sources used to support the sales figures do not classify or rank any of the bands in this manner, so each resulting list is the product of original synthesis. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I outlined a few specific examples of the fundamental problem with this article on its talk page a few months back. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there's no specific definition of a "boy band" and as a result, no criteria for inclusion on the list. Is Rascal Flatts one, for example? The fact that no one can agree on what is and isn't a boy band shows that this list is inherently flawed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a definition at the main page, a boyband is a vocal group who mainly sing and dance and usually has 3-6 members. Another main factor that define a group as a boyband is their target market, boybands usually targeted to preteen, teenage, and young women. But I don't think there should be any detailed definition in this particular page since there's already a page Boy band dedicated to that. There's also this page List of best-selling girl groups that is the equivalent but nobody seem to be contesting that, I wonder why. Krystaleen (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. At least be consistent. But back to my argument, there's already a page dedicated to defining a boyband and what determines whether a group is a boyband or not so I guess it's pretty clear. Krystaleen (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well, but where has this "loose" definition come from? Who decided, for instance, on the 3 member threshold? I produced a few example of anomalies within the page which, if simple judgement calls went the other way, would completely change the ranking of sales. This illustrates the meaninglessly arbitrary nature of everything the page says. The Boy band article states the definition is a "loosely defined". Is that enough of a criteria to produced hard statistics, as this page attempts to? And even if a definitive definition can be cited, combining this with cited sales figures to produce a chart is the very definition of original synthesis.

That's not to say it would be completely impossible to create a credibly sourced article of Best Selling Boy Bands, but the attempt to create a chart out of nothing but raw sales figures and POV estimations of who qualifies is a mistake.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points you have there. The 3 members threshold I guess came from the definition of a group itself, because 1 would be solo and 2 is a duo. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think people usually refer to a group of 2 as a band.

Okay I just did a quick search and apparently there's no article of best selling bands, male/female solo artist but they are all lumped together in one huge article List of best-selling music artists. Why not separate those? I'm sorry this is getting kind of off topic. But yes you raised some good points there. Krystaleen (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per "loose definition" of what constitutes a boy band. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the afd discussion for List of best-selling girl groups has been concluded as keep, I think this should be kept too. Krystaleen (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interface culture[edit]

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

Neologism that I can't find any use of, outside of the creator's own works. Doesn't seem to have gone mainstream yet, and non-notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one isolated idea in one notable essay does not merit its own separate article. Diego (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The term is not quite as obscure as the proposer suggests. It's the title of a Stephenson book Interface Culture) which was itself excerpted in The Atlantic Monthly. It's used by a notable research group at Linz [9]. Matthais Müller-Prove uses it as a synonym for new media or technoculture [10]. I'd be inclined to nurture this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article about the topic, a blog about the concept, and one section in a book doesn't meet GNG "significant coverage" guidelines. --Joshuaism (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WordswithMeaning.org[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable website. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage and Google News turned up blank. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've been accused of Sockpuppetry when I have nothing to do with the site. Furthermore, I believe site is notable, but not under Wikipedia circumstances — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight Hands (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A checkuser seems to disagree with that statement per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Illumanati_lol. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely notable, especially in Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.247.180.139 (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP address is a Tor exit router, and has now been blocked. It may or may not have been used here to evade blocks on two accounts that have edited in connection with this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, simply saying "definitely notable", without explaining why, or offering any evidence, is not very helpful. You may like to read WP:Clearly notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard E. Shaw[edit]

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

PROD contested by Soccertv1 (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete - I believe the article should not be deleted as the player is a professional soccer player in the MLS/ MISL league in the USA. The individual is well known in New York and playing for a fully-pro soccer club and TV work in the USA I thought would be enough to give that player notability. User:soccertv1 —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue, ~~goes to redirects for discussion.~~ and since the nominator created the redirect, I have tagged for G7 anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WKQX-LP[edit]

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

The call letters of the radio station WLFM-LP in Chicago were never changed. They remained the same. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all placeholder/empty articles (both as a result of the AfD and per speedy criterion G7, as the author/sole major editor of these articles said below he does not object to the placeholder deletion). No consensus on what to do with the non-empty articles, so default to keeping on those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Award for Enterprise (mass nomination)[edit]

Here is a bunch of placeholder article created in September 2010 by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) prior to his editing restriction on the mass-creation of articles. They have zero content, and would in theory look like The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2010) upon expansion:

Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement)

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (1993)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (1994)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (1995)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (1996)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (1998)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (1999)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2000)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement) (2004)

Innovation (Technology)

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1976)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1977)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1978)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1981)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1982)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1983)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1984)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1985)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1986)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1987)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1989)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1990)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1991)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1992)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1993)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1994)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1995)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1996)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1997)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1998)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1999)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2000)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2004)

International Trade (Export)

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1976)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1977)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1978)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1979)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1982)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1984)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1985)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1986)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1987)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1988)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1989)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1990)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1991)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1992)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1993)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1994)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1995)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1997)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1998)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1999)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2000)
The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2004)

Other lists exist, but they have some content (e.g. The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1979)) or are actual lists (The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2010)), or were already deleted (e.g. The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1996)). I'll make nominations for the others separately to free up these clear-cut cases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly named, empty articles. I prodded these in a distant past (January 2011), but the creator deprodded them, but didn't fill them. Apart from being empty (most of them) for quite a while now, they are also very badly named, considering that the awards were actually named "The Queens Award for Export Achievement" and "The Queens Award for Technological Achievement" (from 1976 on), with from 1993 on a third one, "The Queens Award for Environmental Achievement" Some changes to the naming and grouping were again made in 2000-Z001. Details can be found at this PDF link. The double disambiguation used in these articles is an eyesore... Fram (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per fram. Nanostubs with no sourcing and next to no content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These are important awards and the previous article was a hotch-potch list of winners. Most of the completed lists were deleted at a previous AfD shortly to be at DRV. If no other bugger is going to fill them in I will do it myself, as I have, with a little help, for the items with ticks in the below list.

Year	International Trade (Export)	Innovation (Technology)	Export and Technology (Combined)	Sustainable Development (Environmental Achievement)	Total awards
2010	95 Y	38 Y		10 Y	143
2009	135 Y	49 Y		10 Y	194
2008	85 Y	42 Y		12 Y	139
2007	71 Y	40 Y		8 Y	119
2006	90 Y	48 Y		7 Y	145
2005	88 Y	41 Y		8 Y	137
2004	66	39		7	112
2003	62 Y	51 Y		10 Y	123
2002	85 Y	37 Y		9 Y	131
2001	76 Y	42 Y		15 Y	133
2000	77	32		7	116
1999	82	14		5	101
1998	115	14		4	133
1997	110	16		8	134
1996	107	16		6	129
1995	140	17		6	163
1994	139	18		8	165
1993	118	25		12	155
1992	127	38			165
1991	118	40			158
1990	126	49			175
1989	116	40			156
1988	102	43 Y			145
1987	120	34			154
1986	114	27			141
1985	90	29			119
1984	88	23			111
1983	90	20			110
1982	91	19			110
1981	92	17			109
1980	87 Y	17 Y			104
1979	102	19			121
1978	107	17			124
1977	106	19			125
1976	95	20			115
1975	76Y	17Y	2Y		95
1974	59	19	- Y		78
1973	66	15	2		83
1972	72 Y	17	1 Y		90
1971	93	13	4		110
1970	74	25	5		104
1969	69Y	24Y	6Y		99
1968	60Y	17Y	8Y		85
1967	48Y	28Y	9Y		85
1966	86	11	18 Y		115
TOTAL	4,215	1,236	55	152	5,658

Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete all the placeholders; they don't qualify for A3 speedy deletion, but they're functionally no better than articles that do qualify for it. Placeholders with no unique information are meaningless as articles. I'm really not fond of the 2010 article, but it's a completely different situation, and any articles like it should not be deleted here because they're far from being placeholders. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the empty/placeholder articles, allowing re-creation later. It's a well-known award, but an empty article is of no use to anybody. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete placeholders, Keep substantive articles, and allow re-creation of deleted ones if they have substance, per User:Colapeninsula above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no massive objection to the place-holders being deleted until needed. My only concern is that if they are created piece-meal they will be a jumble of different styles. Rich Farmbrough, 05:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Then keep an eye on them and BOLDly style-edit them, working with those who create them. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kya Mast Hai Life characters[edit]

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

List of characters of a not so notable TV show. Unreferenced. Fails Wp:GNG §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poorly written, no out of universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable TV shows aired on a national network typically get a character list to forestall creation of individual articles for non-notable characters, per WP:OUTCOMES. No problem is articulated by nominator that cannot be corrected through normal editing. GNG is not particularly relevant to a list of elements from a notable show, since this is all about how we present the data in a logical fashion. Finally, a merge would be need to be shown to be unworkable per WP:ATD before deletion should even be considered. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you actually are voting as "Merge" and not "Keep". Is it? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And even if its just a list, the entities in it need to be notable to have their own article. If there is no significant coverage or secondary sources writing about any of the characters of the show, why do we need a dedicated article for this? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would have been good to merge with the main article but there are no refs. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There are no sources whatsoever and the content is entirely in-universe plot summary. Per the WP:GNG, we would need independent secondary sources to justify a stand-alone article and there aren't any. And the existence of the show does not justify an unlimited proliferation of crufty articles related to it. So there should not be a stand-alone article. The next question to consider is a merge. For a merge to work, we would need to be alble to identify usable content that would benefit the proposed merge target. Since all that's in this article is unsourced in-universe plot summary, I don't think any of it is any good. Reyk _YO! 22:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Douwe Dekker[edit]

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

Page has been created by Marcel Douwe Dekker himself, who is also a Wikipedia user (Mdd): User:Mdd/Marcel Douwe Dekker, and was copied to the main name space by a colleague WP user from the Netherlands. A similar page was placed on Wikipedia Netherlands before (twice) and has been deleted for reasons of lack of notability: [11]

