< 22 April	24 April >

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Yu Chun[edit]

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

Delete. While I'm sure there are those who disagree, this is yet another classic example of WP:BLP1E. This person is not otherwise notable. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if Lin Yu Chun is the winner of Super Star Avenue if so then that makes him notable otherwise Delete per WP:BLP1E Dwanyewest (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't; he got voted off. But then again, neither did Tiffany in the 1985 Star Search (I can't even find out who the winner was; they're not notable.) However, in this case, he's not notable because of his participation on the show (there are many contestants on such shows). He's notable because of the youtube video, the resulting media coverage, Dolly Parton even praising his performance, and then the major television appearances, including a duet with William Shatner. S-1-5-7 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's BLP1E in English, but he did[1] win that reality show (sources probably non-english), so that's two. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which reality show are you claiming he won? The article explicitly states that he was voted off. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 23:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems more like two-events, what with the William Shatner duet now... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Do the notability criteria for musicians apply to pop-singers and "internet music sensations" (as the BBC calls this young man)? Does "Has won or placed in a major music competition" include reality TV-programmes of the "American Idol" type? Has he in fact "had a single or album on any country's national music chart"? (in this case, presumably, Taiwan's). The link given by Peregrine Fisher provides news stories about him by the BBC, Daily Mail, Christian Science Monitor, etc. etc. - would this satisfy "multiple non-trivial published works"? Those are three distinct criteria he might meet. Does he, in fact, meet them? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. He won a national talent contest, and has since performed on two programs in the USA. He has had significant 3rd-party coverage - he has been written up in the UK's Daily Mail and has been profiled on the US CBS network. References were present in the article at the time it was AfD'd - it never should have been nominated. PK T(alk) 15:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but it seems like person is notable enough for an article. He appeared on 2 major TV shows (the Lopez Tonight and The Ellen DeGeneres Show), including doing a duet with William Shatner. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here as there were multiple events that are all linked (i.e., the TW singing contest, the youtube video popularity, the resulting media coverage, and then the TV appearances).S-1-5-7 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthering that it's not just one event, I just saw the latest "Super Star Avenue" and he was invited back as a special guest singer, where he sang "My Heart Will Go On". S-1-5-7 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be helpful to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle for rationale which may also apply to this article. - Brian Kendig (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appeared on two major shows, definitely a notable person.--Jerrch 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not one event apparently, and has shown up in Chinese media (in particular, said talent show as well as several news segments on both entertainment and current news shows), as well as Western media (as stated above). Pasonia (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but Lin is obviously relevant and notable enough to be worthy of an entry. I'll never understand the fanatical zeal with which deletionists try to cull Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.134.153 (talk • contribs)

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and not really a BLP1E case, so no good reason to delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/16/newsmakers-21/ David V Houston (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palli-panchashika[edit]

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

Deprodded. I originally prodded for: Original research and no WP:RS for this pesudo BLP. It's been expanded upon and only gotten worse. It appears to be about a book, or maybe about the author. Searching for the title yeilds nothing relevant (and barely anything at all) for both books and web search. Shadowjams (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is total garbage, we're not a dumping ground. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unceertain I gather this is a particular work of literature--I gather it is a descriptive lyric poem of a particular type called a Khandakavya (about which we do not seem to have an article). The present article is an analysis of the poem: a detailed description, with some commentary. For all I know, the poem might or might not be notable, but I don;t see how the description of it can be called nonsense -- if it is by any chance famous poem, and the source for the commentary can be found, it would be an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. No. Unsalvageable. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 23:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect, this may highlight the fundamental differences between DGG and many others here regarding unsalvageable articles. I think that AfD is about articles not topics, and as articles go, this one is completely useless, nor does it appear to be useful scaffolding for someone to build on. Shadowjams (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It really does look unsalvageable. Google returns no relevant results for "Palli-panchashika" or "Acharya Manmohan". — Rankiri (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