A similar page was placed on Wikiquote Netherlands before and was deleted there for the same reasons, and because Mdd refused to let others edit "his" page. It was recently restored at his request as he says he needs access to the edit history to "build a case". It is still marked "AfD": [12] _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should be considered here, is if Marcel Douwe Dekker is 'notable' enough, I think we all agree on that. Judging from the references mentioned in the article, and the expositions held, I am inclined to say he is indeed notable enough. It is true that Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote the Dutch Wikipedia article himself, but it is also true that a small group of people monitor his every step to the point of harassing him. I'm not saying that Whaledad is one of them, but it seems clear to me that he made it his mission -across wiki- to erase all traces of Marcel Douwe Dekker. I find this very disturbing. Considerations other than encyclopedic relevance should not be taken into account, as we all (should) know. So, judge wisely, without prejudice and without bias, and if a majority of users finds it fails the notability guidelines, so be it. My vote is to keep it. Beachcomber (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From 1994 on he has been developing his own philosophy and theory about Civilization and Science! Three cheers for Marcel Douwe Dekker! His own philosophy about Civilazation and Science! I might suggest adding more capitals to this remarkable fact: From 1994 on He has been developing His Own Philosophy and Theory about Civilization and Science. Let's not be modest, Mdd! Humanity will be ever so greatful to you! RJB-nl (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self promotion by author Marcel Douwe Dekker. Saschaporsche (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is probably a typo, but Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote the Dutch Wikipedia himself... is exactly the kind of presumptuousness that leads to an article like this. Click the "find sources" links below the header of this section, and you will only find links to pages that Mdd filled himself. Four of the five references that support this article (Judging from the references mentioned in the article) are to his own home page, the fifth is his LinkedIn page, where you can see that his current "job" is Wikipedia editor, and where he has a recommendation from Hubert Hermans who thanks him for contributing in an excellent way, to the presentation of my work on the Dutch and English Wikipedia. Where his actual contributions to these articles are extremely minimal: NL: [13], [14], and [15]; EN: [16]. Misinterpretation or misrepresentation? You be the judge.

I fully agree with Mr. Beachcomber: the only thing that really matters here is notability. This should follow from relevant mentions of the person and his work in notable external sources. All that I've been able to find are mentions in his own sources.

By the way: I resent any suggestion from Mr. Beachcomber that I would be monitoring every step that Mdd makes. Note that even if I did, I would not have found out about the creation of this page, as it was not created by himself, but on his behalf. I just happened to stumble upon this page as I follow new page creation and significant changes in the "Dutch xyz" categories (I'm a former Dutchman). _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that: there never was a Wikipedia article about Marcel Douwe Dekker, just a redirect to his user page. I missed something there - the mentioning of a 'redirect' So, he never created an article about himself, and his notability was never questioned. This is a good thing, because now we can look at the newly created English page with a fresh eye. I could not help noticing however that up to now only Dutch Wikipedia users are giving their opinion, so I'm still waiting for the fresh eye approach. Beachcomber (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beachcomber, how on earth could you expect a fresh eye approach on a subject that is a total nobody in Dutch design. There is no reason what so ever why Dutch mediocracy should be featured on en-Wiki, were it is - quite rightleously - not even featured at nl-Wiki. If winter comes can spring be far behind. RJB-nl (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just wait and see what others decide, RJB. By the way, I urge you to stop posting derogatory comments about other contributors here. This page is strictly intended for discussion on articles nominated for deletion. The Wiki ghost (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we want to wait what others decide, while we are alive and kicking ourselves? And why do you urge me to do something I already do? Where did I post derogatory comments about other contributors here? The only thing I did - and quite rightly so, I might add - is questioning the relevance of a Wikipedia lemma on a total nobody, who's - so we're supposed to think - spent the better part of his life developing his own philosophy and theory about Civilization and Science. I formerly believed that he spent his life sitting at least that part of the day that he was not photographing monkeys in the Rotterdam Zoo. I know - at least this is what he told us - that he also spent a lot of time discussing the pro's and con's of World Economy, with people who went on to become professors. Some of them even delivered key note speeches to the United Nations! It's a miracle, no less, that he even found time to develop his own philosophy about practilcy everything. But it is a miracle I tend not to believe. You - on the other hand - seem to do. Dream on, Wiki Gohst, and beware! RJB-nl (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the links on the article appear to be broken, which makes it very hard to see any evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were links to Mdd's personal website. I have edited the list at Marcel Douwe Dekker#Media coverage of his work. "Media" here includes a large number of exhibit catalogs and free local weekly news rags the likes. There is also coverage at "real" news media in the list, but note that that coverage always pertains to an entire exhibition that Mdd happened to be part of. He proudly lists where his spider or chicken lamp pictures were shown, and/or he was mentioned in 1 or 2 lines of text. I have actually found one of those articles in available archive, where it shows that the "award" that Mdd indicated was just an "honorable mention". In my mind none of this "coverage" makes Mdd notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: Mdd's own page on Wikiquote Netherlands (q:nl:Marcel Douwe Dekker) has again been removed for lack of notability. ([17]) _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another sad autobio with strained cites to catalog mentions and so on. Why do people insist on embarassing themselves like this? EEng (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourcing to evidence notability under WP:GNG was provided. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaploosh[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable game that clearly fails wp:notmadeup. Dac04 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails General notability guideline. Not a notable sport at least, with no reliable sources to support. --SMS ^Talk 19:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure how this would fail a PROD, considering WP:MADEUP and WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grimshaw family[edit]

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

No evidence given of Family Notability - Has been tagged as suspect for four years. Checked the one link to the Grimshaw family website and cannot find anything notable there. No links to independent good sources Jpacobb (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN family history. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the surname could probably be suitable for Wikipedia, and the lists of people on the Grimshaw disambiguation page should be moved to it. Information about specific families (the "major line" started in Yorkshire and the family crest) can be removed unless there is evidence of notability. Peter E. James (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PEOPLE. Content is not based on a reliable source. Could possibly be recreated as List of Grimshaws per WP:LISTPEOPLE (and some of the content reincluded if properly sourced) if the surname in general is notable. -- Trevj (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Søren Ventegodt[edit]

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

promotional article with serious BLP problems. Might be notable , but rescuing this one is more than I am willing to attempt & I don't think it's worth it. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. On the one hand, there are a lot of news stories about him. On the other hand, the existing article seems like a gross violation of WP:NPOV and sorting it all out looks like a nightmare. He seems to be notable less as a practitioner of holistic medicine than for his legal complications, and it's not obvious to me that he passes WP:PERP. The sensitivity of the subject matter and WP:BLP probably require someone who speaks Danish to work on the article, who will also (unlike whoever put together the existing article) maintain a neutral treatment of the subject, and who would that be? We're probably better off just staying out of it. In any case, deleting this version and starting fresh seems clearly better to me than trying to use it for anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Speedy delete as a copyvio. The biography portion, at least, seems to have been copied from here with minimal changes. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I note that the Danish Wikipedia has an article on him [18], but it is much shorter and better sourced. Maybe an article based on the Danish version could be acceptable here. I agree with David Eppstein's approach: delete this whole mess, and possibly start fresh. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amphora (band)[edit]

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

Deprodded with the rationale: "I think the article is relevant due to numerous fans who inquire about the group and still enjoy the music. The article should have more reference's with time." I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for the subject, which does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Painkiller4. I don't think this article should be deleted since new sources have been added.Painkiller4 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Painkiller4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. The references do nothing beyond demonstrating the probable existence of the band. They don't sustain a case for notability. QU ^TalkQu 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. juggs4. This article is important if you were a fan of this band or own the cd. It also has more than one source.juggs4 (talk) 1:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. TheRealDeal6. I liked the article, I say keep it.TheRealDeal6 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— TheRealDeal6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I love myself therefore I want an article on me, will you create it for me? Yasht101 11:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything that would suggest that WP:MUSIC is met. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jcr75. I found the article more informative than I did detrimental. Jcr75 (talk) 1:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
— Jcr75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per failure of WP:BAND Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tugboat9. I enjoyed it, since I went to college with these guys. Tugboat9 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Tugboat9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Enjoyment" is not a criterion for keeping an article. Also this is not a vote and therefore creating lots of single-purpose accounts to "vote" will make no difference to the outcome. QU ^TalkQu 12:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving links to making a page to ones self and tagging other user accounts that vote keep seems to show bias in persuading a consensus. A simple delete or keep will do, vs trying to sabotage an afd (juggs4) 11:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal practice to tag spa accounts as such as it assists the closing administrator. I did not nominate this article for deletion - I am simply trying to stop people changing other people's !votes, removing !votes they don't agree with and removing maintenance templates all of which has been going on. An AfD is not a vote so it doesn't matter how many people come along and express an opinion unless that opinion is founded in Wikipedia policy. 500 people could say they enjoyed the article and it wouldn't help - you need to demonstrate the article meets the notability policy. Therefore a count of keeps / deletes is not going to somehow make a difference and therefore it is pointless creating new accounts to "vote".QU ^TalkQu 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBAND. Unlike some articles on bands/musicians which arrive here occasionally, I found no secondary sources in reliable sources in this case. -- Trevj (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DaruDar[edit]

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

Unremarkable Russian web content entirely written by the owner of the subject matter. There is not even an article about this on the Russian Wikipedia which would imply that it is not notable. A quick Google search reveals no English information about this website whatsoever apart from a small social media presence. UKWikiGuy (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been written in a promotional style. It contains direct citations from the subject's website, as well as musings irrelevant for most readers, and it has no references to independent sources.

However, Google search reveals hundreds and hundreds of articles, videos, and blog posts about the subject in Russian. It has been featured on national TV of Russia and Ukraine, as well as in notable newspapers and magazines. It's clear that it represents an interesting social phenomenon. While it seems that there is no much news on the subject in English, it deserves to stay in English-language Wikipedia because the social movement of which it's a big part of transcends borders and gains popularity. (Darudar's website is available in English too.)

Within the next weeks, I will edit the article to make it concise and relevant to an English-speaking audience.

Vladimir Frolov (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of websites that do similar things. The fact that it is one of them does not make it notable to an English audience. The subject matter has had zero impact on the English speaking world and, in fact, is based on other people's work. UKWikiGuy (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2012 (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) 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see after I write a new draft. The project is different from the millions of give-away websites in some very interesting ways. It has a very tight international (albeit, only Russian-speaking) community. Compared to most of the other websites which are locally focused, it has a much greater share of things sent to other places. People have introduced such innovations as collective parcels, volunteer postmen and couriers to aid sending gifts to distant locations. It's concept is different from "giving-away" in that people ought to communicate openly why they need what they ask, and the giver chooses the person who would benefit most.