google does not strike me as a usable source for modern sanskrit poetry. JB, please answer my argument. Does the fact that the article has been written poorly mean the subject is unacceptable? What steps have you or the nom taken to see in appropriate sources if it is perhaps a notable poem? DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how you look at it, zero results on Google seems fishy. Google indexes pages in all languages, including Sanskrit^[2], and Google Books contains dozens of works on the subject^[3]. Besides, we still need at least some form of verification, don't we? — Rankiri (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsalvageable essay/opinion/analysis of some literary work. Edison (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article with literary importance.google has a little stock of information about the modern sanskrit poetry. The Panchashikaa type of Poetry is very famous particularly in Sanskrit like Choura-panchasika. secondly the Pallipanchasika of Vanikavi Manmohan acharya is a monumental work and about 3 scholars are engaged in doctoral research in pallipanchasika. This article will add a new feather to the cap of wikipedia.prof.p.k.mishra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.p.k.mishra (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 redirect to Electronics. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic device[edit]

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

This is just a wp:dictdef to me. There's a 1:1 debate on the talk page whether to (re)instate this as a redirect to electronics. Listing at AfD (D as in "discussion") for more input on whether a standalone article is justified or not. Pcap ping 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Electronic component; perhaps renaming to Electronic devices and components. Both are linked as "Main articles" from the same section of the Electronics article. This article could easily be turned into a list of Electronic devices, so I don't think a delete is needed.—RJH (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect. The electronics article already has rather more information. This article has only a few vague sentences so directing our readers from the electronics page to this page is really not very helpful to them. SpinningSpark 01:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to electronics. There is nothing to expand this dicitonary definition beyond what would be covered in electronics. -- Whpq (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to electronics per Whpq. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after a little pause, because speedy deletions should be done slowly, with a bit of care ;-). Hoaxes are generally only speedy deleted if they are absolutely implausible, with outlandish claims, perhaps directly contradicting common knowledge. Mere lack of Google hits is not sufficient to make the hoax "blatant" or "obvious"; a hoax can by definition never meet the verifiability criteria and will always be deleted sooner or later anyway. The main reason for the caution in deleting suspected hoaxes is that there can easily be false positives where an obscure topic is wrongly labelled a hoax, or where the trouble is merely an incorrect title.

Nonetheless, I have decided to close this discussion and delete the articles because

There appears to be a strong consensus for it.
There have already been several eyes on it.
A real album where the producers paid to use well-known titles such as "Avatar", "Bionicle", or "Artemis Fowl", will almost certainly try to sell the album; and links to commercial websites where the album is sold should be easy to find. The probability of these albums being merely obscure is, for all intents and purposes, zero.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Album[edit]

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

Does not appear to exist: [4] returns only this Wikipedia article. Nothing about it appears at the articles for the blue-linked contributors. No indication of publisher, etc. Probable hoax. I42 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to have been speedy deleted about a week and a half ago by criteria A9. Same user recreating. Verbally Insane 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same problems for Bionicle: The Album [5] and Artemis Fowl: The Album [6] created by the same editor. Adding:

to the nomination. I42 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and block creator. All blatant hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all. WP:G3. WP:A7. — Rankiri (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and then perma-block the creator and the underlying IP address from ever creating an account again. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 23:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Editor seems to be a vandal carpeting WP with hoax articles.--Darius (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - and article has been tagged as CSD G3. --Darkwind (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woods of Ypres[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. PROD was contested. I can't find RS on a quick google search, beyond gig listings and promo stuff Ged UK 20:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as per nom: didn't find any RS; as per Ironholds: fails WP:MUSIC--Kudpung (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being reviewed repeatedly in a national music magazine, Exclaim!, is an indication of notability (and is pretty good for a metal band who release their own albums). I've added several citations to Exclaim!. Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND; This article meets the first Criteria for musicians and ensembles "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.". References are listed in the article. Andy14and16 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group's had enough coverage from Canadian press outlets to pass WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; also as having toured; easily passes WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BAND, see also bravewords.com (BW&BK).--Cannibaloki 13:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a good sized paragraph from Chicago Daily Herald, article "Sonic wonders of 08" (was number 3). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BAND and seemingly WP:GNG as well. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvass for a Cause[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. The author of the only secondary source may be affiliated with the organization: [7]. Regardless, the source reads like a press release and is hosted by GLTNewsNow.com, "a daily news-blogging site". I don't see any additional secondary coverage at all: [8]. — Rankiri (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. The GLTNN articles read like rehashed press releases. And there is no coverage aside from the two article from GLTNN. All of the other references in the article are referenced to their own site or facebook. - Whpq (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. This one-year-old organization does not seem to have garnered any news coverage at all. The links are mostly to its own website and to facebook. That's what turns up on a Google search too - along with help-wanted ads. Maybe the organization will become more notable in the future, but it's not there now. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - xyxyboy, the lone defender of the page, is in fact its executive director. The article in the GLT is a reprint of a press release, and it is full of factual inaccuracies. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.133.195 (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Closing this par WP:SNOW. No claim to notability, Purely promotional and a CoI editor. I see no reason to keep this listed for another 7 days. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure + simple[edit]

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

I have declined this speedy deletion, as I feel the article may possibly have some merit - it's not blatant advertising. However, I'm not sure if it passes notability requirements set out at WP:N. The creator seems happy to work with people to make the article better. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a shred of notability even claimed, let alone proved. Pure sales talk. And given the article creator's name is Pure+simpleBeautyInc (talk · contribs), the chances of their being around to help -- since they're going to be blocked at WP:UAA Real Soon Now -- is about nil. --Calton | Talk 20:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spamvertisment by COI editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing about them except their own website, clearly not notable enough for an article yet.Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 explanation of my rationale for this closure is on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kontras[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfDs closed as no consensus. I was the admin who closed the recent second nomination. I would have left it at that for a while, but Adam has recently contacted me asking that it be relisted for discussion in the hopes that a firm consensus may be found. This is a procedural nomination; I have no opinion regarding the retention or deletion of the page at this time. Shimeru (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. From the last discussion:

According to WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. [9], [10], and [11] are all tertiary sources of dubious reliability. The book is self-published; it particularly admits that its content "should not be used a substitute for independent verification". The latter source seems to contain some factual inaccuracies: its claim that the term "vlog" was "coined around 2004" conflicts with the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, which indicates that the term was actually coined in 2002. A couple of sentences is not significant coverage, particularly in a book. According to WP:RS, tertiary sources should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. These sources are certainly not good enough for WP:REDFLAG. It's also entirely possible that they used this very same article as their primary source of information.

[12] is a blog with a single mention of the subject. The blog refers to the so-called "interview" ([13]) that doesn't interview the subject at all. It fails WP:VUE and only shows about 20 seconds of video footage that seems to have been taken from the subject's video blog. [14] is a performance announcement in a local student newspaper^[15] that has some coverage on the subject but not on the discussed claim. The references in the Early Show, YouTube and Atom.com only link to the subject's video submissions. [16] (translation) and ([17]translation) only have very superficial coverage of the above YouTube video. [18] doesn't cover the subject directly. Being the first first video blogger ever would probably make the subject notable, but so far the claim hasn't been supported by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment' FWIW, see the relevant section in Barbara Ann . whether this is enough for notability is something about which I have no idea. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant references from Barbara Ann#Parodies: [19], [20], [21]. Two of them link to YouTube-like video sharing websites and 4tvs.com is the subject's website. — Rankiri (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I just noted on Shimeru's talk page, I don't believe that it was actually Adam Kontras who requested another AfD be opened. Rather, I believe it was Charles Groves (the vandal from the previous AfD) operating User:Adam kontras as a sockpuppet account, which also happens to be impersonating a living person. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please mention when you have a clear confict of interest. Not only were you the author and one of the main contributors to the article, Google shows that you have a close relationship with the subject as well: [22]. From the subject's blog: So Gordon P. Hemsley, singer extraordinaire, started cleaining up my code. . . . His reason for doing this? 'Cause he can. He has never asked for a dime, and all I can tell him is that when I can - he's my first hire.^[23](cache) From Gordon P. Hemsley's (GPHemsley's) YouTube channel: Those in this group are curious as to the events happening to one Adam Kontras. Their support only implies they read it, not that they wish him well. In fact, most people are curious as to just how Adam will continually fail on a larger and larger scale... but they keep reading and watching the videos at 4tvs.com.^[24](cache) — Rankiri (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuse me of whatever you want. You're still missing the point. I've pretty much taken myself out of the debate over whether Adam Kontras is notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. There is a bigger issue here, in that Adam is being harassed and now impersonated by the same person who wound up instigating AfD #2 because of his repeated vandalism: Charles Groves. As such, AfD #3 was filed on a completely inaccurate basis (though I agree with Outback the koala below that it was in good faith).—Gordon P. Hemsley→✉