Somebody knowledgeable in the area of sharing economy and collaborative consumption should take a look at the project. Any single Wikipedia article needs not to be interesting and useful to each and every reader. It deserves to be in Wikipedia if its contents is important and insightful to a portion of users who can make something of the information. Therefore, we should seek for an independent expert opinion on whether the subject is worthy of inclusion. I've been traveling intensively, and had no time to do any writing for the past days. I'll post the first draft in a week. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL doesn't seem to turn up anything looking much like WP:RS. -- Trevj (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 17:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Translating the Russian language citations, this is a Russian version of Freecycle that may belong in the Russian Wikipedia if it meets notability there. It isn't at all notable in English, As stated by Vladimir Frolov above, it is only for the Russian speaking community. Not notable enough to be included in the En Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOENG, the language isn't relevant. If it's notable, it's notable AIUI. -- Trevj (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Clapp (artist)[edit]

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

I met this article in a state of vandalism and copy vio. I deleted the information, tried to source it properly as an article, but though I'd be happy for it to be shown otherwise, I have been unable to find any sources so that he might pass WP:GNG, and he furthemore doesn't seem to fall into any of the criteria at WP:PROF. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, everyone. I am one of John Clapp's students. Me and another student were having a bit of fun and decided to edit his page. Everything after him being =tenured at sjsu is obviously not true, but all of the information about his education is legitimate information.

Apology accepted. I've nominated it for deletion not because of your edits themselves, but because they brought it to light and it doesn't seem to me to pass Wikipedia's standards of notability. If you can find any significant coverage of the guy (or anything at WP:PROF, then please bring it to our attention... it's probably a better use of your time, and would help rather than disrupt our processes :-). If not then his article is likely to be deleted. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well i don't know if this counts, but here is his bio on the faculty page for the SJSU Animation/ Illustration department: http://www.sjsuai.com/ai/Clapp.html That also contains a link to his website: www.johnclapp.com THis is the about section from his website: http://www.johnclapp.com/main_aboutjohn.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Unfortunately both those pages are not independent sources - one by his employers, and one by himself. Essentially he needs to have had significant coverage in independent sources such as in other third-party websites, newspapers, books etc. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about his LinkedIn profile? http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-clapp/3/a48/b7 Or an askart profile? http://www.askart.com/askart/c/john_clapp/john_clapp.aspx

Here are some of his books on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_2?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&ie=UTF8&field-author=John%20Clapp Here's an interview with him: 11:31 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache :http://blog.absolutearts.com/blogs/archives/00000489.html And here's another interview, this time with Harcourt Books: http://www.harcourtbooks.com/authorinterviews/bookinterview_Clapp.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Also i just found this. It's a book with information about him. http://books.google.com/books?id=RCYS-rbPMDgC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=John+Clapp+sjsu+article&source=bl&ots=vAawGSMEWl&sig=slTXm_WXMDo0nNZI8kCLEWGmmZU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4dqeT-3XIaayiQLrq6hu&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=John%20Clapp%20sjsu%20article&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing these. The book offers some hope for keeping the article, but I think more reliable secondary sources still need to be found to assert significance. Unfortunately LinkedIn is not used to verify notability (see WP:ELPEREN for an explanation) and interviews are not secondary sources and so are not suitable either. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would i need to find to assert significance? Should i show you a list of students whose lives he's changed with his peerless teaching skills? He is highly regarded here as an educator, and you've seen the work he's done for books. I'm not sure how many news articles there are about children's book illustrators. I don't quite see how what I've given you isn't enough to verify the reliability of this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.249.103 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern. Whilst I am sure he is highly regarded at your institution and influential in his teaching, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so relies on the testimony of published, reliable, third-party sources to ascertain worldly notability. You can read more about this at WP:N. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truth, and so if it cannot be verified that he is notable, then it must be considered that he is not notable. I would certainly expect this to be true of a comic artist too – perhaps not newspapers but certainly reviews, features in magazines, awards, etc. Hope this clarifies things a bit :-). Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well here are a couple of reviews of his books. They mostly talk about the book, but what they say about John Clapp's art is all good.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/bruce-coville/the-prince-of-butterflies/#review http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-15-201454-4 https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/julius-lester/shining/#review Also, i'm sure this probably isn't a reliable souurce but here is his ratemyprofessor page.I think it definitely shows that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." like it says in WP:Artist. 130.65.249.103 (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC) http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=63789 130.65.249.103 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for these; it is certainly making the process easier for other editors :-). Those references help, but I don't think I'm going to withdraw this nomination because the references contain only passing references. Also, ratemyprof is not a reliable source because it can be written by anyone and is not a good indicator of being "cited by peers or successors". Keep a look out for other good references, as will I, but I think the AfD should run its course for the moment. I'm still not convinced of his notability just yet per what I have said above. Hopefully there should be some community input soon. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 20:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've done some work improving the sourcing for this. I think the brief but positive coverage of his book illustrations in major media across the country may be enough to establish notability and the page on him in New's book provides the necessary depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page, and seeing as there have been no additional comments on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fox: Diaz vs. Miller[edit]

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page, and seeing as there have been no additional comments on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier[edit]

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page, and seeing as there have been no additional comments on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fighter 15 Finale[edit]

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page, and seeing as there have been no additional comments on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall[edit]

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page, and seeing as there have been no additional comments on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida[edit]

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 147[edit]

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC) *delete fails notability sports, and WP:CRYSTAL Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC) !vote removed so other discussion can proceed Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep offers both technical details of events (fighters/location/date) and contextual information about fighters removed or added to card and why, extra details of note that add more value to a fan's understanding of match-ups and the event as a whole - I would say this for all UFC event articles, generally - which become more informative after the event has taken place with additional details easily missed even if one watched the show live. Helsworthy 14:22, 30 April 2012 (EST)

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page, and seeing as there have been no additional comments on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 148[edit]

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page, and seeing as there have been no additional comments on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fuel TV 4[edit]

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, as per below and the nom's talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch[edit]

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

article fails WP:SPORTSEVENTS, most specifically because it is not A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). The article also fails the criteria set in Wikipedia:MMANOT. Looking at the sources and the arguments below it also appears to violate WP:PERSISTENCE. It also fails WP:RECENT, and makes me seriously think there is a need for WP:FUTUREMMA to be established at RfC Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC) *speedy delete no indication of notability, clearly fails the sporting event notability criteria, no mainstream coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC) !vote withdrawn so that discussions can continue unimpeded elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does make a plausible claim of notability, in that it's a major-card event in the UFC. That's sufficient to avoid Speedy Deletion. Whether that's enough notability to justify keeping, that's another question entirely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Triangle (Colombian Universities)[edit]

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

As noted by another contributor, this page does not add up any essential information that is not presented in the pages of the individual universities. The merge of this information in the individual pages would make more sense. Andremun (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Page does not follow the WP:N and WP:IRS. It should be merged into the individual pages. Andremun (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited by the article to prove that these universities are called the "Golden Triangle" is a book published by one of the three universities -- not an independent source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. Neutrality^talk 06:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. The term "Triángulo de oro" has apparently also been used for radio stations. In searching for usage related to universities, I found Londres, Oxford y Cambridge, so it seems like a generic term, with a non-notable application in the article in question. Anyone with Colombian knowledge care to elaborate? -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlin Steel[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Editors have claimed that this band passes criterion 7 of WP:BAND because "it is the most prominent steelband in Oberlin, Ohio". However, this is a misreading of the criterion. In order to pass #7 of WP:BAND, the band must be either one of the most prominent steelbands anywhere OR one of the defining bands of the Oberlin music scene. This band doesn't appear to be either. Being "the most prominent steelband in Oberlin" would only be notable if the Oberlin music scene was defined by the steelband genre. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlin steel being the only band representative of the steelband in the region of Northern Ohio, not just the city of Oberlin, passes criterion 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.123.132 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, I claim that this is a misinterpretation of the WP:BAND criterion. Being the most prominent representative of a particular genre in a particular region is not the criterion. If this were the case, then the most popular klezmer band in Vatican City (a region not known for its vibrant Ashkenazi heritage) would also be notable, even if only 2 people have ever heard of them. The point is that the band has to be either one of the most prominent steel bands anywhere or one of the most prominent bands of any genre in the Oberlin region. Neither case has been made. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I support WikiDan61's take on #7. Claim of being the only band representative of the steelband in the region of Northern Ohio is also unsourced. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oberlin College. 1) They're a student organization as well as a band. 2) They're a popular student organization who have local coverage, so they should be mentioned in the college article. Disclosure: I am an Oberlin alumnus and I always enjoyed Oberlin Steel, but I believe I am making a bias-neutral recommendation in this !vote. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KMEHR. I should have closed this as "merge" as the nominator also suggested this as a solution PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SumEHR[edit]

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

This is a message within a larger standard. it has had the notability tag for 2 years, with seemlingly little updates. I think this article should be deleted and merged into KMEHR, on which a lot more has been written. KarlB (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is sensible, as this is a derivative of KMEHR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Ghooi[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Web of Science lists 8 articles, cited a total of 36 times (h-index of 3). The mentioned publications in The Lancet are just one page items cited 6 and 0 times. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability.--Deathlaser : Chat 15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the links given above, I was able to find this in News

Institute of Clinical Research in India (ICRI), is the pioneer organization for clinical research education in India. Dr. Ghooi was Principal at this Institute. In short he has one of hose few persons who have been involved in clinical research education from the beginning. I dont know if that proves the notability. Please guide. Thanks Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Wikipedia has pretty high criteria for inclusion when it comes to scientists and academics, and I don't think Dr. Ghooi quite meets them. Comment to Abhijeet Safai: What you say about the Institute of Clinical Research in India is interesting, and I notice that the ICRI does not currently have a Wikipedia article. You might want to consider creating one. It's possible that the ICRI is more notable than Dr. Ghooi is, but that he could be mentioned in an article about the Institute. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an good idea.Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The expresspharmaonline pieces found by Abhijeet Safai do not provide enough nontrivial information about the subject to support an article or satisfy WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more references to the article. Kindly have a look at it. Thanks Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have added a list of publications by Ghooi. But that's not what we need here. We're looking for publications by other people that provide nontrivial biographical information about Ghooi. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Biographical information is irrelevant. We judge WP:PROF based on importance as a scientist. David, that;s what you always say yourself. As to that, however, there are almost no citations, but this may be a limitation of our sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Jacoby[edit]