Delete self-promotion straining every possible resource to demonstrate notability. If good quality sources aren't readily apparent, then it clearly fails. Self-published books and sound-byte length mentions do not indicate notability. Merriam-Webster pretty much puts to rest the idea that this guy was the first at anything. Rklawton (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, notable to me. (per Shimeru this relist was unnecessary, but I think it was in good faith) I believe he passes WP:BIO under the criteria for Creative professionals. Outback the koala (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Shimeru, I am in the process of contacting the FBI in a cyber-stalking case with Charles Groves. He is the one who contacted you, not me. I'm more than exhausted however that no one here takes even a moment to do a tiny bit of research on the matter. You can see from the previous deletion that "Adam4tvs" was blocked and I was given a new username: Adam Kontras. Charles took the name Adam kontras with a lower case to impersonate me and continue to harass me. Please close this and let it come up on it's own merits. If there was no consensus last week, there will be no consensus this week. More time has to pass.Adam Kontras (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that the article is good enough to be kept. And adding in the other considerations and problems that have been raised in this discussion, I feel even more strongly that this article should be left alone for now so it can be improved. Silver seren^C 19:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also some pretty good sources on a Google News search. Silver seren^C 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please recall WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and take a look at the last AfD. Did you find any solid WP:RS sources that can prove the claim? Or do you disagree with the analysis of the available sources? — Rankiri (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate sourcing, in my opinion. Passes WP:BIO. Agree with Silver seren^C - let's put this issue to rest and let the article undergo normal Wiki development. Evalpor (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is an interesting debate, and one that we could rehash for years it seems. There will always be more evidence to be found one way or another. I have spent the last several hours searching for any information on the 'first video blogger' status. There is remarkably little information to be found supporting the subjects claim as first, outside of the subjects own sites, this Wikipedia entry, and people that quote these things as their sources of the subjects claim. This entire issue may not be a noteable one. There does exist much debate on who the first non-video blogger was however, but this too is an impossible thing to prove, hence the reason for the extended debate on that topic. There is no consensus on who the first 'regular blogger' is. Looks to be that the subject of the article has claimed the title 'worlds first video blogger' himself. The reason for lack of notability is that it seems video blogging when established was not a noteable issue, or someone of note would have noticed and written about it.

Next issue, while the CBS claim and references are valid, this does not seem to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notablility as was discussed in the second AFD debate. One show, one movie, one mention does not cut it. Cannot count each appearance, or mention as verification of noteability. One cannot simply believe themselves notable, others must feel that they are. Further, the article states things like 'with his characters appearing as the Egos on the sets of such shows as The Price is Right[12] and The Young and the Restless[13]' this seems a clear attempt to lend credibility to the article, and the subject himself, where it does not belong. The subject did not host these programs or appear in the cast of said programs, was not in the credits, therefore this is irrelevant to the subject, and the article; as well as being related to the single possibly noteable event, being that of the CBS appearances. And as discussed, that one single program segmant cannot stand on its own as establishment of notability.