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

Likes a literal translation of http://portal.educ.ar/noticias/entrevistas/roberto-jacoby-no-hay-tecnolog-1.php a coyrighted spanish page and promotional text Esteban (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 15. Snotbot t • c » 19:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (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, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books turns up a significant number of references to Jacoby's pioneering work in media-based art. I've added a couple of these to the article. AllyD (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google and Google Books both provide plenty of good references in English to attest to his importance in Argentinian art, never mind the Spanish-language sources. The flagged potential copyvio is trivial - a brief, loose translation of some basic and readily-available information regarding when and where he was born and who he is. I'm seeing no reason to delete this. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasht101 16:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Kamala-Jean Gopie[edit]

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

Liberal candidate in Ontario provincial election in 1981. Never elected to office. Has served on a number of public boards and commissions. However doesn't meet WP:BIO. Recommend redirect to Ontario Liberal Party candidates, 1981 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gopie was governor of the University of Toronto. Besides receiving several awards, including the well-known and significant Order of Ontario, there is an award named after her from the University of Toronto. Keep. Catavar (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is already well-sourced; being awarded the Order of Ontario does mean that a person should most likely be considered notable regardless of her success or failure in politics; has held other significant and prominent public roles as an activist and/or civil servant. She may not get past WP:POLITICIAN, but she certainly gets past WP:GNG — and the article as written does successfully demonstrate and properly source that fact. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as a recipient of the Order of Ontario. PK T(alk) 21:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Bearcat. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedily or otherwise. What those folks said - doesn't need to have made it into office to be generally notable, and this lady is well-covered in multiple sources for her other actions and thingies. — Isarra ༆ 18:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeWayne Lewis[edit]

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

DeWayne Lewis is a non-notable former college football player who was a member of the Michigan State Spartans football team before he transferred and joined the Southern Utah Thunderbirds football team, a Division I FCS program. He was not selected in the 2009 NFL Draft, and signed with the Jacksonville Jaguars as an undrafted free agent in 2009, but he never played a down in a regular season NFL game. He is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON, and most satisfy the much tougher general notability standards of WP:GNG for inclusion—which he does not. All independent media coverage of Lewis appears to be of a routine nature, and no in-depth independent coverage of the subject appears to exist. It's a mystery how this article has survived for six and a half years. Please Delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. The article is in bad shape and appears to contain some copyvio (some of the text looks like a cut and paste job from this source). That needs to be fixed right away. But it appears that Lewis is notable based on his accomplishments in four areas (the first two being most persuasive to me): (1) he was a starter on the United States national American football team that won the 2011 IFAF World Championship, (2) he was selected as a 2011 All World defensive back for his performance on Team USA; (3) he was the fastest sprinter in Colorado ~~in 2003~~ (winning the Colorado state championship in the 100 and 200 meters three straight years) and a competitor at the 2007 NCAA Track and Field Championship; (4) he played college football at ~~both Michigan State and~~ Southern Utah. On the first point, Lewis was selected by USA Football, the national governing body of American football at the amateur level, to play on the 2011 United States national American football team at the 2011 World Championship in Austria under the coaching of Mel Tjeerdsma. The article on the 2011 IFAF World Championship confirms that Lewis played on the USA national team that won the 2011 World Championship. He has also received some coverage that appears to be non-routine. See, e.g., (1) DeWayne Lewis of Denver, Colo., selected to 2011 U.S. Men's National Team in football, USA Football press release; (2) Lewis honored, Salt Lake Tribune, (3) TJ's Lewis blazes to three victories, The Denver Post; (4) SUU track star makes contributions on gridiron, The Spectrum (Utah); (5) 39 players chosen for US team, KENS, San Antonio; (6) Southern Utah sends two to NCAA Track and Field Championship, Salt Lake Tribune; (7) SUU's Lewis qualifies for NCAA Championships, The Spectrum (Utah); (8) DeWayne Lewis Named Summit League Male T&F Athlete of the Week, SUU press release; (9) SUU’s Lewis Selected For East Coast Bowl, SUU press release; (10) DeWayne Lewis Captures 60-meter Dash Title with School Record Time at Snake River Invitational, SUU press release; (11) Dewayne Lewis USA Team All World DB, NFL press release. Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article was created in 2010 with this diff by a user who never edited any other article. It was mostly copyvio. I've removed most of the obviously pasted and/or plainly inappropriate content and added some sourcing. Still needs work if anyone wants to help. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Cbl62. Let me say that I have nothing but respect for Cbl, and it's been pretty rare in my experience that we disagree on the substance of sports bio AfDs, but I must disagree with him here. Of the eleven sources cited above, four of them are press releases from organizations that are not independent of the subject athlete and are therefore disqualified as reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability: item 1 is a press release from USA Football about Lewis making the USA Football squad; item items 8, 9 and 10 are press releases from Southern Utah University's athletic department about Lewis representing SUU sports teams in various events.

Items 2, 5, 6 and 7 are brief news announcements, not remotely approaching anything like in-depth coverage of Lewis, and are the very definition of "routine" coverage of sports events and awards. Item 11 is a video and a blog entry—no more a reliable source for establishing notability than any newspaper sports blog.

That leaves us with items 3 and 4. Item 3 is a 964-word Denver Post news article discussing Lewis' achievements at the 2003 high school state track & field championships. Item 4 is a 612-word article in The Spectrum, the regional newspaper in St. George, Utah, which is located in the adjoining county to SUU. The 2007 Spectrum article discusses how Lewis, as a transfer from Michigan State and a member of the SUU track team, is making a contribution to the SUU football team that was recently promoted from Division II to Division I FCS. These are the only two sources that are independent of their subject and cannot be immediately dismissed as routine coverage of sports events. Taken together, they nevertheless constitute a very slender thread to establish the notability of the subject athlete . . . one article about his high school accomplishments on a single day in 2003, and one brief "angle" story whose major purpose is to discuss the challenges facing the SUU football program. And let's keep in mind that the three track championships were at the high school level, not even at the Division II college level. (Query: isn't this exactly the sort of one-time occurrence that WP:EVENT is meant to disqualify?)

Sorry, but this stitched-together creation doesn't cut the mustard. Notability means meaningful coverage about the subject; these articles aren't that. If we are going to start including Wikipedia bios for every high school athlete who won a state track championship, or every FCS football jock who had a single "puff piece" (mostly) about him in the local newspaper, then we will have made a joke of the notability standards for athletes. Notability is not temporary "fame" arising from a single event—even when that event was winning three high school track championships in single day. In order to make Lewis appear notable, we have to stitch five press releases and four mostly meaningless 100 to 200-word routine sports articles together with two other articles, neither of which by themselves could establish the subject's notability. Sorry, Cbl, but this looks like boot-strapping. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No need to apologize. Reasonable minds can differ on these things. As I mentioned above, the points I find most persuasive are that he played on the 2011 Team USA squad that won the World Championship and was selected for the All World team based on his participation in the World Championship. That combined with three consecutive Colorado state sprint championships, All-Conference honors at the collegiate level in two sports, and a fair amount of non-routine coverage puts him above the bar IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response on WP:EVENT. I don't think that WP:EVENT applies to Lewis. It says: "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them." Lewis is not "known only" for winning the Colorado state 100-meter and 200-meter sprint championships in 2003 -- or for doing so three years in a row. He appears to have had a notable sports career that has lasted over 10 years, including being named SUU Athlete of the Year in 2008 and Best Defensive Back in the 2011 World Championships. And he's still actively competing for a spot in the Chicago Bears as of April 2012. Cbl62 (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response on WP:ROUTINE. I don't agree that the coverage is all "routine." Per WP:NCOLLATH, the classic examples of routine coverage are "merely a repeating of their statistics" and "mentions in game summaries." The sources now added to the article include multiple instances where Lewis is the main subject of the coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response re The Spectrum. It is inaccurate to say that the "major purpose" of the Lewis profile in The Spectrum "is to discuss the challenges facing the SUU football program." Having bought and read the article, it is an in-depth profile of Lewis from Texas to Denver to Michigan State and Utah, injuries, NCAA Track and Field Finals, etc. Cbl62 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The article infobox currently lists NFL stats (4 career tackles). Has he played in an NFL game (in which case he's presumed notable), or is the infobox wrong? cmadler (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cmadler, the infobox is wrong. Lewis has never played a down in a regular season NFL game. See NFL.com [19], Pro-Football-Reference.com [20], and databaseFootball.com [21]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe) Maybe I'm mistaken, but he was on the official 54 man roster for 2 NFL teams for 2 years. That is enough for me. If I'm mistaken on this (the article is not clear), then I will withdraw my !vote.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in answer to GrapedApe's question. If Lewis were ever a member of a regular season NFL roster, he would be listed on NFL.com. He is not listed—see NFL.com. Moreover, he is only entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON if he appeared in a regular season NFL or CFL game. Lewis has never appeared in a regular season pro game—see NFL.com [22], Pro-Football-Reference.com [23], and databaseFootball.com [24]. In order for Lewis to be notable for Wikipedia purposes, he must satisfy one of the following four potentially applicable notability standards for athletes:

1. general standard for athletes – Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Notability guidelines on sports persons, "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they . . . have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics[;] meet any of the qualifications in one of the sports specific sections below. [emphasis mine]

2. high school athletes – In order to be notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Amateur sports persons, a high school athlete must have received "as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability." [emphasis mine]

3. college athletes – In order to be notable per WP:NCOLLATH, a college athlete must "have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who . . . have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record[;] [w]ere inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame)[;] and [g]ained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." [emphasis mine]

4. track and field athletes – In order to be notable per WP:NTRACK, athletes "are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below . . . has competed in the Olympics or senior IAAF World Championships[;] finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g. European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 5 World Major Marathons)[;] [f]inished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g. IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less prestigious large scale meets, e.g. Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)[;] [h]as won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships or Youth World Championships[;] [h]as won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those that have never been ranked in the top 40 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year[;] [h]as won the elite division of multiple notable* road races (including the same race multiple times) or has established a history of highly competitive, non-winning performances in many notable races (at least 10 top threes)[;] [h]as at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body[;] [o]wns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics, or an equivalent performance over a closely matching imperial distance[;] [h]as a non-relay mark listed on the IAAF senior all-time list or equivalent list[;] [h]as been inducted into the National Track and Field Hall of Fame or the Road Runners Club of America Hall of Fame.

Moreover the general notability standards of WP:GNG still apply, which states if a subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

* "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

* "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.^[1] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

* "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.

* "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Guys, these are not easy standards to meet, especially if the criteria of one of the specific standards applicable to athletes are not met. My take is that Lewis does not satisfy any of the more specific standards for high school, college, football, or track & field jocks, or athletes generally, and therefore must strictly satisfy the general notability standards of WP:GNG. DeWayne Lewis never won a national championship, never won a major national award, never participated in a major international sports competition, and never participated in a regular season professional sporting event. Despite Cbl62's considerable efforts to revamp the article, the subject athlete simply does not satisfy any of the required notability standards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dirtlawyer. Good discussion, and I agree with much of what you say. I've been following college football AfDs for a couple years or more and have voted to delete many of them. I'd guesstimate that less than two percent of Division I (FBS/FCS) college football players would pass notability standards (and an even smaller percent of players below Division I). I had no involvement with the DeWayne Lewis article before this AfD, but after digging into it, I became convinced he passes the bar. For that reason, I've tried to improve the article substantially to give it a fair shake. (I suspect that, if the article had not been in such awful shape when you nommed it, you might not have done so.) We're probably both repeating ourselves a bit, but your recitation of the standards reaffirms my conclusion for the following reasons (either of the first two of which should suffice):

(1) Lewis has "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." The IFAF World Championship is the highest level of international competitions. It is held every four years and is operated by the IFAF, which is the international governing body of American football. Lewis not only participated in the 2011 IFAF World Championship, but he received the award as the Best Defensive Back to play in the event.

(2) Lewis has "been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." See refs 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 19, all added to the article.

(3) Lewis gets an extra notability "bump" in my mind by virtue of having excelled in multiple areas. He was an elite sprinter (No. 1 in Colorado and among the elite in the US, having advanced to the NCAA Track & Field Championship) and also excelled in football (having helped lead Team USA to the World Championship).

I don't spend my time trying to rescue an article unless they're worthwhile. IMO Lewis is worthwhile. Cbl62 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, I have followed the sources that you have added to the article with interest. If we eliminate (1) the non-independent sources that are affiliated with Michigan State University, Southern Utah University, USA Football, the IFAF, the Mid-Continent Conference, and the Jacksonville Jaguars, (2) the sports fan blogs Cincy Jungle and nfl.net.co (not NFL-affiliated, BTW), and (3) the Youtube video, that leaves 13 sources from actual third-party professional news outlets. Of those 13 independent sources, 11 of them – footnote 7 (Spectrum, 10-08-2007), footnote 9 (Deseret News, 11-27-2008), footnote 10 (Spectrum, 4-29-2011), footnote 11 (Spectrum, 6-6-2007), footnote 12 (Salt Lake Tribune, 5-27-2007), footnote 13 (Spectrum, 5-27-2007), footnote 18 (Deseret News, 1-24-2008), footnote 19 (Salt Lake Tribune, 5-13-2008), footnote 21 (Spectrum, 2-29-2008), footnote 23 (Deseret News, 4-28-2009) and footnote 28 (Denver Post, 6-15-2011) – are either WP:ROUTINE coverage or trivial mentions or both.

After careful review that leaves only two potentially independent, non-routine, non-trivial sources: footnote 2 (Denver Post, 5-18-2003), and footnote 6 (Spectrum, 10-11-2008). Footnote 2, the Denver Post article, discusses Lewis' three high school track and field state championships in 2003. If we are attempting to qualify his notability as a high school athlete, the subject must have received "substantial and prolonged coverage." This is not high school phenomenon Tim Tebow, circa 2005, or Catie Ball, circa 1967; the coverage of Lewis' high school exploits is not anything approaching "substantial and prolonged."

That leaves only footnote 6, the Spectrum article, that recounts Lewis' personal history at MSU and SUU, and his accomplishments in two different sports. It is the only independent, non-routine, non-trivial source that supports the subject's notability as a college football and track athlete by providing substantial, in-depth coverage. That's a pretty darn slender reed to establish notability, especially when WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH presuppose multiple potentially independent, non-routine, non-trivial sources to establish notability.

Look, guys, I respect your opinions as experienced WP:CFB editors and administrators. You get it, and we're arguing the fine points in this case. Let us acknowledge, however, that we are pushing the limits to qualify a second-tier college athlete as notable. We can parse the language of the various notability standards and argue about the merits of the sources, and, yes, "reasonable minds" can differ, but here's the bottom line. DeWayne Lewis never won a national track championship at any level; he never received a major national award or honor in any sport; he never finished in the top eight in a major international track competition; he never set a national record in either sport. None of the news coverage the subject has received qualifies as "national media attention." He never played in a regular season professional football game.

The only way we can qualify the subject as notable is to boot-strap two non-trivial, non-routine sources about his mid-tier athletic accomplishments with lots of routine and trivial coverage and make an argument that his participation in the IFAF World Championships qualifies as participation in amateur American football "at the highest level." That's really weak. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It appears that the IFAF World Championship is not only "a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" but it's the highest level of international competition for American football, the American football equivalent of the FIFA World Cup. Why does his participation in that not meet the general standard for athletes? cmadler (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cmadler, those are fair questions to be considered. First, the general notability of the IFAF World Championship itself is suspect. If it is a major international championship, why does it receive virtually no significant independent coverage? Look at the IFAF article sources: all of them are IFAF-related. They fail the independent sources requirement. A current Google News search reveals only a handful of mentions in American and Canadian newspapers, virtually all of which are about a local athlete's participation in the current U-19 tournament, not the senior IFAF World Championship itself.

Second, the IFAF cannot be fairly characterized as a "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" and it certainly is not played by Olympic-caliber athletes. If you read the source documents in the DeWayne Lewis and IFAF World Championships article you will discover that "Team USA" is composed of former Division I FBS, Division I FCS and Division II athletes whose college eligibility has expired, but were not drafted or signed by an NFL team. IFAF is not the American football equivalent of the Olympics, the FINA world swimming championships, the FIFA World Cup, the FIBA world basketball championship, or the IAAF world track and field championships. Amateur athletes at the highest level of competition in American football are playing at the NCAA Division I FBS level, not in the IFAF championship. IFAF participants are not the best of the best. How many All-Americans were on the last IFAF roster, how many first-team all-conference selections from FBS conferences? There is a reason why the standard cited by me and quoted by you include the words "such as the Olympics." This is not the Olympics, and it is not a major international championship. How could it be? No country outside of North America plays American football at its highest level. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the IFAF is not the highest level of international competition (amateur or professional), what is? cmadler (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the US has dominated the sport doesn't alter the fact that the IFAF World Championship is the highest level of international competition in the sport, run by the official international governing body. American football is seeing a growth in popularity internationally, much like women's softball did 15 years ago. That's why guys like Jack Kemp and Roger Goodell have actively promoted the IFAF. While the IFAF World Championship doesn't yet get the level of coverage received by the FIFA World Cup, I suspect the international championships in many sports are no different in the early stages. And if you look at international coverage, it looks like there's actually been a good deal of it. See, e.g., here. Less in the US but see Fox News, New York Times, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, guys, back to basics. Here's the relevant part of the general notability standard for athletes: "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they . . . have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics."

My interpretation of that statement emphasizes different elements than yours. Let's parse the complete sentence. It not only requires participation in "a major international amateur . . . competition," it also requires that such competition be "at the highest level such as the Olympics." Do either of you really want to argue that the level of competition found in the IFAF is equivalent to that of the Olympics? Please note the full sentence does not say "a major international amateur . . . competition at [the] highest level," as if to say the highest available international tournament. It says competition "at the highest level such as the Olympics," which is a discussion of the level of athletic competition of the participants. Those are two very different standards. The highest level of competition and athletic ability in the sport vs. the highest existing international tournament. Based on the argument you are making, I could argue that the participants in the Little League World Series are also notable because the LLWS is the highest international tournament for amateur baseball players. Not quite the same thing, is it? Whereas the participants in the the FIFA, FINA, FIBA and IAAF championships are among the greatest athletes in the world in their respective sports, the IFAF participants clearly are not. Simply because the IFAF is the highest "international competition" for amateur American football does not make it a "competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I might also note that if we apply your proposed interpretation of the general notability standards for athletes to the IFAF World Championship participants, every unknown player of American football from Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and Sweden who ever played in one of the IFAF tournaments is also notable. I, for one, do not look forward to seeing those meaningless stubs on Wikipedia. Again, these are not Olympic-caliber athletes, and we are eroding the general notability standard in order to squeeze one very minor American athlete under the wire. How is that substantially different from saying that every college football player is also notable? Objectively, don't you think every scholarship athlete on the University of Alabama plays amateur American football at a higher skill level than every member of the Australian national team? What, then, makes every member of the Australian IFAF team notable when every member of the Crimson Tide is not? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you should bring up international baseball, since the very best baseball players have always been excluded, initially by the Olympic Games' amateurism rule, and later by MLB's refusal to break to allow pros to compete in the Olympics. In any event, after thinking about it for a while, I'm of the opinion that, although DeWayne Lewis meets the general notability standard for athletes, he is not actually notable and the article should be deleted. Meeting any notability guideline (including GNG) merely creates a presumption of notability, which can always be overridden based on discussion (e.g. this AfD). I'm working somewhat on the principle of jury nullification here, when I say delete. cmadler (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cmadler, I'm not arguing this point because I give a rat's backside one or another what happens to the DeWayne Lewis article. I'm arguing the point because I think there are a series of obvious holes in the notability standards for athletes and sports events, and I am using two of the better informed CFB and NFL project editors to flush out the arguments. When this AfD is over, I hope both of you would be willing to review and support proposed changes to WP:NSPORT, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH and WP:EVENT. I think the standards need to be tightened and clarified regarding college athletes and individual games. That may require that more specific example be incorporated. Personally, I think it is amazingly illogical that a consensus first-team All-American baseball player or an individual NCAA record holder in swimming or track is not presumed to be notable, but the existing notability rules allow us to string together a series of minor sources to construct a Frankenstein monster of marginal notability for a second-tier athlete like Lewis. The sports notability standards really need to be revisited in a global way and more objective bright lines need to be drawn, while still maintaining some degree of flexibility for truly unusual cases. I also think it is entirely appropriate that the CFB and CBB regulars take the lead in making such proposals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, Although we disagree on Lewis, there is much on which we agree. We would all spend less time on AfDs if we had some clearer standards for college football players. I'll give it some thought and post some broader ideas on the CFB talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also; that's why I say that, although I think he meets the notability standard, the article should nevertheless be deleted as non-notable. cmadler (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one is definitely borderline, but the sources look good and it appears there is some good coverage. I could go either way. So I'll go with "keep" :)--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Falmouth, Massachusetts#Education. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Junior High School[edit]