I agree totally with Rklawton this is pure self promotion. Someone trying to be famous for trying to be famous. Netitude (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC) — Netitude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I disagree that this page is pure self-promotion. Sufficient sources have been listed. In addition, the last nomination for deletion closed just a few days ago with no consensus (default keep), and the only reason this is being brought up again is because someone brought it to Shimeru's attention out of a personal vendetta against Adam. The page has not changed since the last debate, so why rehash it again? Shouldn't a Wikipedia editor use some common sense and do a little research before putting up a deletion nomination? This sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia, because it allows anyone to play havoc with the encyclopedia. Impersonating another Wikipedia user and tricking an editor to nominate a page for deletion is the equivalent of mindlessly defacing a page.--Bradcwriter (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC) — Bradcwriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The most recent reason for this nomination is deplorable. The entry has not changed for the better or worse since closure of the last debate. Sources are verifiable, and entry is notable as per resources and references available and noted. Since page was permitted to stand on it's own merits at the last closure of debate, leave the page as is; as it was at the closure of the last AfD.7ObFuScAtoR7 (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)7ObFuScAtoR7 — 7ObFuScAtoR7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Verifiability of the sources has nothing to do with their quality, and significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. Aside from the unsupportable claim of being the first Internet video blogger in the history of the world, the subject hasn't received any nontrivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Limeisneom (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Worthing[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Trivial coverage only. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marokwitz (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article comes seriously close to having no content. There is no indication in the article as to why this person is notable, and there is no coverage that I can find that would establish any notability. Her acting career shows no indication of significant roles. -- Whpq (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ENT. Hekerui (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made the article prettier, but all I can find for this actress are listings in multiple books... that although they might WP:Verify her roles, there is nothing of substance nor anything that might show her roles as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah McCann[edit]

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

A minor actor who does not appear to satisfy either WP:BASIC or WP:ENTERTAINER, according to my searches. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What searches are those please? --Zarutian (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Web, News and book searches for "Jeremiah McCann," both independently and with the "Edison Twins," which was a fairly well-known show up here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "Not Yet". His career does not reflect meeting WP:ENT, though this might change with time. I found two news articles[25] but they were about a different person by this name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ramada Tropics Resort and Conference Center[edit]

Result: delete (non-admin closure). Closing the AfD discussion as the article has been deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

spam article, article reads like a brochure for the hotel. Lacks credible claims of notability. Claim of "only indoor waterpark in Des Moines" isn't very notable. RadioFan (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficent research done by AfD tagger. That you claim you dont find credible sources doesnt mean that arent any. Seems to be a stub written by a novice wikipedia editor. --Zarutian (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Creator and only editor of the article appears to be the hotel's PR firm.--RadioFan (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It seems to me like RadioFan put forth a reasonable effort to meet the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE. If you believe there are additional sources out there, Zarutian, please direct us to them. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What other wikipedia articles linked to this article before "What links here" page got poluted by autoreferencing of articles tagged AfD? If there are any then replace those references with a outgoing link to the hotels website and then delete this page. --Zarutian (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After clicking "What links here" you can use drop-down lists at the top of the page to select articles only. The answer is that no article pages link to this. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ad agency spam for non-notable company; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have speedied had it not been for the articles in the local paper, just wanted to make sure. Definitely nothing worth keeping here.--RadioFan (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any notability, nothing different from a thousand other hotels. Wikipedia is not a hotel listing directory. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was being overcautious here. Shouldn't have wasted everyone's time with the AFD. The creator has been blocked for spam and the article has been marked for speedy deletion. RadioFan (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing AfD discussion as the article has been deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Wickel[edit]

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

He was mostly a minor league figure, so he may not be notable enough for an article. He does have a couple things going for him: he managed for a while, leading a couple of teams to league championships and he also served as a scout. You decide whether he stays or goes. Alex (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it then with the article on minor league figures --Zarutian (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added about 12 sources to the article. I believe that his managerial duties, which are professed in the news far more than his actual baseball playing career, give him enough significant coverage to be notable. Silver seren^C 19:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think his being in the Pennsylvania Hall of Fame, along with the various other references, are enough to get the article over WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 8 reliable sources, most of them giving him significant coverage - seems like it meets WP:GNG to me. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really see significant coverage of this man, since the mentions seem to be in local papers in the places where he happened to be at the time. Being inducted by the Berks County chapter of the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame is not inherent notability under any standard. He's one of 562 enshrinees in Pennsylvania [26], which has 28 chapters that nominate local favorites. In terms of fame, it's on the level of being "Rotarian of the Year" in one's local Rotary Club. Mandsford (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hall of fame player - 'nuff said. Props to User:Silver seren for his good hard work on this. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Album" does not exist outside of Rapidshare, an illegal download site.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration (FCJ Megamix)[edit]