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

Non-notable junior high school. (Created by single-purpose account, no claims of notability.) Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Falmouth, Massachusetts#Education where it is already mentioned. I'm not finding substantial RS coverage for this school. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to Disambiguation page- Lawrence Junior High School (Falmouth, Massachusetts) with redirect to Falmouth, Massachusetts#Education, since district Falmouth Public Schools has not yet been created; Lawrence Junior High School (Fairfield, Maine) [25] to Maine School Administrative District 49; Lawrence Junior & Senior High School (Lawrence, Michigan) [26] to Lawrence, Michigan since Lawrence Public School District has not yet been created; (Clifford J.) Lawrence Junior High School (Las Vegas, Nevada) [27] to List of Clark County School District schools#Middle schools (6-8)]. Coverage for each is routine. Dru of Id (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Falmouth, Massachusetts#Education per normal practice. Already mentioned there. TerriersFan (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 page blanked by author. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Weinberg (soccer)[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician and low-level government functionary with a non-notable past as a soccer player. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a sportsman or a politician. Giant Snowman 15:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notable politician and notable soccer player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olathe Kansas (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you say, but you have provide no evidence to back up such a claim. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since posting the previous comment, the author (Olathe Kansas (talk · contribs)) has twice attempted to blank the page. This may well be taken as an author-requested deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as unambiguous copyright infringement. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V N Maurya[edit]

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

This is a clear autobiography and much of the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. While it could be trimmed (I looked into doing that), there is nothing to show that this individual clears the notability standards of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He indicates that he is on faculty at Shekhawati Engineering Institute, but he is not listed there. Even if he were, being on faculty is not itself notable. I have not found any sign that he clears general notability guidelines, either. As this autobiography is evidently being repeatedly recreated, I think we need to establish whether or not he meets guidelines and either keep and clean or delete and explain to the gentleman in question. Improvement and opinions both welcome. :) Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure he's a fine scientist/researcher, but no evidence of notability presented.JoelWhy (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . I can find no evidence of passing either general notability guidelines or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Note that the url for Shekhawati Engineering Institute above is for the old version of their site. Unfortunately, the new version doesn't list any faculty. He does appear to be on World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology Scientific Committee and Editorial Review Board on Engineering and Physical Sciences [28]. But memberships in such editorial review boards are standard for working academics, and this one appears to be particularly non-selective, with editorial board membership open to anyone with a PhD. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment This is a biography of a living person, but is basically unreferenceable. There are no published reliable sources which are independent of the subject to verify any of the content in the article except perhaps the existence of some of the papers he published, and the fact that he is on the editorial review board of WASET. In fact, there are no published primary sources either, apart from a self-published profile on a dating site [29] and the results of a failed court case he brought against a former employer [30]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sander[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate for Congress, no other claim to notability. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect- Does not meet current guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians; Merge (especially the referenced voting results) to United States House of Representatives elections in Missouri, 2008#District 3, & Redirect, content can be restored if the guidelines change or he later meets those in place. Dru of Id (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep G News shows sufficient references, though I haven't checked them for details. I think that for national positions in a two party system, the losing candidate should also have an article--we could always technically meet WP:GNG, & it would be simpler to just assume it. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CtrlS[edit]

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

Firstly, part of the article is lifted from http://www.varindia.com/July_ftf4.htm. Secondly, the author works for the marketing division of CtrlS, (https://plus.google.com/103025016624124730612/about), and the article appears to be unambiguous advertising. I nominate the article under, WP:CV and WP:ARTSPAM. Gsingh (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the correct source appears to be from here, http://www.iba-banktech.com/2009/supportgroup.htm under the CtrlS entry, which was authored in 2009, well before the creation of this article. Gsingh (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gsingh Kindly please guide me how to write an complete article, i dont know how to insert references properly. If you really believe you need to delete it please do it and write a better one, in that case you will have a good contribution from your end because i believe this article is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivinvarghesemeleadan (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company doesn't seem like it's notable for anything. Just a run of the mill cloud computing company, though probably larger than many. A lot of the sources are press releases, and though some other coverage exists it's not substantial. At best this article will serve as a corporate profile page. SÆdon ^talk 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Adaalat. Yasht101 06:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

List of Adaalat episodes[edit]

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

Mere list of episodes of a not-so-notable TV show. Also unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a directory. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - to Adaalat Yasht101 10:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adaalat. The show may be notable, but the list is not. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:ATD. This is how we handle television episodes, folks: separate list, not merged to the parent show, and with presumed notability since the show is notable. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of notability for Dawson, article fails WP:V and WP:NOHOAXES. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Dawson[edit]

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

I originally prodded this article as a non-notable mixed-martial arts sportsperson. In response, a lot of purported world / national championship medal claims were added. However the links given as sources go nowhere, a Google search for "Marc Dawson judo championship" given show no pertinent results and a quick check of the medal claims in the table show that the medal claims are fake. Travelbird (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Medal winners are listed (see 2010 World Judo Championships and 2011 World Judo Championships) and he is not listed. Same exercise for the other championships also yield a blank.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no evidence of any of the championships he claimed. According to the IJF website and results pages, he wasn't even one of Canada's two competitors in that weight class at either world championship where he supposedly won medals. Astudent0 (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced BLP. My reasearch not only didn't find all the titles claimed, it found evidence that they weren't true. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of LEGO songs[edit]

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

Context is unclear to someone (like me) who doesn't understand what a Lego song is. Notability has not been demonstrated and there are no references. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a list of the theme songs for Lego TV shows.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could probably be speedied since it's a direct copy of this: [31]. In any case, I stand corrected. It's a list of songs from the series as well as from commercials for Lego products/shows. In any case, I'm not really finding notability for this but I'm going to look a little more.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a copyvio - source is CC-by-SA licensed but that should be acknowledged. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that means that it is a copyvio, but that the copyvio could be dealt with. However, I wonder, since you say that the copying "should be acknowledged", why you haven't done so. I will do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: If this is deleted then there's going to be some redirects to take care of, such as Closer to the Truth (song). Just to make any closing admins aware, the same editor has another article that's up for speedy due to copyright concerns and has others deleted for the same reasons.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since none of the songs are nonable it is just trivia. Relevant articles here can provide a link to the same list at Brickpedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not remotely notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irrelevant! Get rid of it! 22dragon22burn (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ridiculous list. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced list of meaningless songs. Normally I'd say maybe list it in it's original article, but I'm not sure it'd mean anything to anyone there either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - as it apparently can't be speedied. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear: not notable, and promotional DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Faulks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent verification of notability. Judging from the history, he article has very likely been written by the subject under several SPA accounts. The "sources" used to cite information are all personally tied to the subject (direct interviews, or to his website). There is no independent verification of sales figures for books, his supposed martial arts training (which according to his interviews borders on the unbelievable), any articles he has written, and he is in no way a "prominent Freemason." What he is, however, is a marketing executive, and he has basically added himself to Wikipedia in exactly that peacocky fashion. I am sure he tried this before and was directly told by the Freemasonry WikProject that what he was doing was unacceptable. As an indication, only one of the first page of GHits is not directly a personal link of Faulks', and the second page is already down to debunking fora and blog mentions. Having now discovered this is AfD #3 for this subject, with two prior deletions and likely no substantive change in the article, I'm updating slightly and requesting a delete and salt. MSJapan (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT: Blatant self-promotion by non-notable individual. Google search turned up no mention in serious independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I declined the speedy and based on the history can clarify that this is not a recreation of the previous deleted articles. There are several new factors to consider; since the last AFD took place in April 2008, for example, Faulks has published 4 books (I haven't checked the self-publishing status though), and has had articles about him in the Daily Mail [32], the Sun [33] and the Metro newspapers[34]. All of these are referenced in the article. In addition, there are brief mentions in the Independent [35] and at least one book. [36] anda further long article about the subject from the Daily Mail that was removed from the article as a reference by the nominator of this article[37] (I will restore it shortly). Whether this is enough for notability isn't clear, but despite the claims above, there clearly are independent reliable sources about his notability that need to be evaluated. For the record, I oppose Salting; this is a relatively young man who has done quite a lot in the last 4 years since the last AFD; even if he does not meet notability requirements now, he may in the future, and I don't consider a new article once every four years inherently disruptive. --Slp1 (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail and the Sun are both tabloids. The stories there are for entertainment-value only. The mentions in the Metro and Independent are brief and unsubstantial, and he is briefly mentioned in the "Acknowledgements" section of the book. As for his books, the "best-selling" one ranks 388,000 on Amazon's sales list. Sorry, but even taken all together, there isn't much to establish notability here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it isn't much. But just because articles are for entertainment value doesn't mean that shouldn't be considered as evidence of notability, even in the Daily Mail (which is a clear step above the Sun as a tabloid). Actually, he wrote the foreword for the book as well as being mentioned in the acknowledgements. Slp1 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I claimed in Afd #2 in 2008 that the top GHits were a website, a blog, some forums, and a LinkedIn profile. That still seems to be the case four years later. The article may have been substantially rewritten, but it has not been substantially referenced to any degree greater than either of the last two AfDs. In both of those other cases, Faulks was creating new users to edit his article. and that seems to be the case again. MSJapan (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, the nature of the top Googlehits is irrelevant for our purposes, as is whether large parts of the article are currently unsourced and who authored this article. (As an aside, I doubt that Faulks is the sole author here, as some fairly critical material has been added at various times.)

What is important for this discussion is whether the guy is notable, and meets the criteria of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Contrary to what you say, the article actually has much better references than in the past, including 4 articles about him in three national newspapers, and a brief mention in another. Here is a further reference, this time from a local newspaper.[38], and another one from the Brazilian media [39]. Let's focus on the discussion at hand, not things from the past. --Slp1 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopelessly promotional, and so are the news articles mentioned above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, and block on sight any new editor trying to recreate it. The new version may be just different enough from the old versions to narrowly escape a recreation-speedy, but there are enough literally identical passages in them to exclude the possibility that they could have been written independently by different individuals, so disruptive self-promotional sockpuppetry is obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I say keep it. He has been on tv a few times over freemasonry including the heaven and earth show. I saw this guy on the Russel Howard show and have followed him ever since. In Norwich we call him the Norfolk ninja and you can buy t shirts with him on :)

Anyway he was in the daily mail a few months ago for his meditation in the snow. I think that makes him notable. If that does not that what does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.50.87 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about I see this man a bit like Norwich Puppet Man who is on wiki after lots of local attention.

Delete This seems to match the examples mentioned in WP:ROUTINE--"bear in tree" or "local man wins award", except this time it's "local man in snow". I don't see the notability of a self-proclaimed ninja. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog Park[edit]

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

Non-notable 500-seat college ball park. I don't think even a redirect is appropriate. ^Bongo_matic 04:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've actually watched a couple of practice games here, but have to agree that, as far as ballparks are concerned, this one is way, way down on the bottom of the notability list. In the same class as a (non-notable) municipal Little League ballpark. Delete per WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Agree that there's nothing worth merging anywhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any evidence that this minor ball park is sufficiently notable to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merge necessary, IMO) to Butler_Bulldogs#Bulldog_Park, which covers the same material in greater depth). -208.81.148.195 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every field in the Horizon League has a Wiki page. Are we going to delete all of them or just this one? — NY-13021 (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles aren't collectibles. That is no rationale to keep. In fact, though, the template is wholly unnecessary as are several at least of the other parks. ^Bongo_matic 22:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasht101 05:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

List of Aquarion Evol episodes[edit]

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

useless plot summary; article far too long. unreferenced. no valuable introduction. RichardMills65 (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove the plot summary. Lists of episodes are fine by themselves; this only needs a fancruft removal. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All notable shows have list articles for their episodes. The episode summaries are a bit long for Wikipedia in its current state. Perhaps a better place for that would be the manga wikia. http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Aquarion_Evol_episodes Dream Focus 16:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:UGLY Trim the plot summary, and rework the top section to include references and it will look better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per the above 3 !voters. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I boldly removed the crufty plot summaries. Since I don't watch this show, anyone who's familiar with it can add brief plot summaries. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of episodes like this are usually split off because the parent article would be too long with them. In the case of this one, the plot summaries have been trimmed and cleaned up. It really looks better than before, but could still use some more references and expansion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed some excess plot info from the parent article, and added a media section with anime and manga. When this is fixed up a short summary should be written as well there as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of episodes rewritten to be as succinct as possible - Exukvera (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.170.194 (talk) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yasht101 16:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Gå upp och pröva dina vingar[edit]

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

Inadequate evidence the song is notable per WP:MUSIC. It was sung in a movie, and is listed in a database, and there are some Youtubes. Edison (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that the song is notable enough for includion in WP. Google search turned up nothing substantial, in English or in Swedish. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of swedens most notable songs.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a doubtful truth to begin with (sure, it's quite well-known, but one of Sweden's most notable songs is a subjective statement) and secondly, that kind of argument isn't particularly constructive - unless there are sources for the statement, it's just an assertion. --bonadea contributions talk 20:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is considered one of Dahlqvist's best-known and most long-lived songs, and is still a very popular sing-along song in Sweden. I have added sources for this information to the article. Another fact which (to my mind) is relevant is the phrase itself, gå upp och pröva dina vingar, which has become an idiomatic expression in Swedish - it was coined in the song. I'll try to find a better reference for that fact before the end of the AfD. Please also note that searching for "upp och pröva dina vingar" yields more hits, since the initial verb isn't always considered part of the title. --bonadea contributions talk 20:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see multiple references to the song by searching the searchboxes of Aftonbladet and Expressen two top evening Swedish papers. These papers typically don't get indexed by Google news. These articles don't confirm all the history themselves, but you can tell its a popular song in Swedish culture.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been much improved since taken to AfD. We're not talking about the same article that was nominated for deletion. /Julle (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An article might be possible, but this clearly promotional content isn't suitable. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Surgical Services[edit]

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

no attempt to provide sources has been made. possible peacocking. RichardMills65 (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 08:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—No notability offered, or can be found. Borderline CSD. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some official references found, but nothing independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reaffirm my delete !vote as requested below. I'd be happy to change to merge if a suitable candidate could be proposed, maybe something on Public–private partnerships in NZ? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response This article from Te Ara might give a stear as to how it could be treated - [[40]] NealeFamily (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Reads like spam. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Health care in New Zealand under a Rural Healthcare heading as part of a more detailed item. NealeFamily (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D WhatWouldYouDoForAKlondikeBar (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (User:WhatWouldYouDoForAKlondikeBar is blocked as a sockpuppet. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I've declined the speedy request as to me at least it isn't blatant promotion. In fact, I can't see any promotion in the wording. (It may have been rewritten - if you !voted early, have another look.) The two refs look OK to me. The New Zealand Medical Journal is independent of both the government and of the company operating (sorry) the bus. The other doesn't look like it belongs to the company, as it's a .gov.nz site. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge per NealeFamily. I'm not finding the independent sourcing needed to establish this as notable. Most of what is found at Google News is from Scoop, which mostly just reprints press releases, according to the Wikilink. The New Zealand Medical Journal is independent and reliable but it's not enough; multiple independent reliable sources are required. Article was recently created by a WP:SPA. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article name smacks of an advertisement. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get that - the title is the name of the company. What else should the article be called? Peridon (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What may be confusing people is the article is written in a promotional tone and needs changing. The Service is part of the NZ Governments Rural Health Service. I don't think there is enough notable about this particular aspect of that service as a stand alone item and hence my recommendation that it be merged into either an article on rural healthcare in New Zealand or a more general healthcare in New Zealand. NealeFamily (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the tone doesn't look promotional. I may be confused, because I read the article as saying that while the company is Health Service funded, it is a "privately owned company". I work mainly in CSD and AfD, and no way would I delete this for promotional tone - or even tag it for someone else to decide about. Possibly merge it into an article on NZ rural health care, but I'm quite happy with it as it stands, despite Melanie's doubts about the amount of coverage. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Health care in New Zealand#Rural_health, also include brief material gleaned from Māori Women's Welfare League, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Delete. The consensus below favors deletion of this content. As an editorial decision, I am declining to set a redirect to dizziness, but if anyone thinks one would be useful, it can be created. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Descendophobia[edit]

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

"Descendophobia" appears to be a neologism coined by a Ukrainian doctor, Dr. Trinus. The term appears solely in his (mainly self-published) work, and on (unreliable) websites. (Googlebooks -only Trinus; book and one non relevant hit [41]; Googlescholar -only Trinus [42]; Googlenews archives 0 hits[43]). It does not appear in any mainstream psychiatric or psychological textbook as a phobia. The article itself is mostly original research; most of the references given do not mention descendophobia, but are included to bolster the existence of a phobia that has not been recognized in the scientific or medical community. WP is not the place to promote this new concept. Slp1 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable (etymologically unspeakable)neologism, references lacking.31.106.30.183 (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism which has not found general acceptance in the field. This term appears to be used by only one person, Dr. Kostiantyn Trinus. The only mention of this term I found at Google Scholar is from a book on Dizziness by Dr. Trinus, which appears to be self-published. I found nothing at all in the peer-reviewed literature. Many of the references provided in this article are by Trinus, including reference #1 which appears to be the main reference supporting the article's thesis (I couldn't tell because the link comes up as "forbidden"). Also possible in lieu of deletion: a merge to Dizziness. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to vertigo or dizzyness. New name for an old condition. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fox War Classics[edit]

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

All of the films are notable, but the DVD release title is not. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The question is whether this collection is notable as a collection (not whether the individual titles are notable -- they are) to anyone outside the Fox home video marketing department. It isn't. For comparison, see Universal Legacy Series (AfD discussion), 20th Century Fox Collector's Edition Series (AfD discussion), The Miriam Collection (AfD discussion), 20th Century Fox Five Star Collection (AfD discussion), Columbia Western Classics (AfD discussion), MGM Movie Legends (AfD discussion), 20th Century Fox Award Series (AfD discussion), Miramax Classics (AfD discussion), MGM Vintage Classics (AfD discussion), MGM Contemporary Classics (AfD discussion), and Universal Western Collection (AfD discussion). Note that all of these are red links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete—I'm not really swayed by the "Other Stuff (Doesn't) Exist" argument, but at the same time, I can't find non-trivial coverage of the series. Using Highbeam Research I did find 10 mentions, but mainly announcements of a new film in the line in "also being released this week" sections of movie reviews. Nothing significant. To SL93, note that Template:Region 1 home video has plenty of fodder for future AfDs if this one closes "Delete" Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. My concern has been addressed to my satisfaction, and the discussion shows that the subject of the article is notable. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 08:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antenarrative[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Essay →Σ τ c. 00:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that it was originally deleted for being original research and lack of notability. Since there are over 350 Google-scholar search results and many articles in top-ranking journals that are NOT by David Boje it was a mistake to delete the page in the first place and the new page is much better sourced for notability. Antenarrative (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Overall this seems to be a very poorly-written article about an actual notable subject, with good references. It needs a major overhaul, possibly even a complete rewrite, in order to meet the Manual of Style, because it doesn't read as an encyclopedia article. That said, it's an encyclopedic topic that has references. So it should be kept, since AfD is not for cleanup, no matter how badly the article needs it. The reason this is a "weak" keep is because I'd be OK if someone wanted to userfy it to get it in shape out of article space. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Author must understand that we have a Manual Of Style here. This not only stomps all over it, it sends it tumbling into the canyon below. That being said, I think the article could be saved. Userfy and have author bring it up to snuff then submit it for review before bringing it back into mainspace. --Manway 00:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed a large portion of the article so that the definition can stay and will keep working on adding it on my user-page. Antenarrative (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep [changed recommendation -- see below]I have to admit I was initially taken in by this article's subtle attempt to present itself as a computer-generated parody of postmodernist nonsense -- a charade ably abetted by appearance in the references of such phrases as To be what it is not and to not-be what it is within the unity of a perpetual referring ([44] -- well worth a look, I assure you). But it turns out the article and its references are, in fact, actual bona fide postmodernist nonsense -- at least that's my working conclusion.

But is it notable nonsense? Well the problem is, that of the references not by Boje himself -- who seems to have invented the subject term -- or by Bakhtin or Derrida -- predating invention of the term -- most or all appeared in journals on whose editorial boards [45] Boje serves (many appear to be alternate titles for the flagship Tamara Journal). So until someone can point to a few independent sources which discuss the term, I'm gonna have to stick with Delete.

EEng (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organization Science is ranked as a top journal and the Vaara, E.; Tienarri 2011 citation from that journal is clearly not by David Boje. If you want to suggest that A top journal in organizational studies is not independent then could you please offer guidelines regarding what sources are acceptable to the Wikipedia community and considered as independent? ^[2] ^[3]. Antenarrative (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That's one independent source using the term Antenarrative. Any others? BTW, your username suggests you joined WP for the purpose of promoting this concept -- that's a no-no WP:COI. But maybe your actual purpose is to [46]enroll stakeholders in intertextual ways that transform the world of action into theatrics; [though] at the same time the antenarratives never quite get there -- and if so my apologies. EEng (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boje is not on the board of Communication Studies, Barge, J.K. (2004). Grow 2008 "The Gender of Branding: Early Nike Women's Advertising as a Feminist Antenarrative" is in the journal Women's Studies in Communication, also independent of Boje. Also, the book "Antenarrative and narrative: the experience of actors involved in the development and use of information systems" by Drevin, L. and Dalcher, D. (2011) is a book and again independent of Boje. Further, being an editor of a blind, peer reviewed, journal does not mean the articles fail to be independent. Antenarrative (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes thoughts are complex, just because you don't understand what something means doesn't mean that there's nothing there to understand. A similar argument can be made regarding research in communications-network-theory, with similar parody engines being available for that subject. Over all, though, the mainstream of organizational scholarship has cited and utilized the concept of antenarrative on a fairly regular basis. Antenarrative (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted, whether this stuff be or not-be nonense is not-be the question -- the question be whether it be or not-be notable nonsense. I see you've added some refs to the article. Why don't you do this: add a section taking your sentence above -- the mainstream of organizational scholarship has cited and utilized the concept of antenarrative on a fairly regular basis -- as its lead. Then weave am infra- (or if you prefer, post-) narrative deconstruction of incorporative scholarly referring i.e. trace briefly prominent uses of the concept, excluding those by its originators or those closely associated with its originators. That would establish notability without the rest of us having to exceed EPA-recommended limits for annual exposure to Derrida. EEng (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The EPA recommends avoidance of ALL exposure to Derrida, but a total life-time exposure of less than two pages may "keep you within the realm of the sane". But that doesn't change notability standards. Note I responded directly to your request for a few independent sources and have updated the page to include 8 of such sources: so lets change your vote :-). Antenarrative (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You efforts have been not for naught -- new not-vote not-be not-keep. But please, can you do something to make the article sound less like parody? I really was very close to adding the ((hoax)) template. EEng (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if rewritten, I note that Antenarrative has also edited as IP:174.28.98.75 located in New Mexico so I suspect that s/he either is Boje (who has a history of editing his own articles) or someone closely connected. Ideally you would want this written by a third person as there is a potential WP:COI. That said ant-narrative is an important concept in narrative work, it is most closely linked with Boje and it deserves an entry. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk pages for my self disclosure. Dave Snowded, himself, is notable within the field Antenarrative (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
^ "UTD Ranking".
^ "FT Top 45".

Keep—I'm finding that Boje's work is being used in other studies. I found several cases of academic papers using this technique, for example Sliwa, Martyna; Cairns, George. Culture & Organization, Mar2007, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p73-82, 10p, 1 Chart; DOI: 10.1080/14759550601167321 and Durant, R., Gardner, C., & Taylor, K. (2006). Indexical Antenarratives as Invitational Rhetoric. TAMARA: Journal Of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 5(3/4), 174-182. These are just the first two hits in an academic journal search that returned 100+ entries. I've not culled through them all to see if they're all legitimate hits, but the first few are enough to convince me. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this notion is used by many different scholars and is a term popular in critical management studies/storytelling organization studies. I would, however, suggest wikifying the content more. Pundit|utter 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of meeting notability under WP:GNG nor WP:ACTOR. Note, however, that the IMDB listing in the article at the time this was nominated, precluded tagging BLPPROD, see WP:BLPPROD#Nominating. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Cheshire[edit]

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

unsourced BLP, short on content. questionable content. RichardMills65 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's played mainly small roles, and hasn't had significant/any independent press coverage. The only info I can find is promotional content from Sky TV[47]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Next time, a WP:BLPPROD would probably do, but since we're here... no coverage found, seems to have had a lot of small-ish parts, but without RS to back it up, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus to delete. I cannot myself work on sourcing for this, DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Achiyahu HaKohain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Achiyahu HaKohain

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

seems to be unimprovable in present state, no clue as to who the Biography is referring to in English sources, and no support given from Hebrew source listed In ictu oculi (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have today, after relisting here found a source and verified spelling of the name (moved to Akhiyahu HaKohen). This may make the article salvageable. But it requires some input/assistance from the creator of the stub. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Likoudis[edit]

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

Has had a few minor roles in Australian television but no notable roles. There is no significant discussion of him in secondary sources; only an imdb page and extremely brief mentions in casting credits. Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines of WP:NACTOR. Chillllls (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having significant coverage in independent third party sources as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—No coverage found, non-notable, fails BIO and GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robert Muller. History will be left intact given the interest in merging. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of the World[edit]

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

This book does not appear to meet the notability criteria for inclusion, especially the criteria for books. The sources provided are either self-published, not reliable or give insignificant coverage of the book. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as author and as an inclusionist of more knowledge, for a more open Wikipedia. Article existing since July 2011. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to this same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classics Illustrated Special Issue: The United Nations PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert Muller. Not enough independent coverage to warrant its own article. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'm liking this, especially by analogy to Anno Domini 2000 – A Woman's Destiny. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not compare the two - Anno Domini at least has a claim to notability as the alleged first NZ sci-fi story - something I'm going to look into - but this doesn't have any similar claim. Also other things have articles isn't really an argument for keeping this article -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 10:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert Muller as its own section of that article. The book's notability is mostly inherited from Muller, but it's unusual for someone with his background to write a novel of this sort, so it's not WP:UNDUE to give it a significant place in his article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge—Makes sense. Not seeing coverage of the novel as its own entity all coverage is about the novel being authored by Muller. In other words, the novel is only notable because of its author. However, I agree that the novel is unique, so a merge (with redirect intact) makes sense. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how notable Muller himself was - does an assistant secretary-general meet the criteria? That's a separate issue which I will look into shortly, but I'm not sure that merging the content would be much use, beyond a short 1-sentence mention in the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's merge it over (I think that there is enough to be merged), then let's try to improve Muller's article, and if that doesn't work, you can take Muller's article to AfD also.

I'd be curious to know what you thinks is merge-worthy. The "dedication" section isn't relevant (other than a mention that his wife was an intern at the UN - the section on ECOSOC and Eleanor Roosevelt isn't relevant to Muller's article); the "characters" section is too much detail for Muller's article; likewise, the "Plot" section - the only possibly mergeable bits are the lede and possibly the "Analysis" section. Looking at WorldCat, I see that 5 United States libraries on there hold the title (Alibris, Ashford University Library, Library of Congress, University of North Carolina, Wilmington, Washington County Cooperative Library Services) and two libraries in Lebanon (LAU Libraries, Notre Dame University - Louaize) - choosing another book at random, Ronald Numbers' Galileo goes to jail (which doesn't have its own article) is held by 1129 US Libraries, 14 UK libraries, 21 Australian libraries, 4 UAE libraries... - from what I can see, approx 1258 libraries world wide hold this non-notable book - as opposed to a total of 7 libraries worldwide which have 'First Lady of the World' in their collection - this includes local libraries in many countries (for example, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" is shown as being held by London Borough of Croydon Libraries, although individual library stocks are not shown). Looking at Google, I can find coverage of this book at book websites, social media sites, etc - nothing to indicate that it is significant, and nothing in newspapers or in scholarly works. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider to keep the article instead of merge. It is the first novel for a woman United Nations Secretary General. Assumptions that Robert Muller was not notable are unfounded. A brief look at his website - would show he was extraordinary. Please allow more time to add appropriate information and citations to this entry.Kaczdan (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dug North[edit]

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

This article is about an artist with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability, nor does there appear to be anything to meet WP:ARTIST. The artist's web site lists being in an extra feature for the Blu-ray release for the movie Hugo, but that falls well short of what is needed to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ARTIST. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2012 (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, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I tried to clean up the article some (if only for other AfD'ers to make some sense of it) but I fear it's for nothing... he seems totally non-notable. The claims in the article are either not evidence of notability, or unverifiable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Score the Goals[edit]

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

This does not appear to meet the general notability criteria or the criteria for books. All the sources are either not reliable, not independent or provide insignificant coverage. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as author and as an inclusionist of more knowledge, for a more open Wikipedia. Article existing since July 2011. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT B music ian 07:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to this same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classics Illustrated Special Issue: The United Nations PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:40, 24 April 2012 (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, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Article is almost entirely sourced to UN or UN-committee websites, the pure definition of WP:SPS. Searching is complicated by it being a fairly common phrase, but the only relevant mentions I could find were similarly sourced back to the UN (reprints of press releases, etc.). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google searches for ("score the goals" "millennium development") and for ("score the goals" "comic book") turned up no evidence of significant coverage by reliable independent sources. The closest things that I found to such coverage were an article in the Manila Bulletin, whose style and content suggest that it's based on a press release; and a capsule review of a STG-based app at a Guardian blog. To me, this clearly fails WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Mazon[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the references, only one mentions Ricardo Mazon, and that one does no more than include his name in a list. (PROD contested with no explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence that he is notable, even if his business is. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2012 (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, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Wow, even my subscription-based sources come up empty. I'd say merge anything relevant back into Megacable. Since this is a BLP, the sourcing really should be immaculate and this...isn't. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

El conchitas[edit]

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

Decined BLPPROD on marginal external links added. There's also two sources apparently available for an Elena Bottici who... I could easily be a different musical artist, at least I didn't see (on spot checks) overlaps in the album/song names. [48], [49]. Otherwise? Some self-published sources, some routine event promos, but I didn't see anything that would go toward WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. Additional sources welcome, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I even checked a couple dance music publications (Mixmag and The Word and came up empty. Not notable, at least not yet. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BLPSOURCES. Probable WP:COI and promotion. No in-line sources provided. External links are mostly promotional announcements or "was there" or "performed" without evidence of notability. Web searches found nothing significant. DocTree (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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