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

I don't even know what this is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A CD track listing is not an encyclopedia article. Emily Jensen (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even convinced this actually exists, as any sort of official release. A quick Google just turned up Rapidshare links, so my guess is this is a fan-made mix or something equivalent. Any release by Madonna, even an import-only, promo-only, or other rarity, would have some presence outside the file-sharing folks. Not to be confused with Celebration (Madonna album), a legitimate and very successful compilation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it does exist, it fails WP:GNG by some margin. I also agree with Emily - if it's going to be kept it needs far more than just a list of songs. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the album does not exist.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a megamix might achieve notability, but for this article there is no explanation of who or what FCJ is. Since this megamix has not been mentioned anywhere outside of file sharing sites, it is likely to be an unauthorized vanity project by an amateur. Note that the article's reference to AllMusic is bogus too. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please close per WP:SNOW. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Cordell[edit]

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

This is Omer Cordell. I would like this article to be voted for deletion. I don't understand why there is an article about me here. Please delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.92.87 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Cordell (1st nomination). Ty 18:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I have no way to authenticate this request (he should have emailed OTRS for that) -- there does appear to be a lack of non-trivial/substantial coverage from reliable third party sources. Delete on that basis alone. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assuming in good faith that the request is authentic. I suggest Omer emails OTRS to verify though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe you guys could tell him how to send the e-mail you are talking about? As in, what is the actual e-mail address? We tend to assume too much here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above--including WP:N. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. as adequately explained in the discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heroes of the Russian Federation (S)[edit]

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

Proposed article for deletion. Notability under question, list quality seems like a stub, no one is never going to support the list in actual state in English wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.105.129.139 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also: Category:Lists of Heroes of the Russian Federation. — Rankiri (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What does the '(S)' in the article title indicate? I don't have a problem with a list like this, but this appears to be redundant to List of Heroes of the Russian Federation. Is this some kind of content fork? TJRC (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge I was wondering the same as TJRC but the members of this list are inherantly notable. In western terms recipients of the aware have got the equivalent of the Victoria/George cross or the Congressional Medal of Honour or the Legion of Honour. Obviously only one list is necessary though. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge). The "(S)" refers to the first letter of the honorees' surnames. This article, like everything else in Category:Lists of Heroes of the Russian Federation except for the main article, is transcluded into List of Heroes of the Russian Federation, possibly to avoid the hassle of editing an extremely large page. Emily Jensen (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems that someone not knowledgable enough about the subject matter had tagged due to sophomoric "I dont know nor care what this is about because I dont know it" attitude. --Zarutian (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, not merge As Spartaz mentions, all Heroes of the Russian Federation are notable. If one looks at List of Heroes of the Russian Federation they have been transcluded by letter (see Category:Lists of Heroes of the Russian Federation) in order to try and prevent it from appearing in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded; this is something that is on my to do list, as is eventually getting this up to some sort of standard where it can be taken to WP:FL...say, anyone opining here could do one redlink, it would get the ball rolling on getting rid of those. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - it looks like the nom may have had the same confusion I gave voice to in my above comment. Given the explanations (thank you, Emily Jensen and Russavia), this is a clear and speedy keep. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Lynx[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced and distinctly promotional biography. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: ((subst:spa|username))

Delete. WP:BLP Seems as if page was made by the person themself. Her body of work is not significant. Rusto2 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only three edits, all in this discussion. Perhaps the editor needs to log in? Dlohcierekim 19:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)— Rusto2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. WP:BLP with grossly inadequate sourcing. Emily Jensen (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~. That an article is in bad shape, which is the argument being made here, is not a reason to delete it. If a person isn't notable, an article can be deleted while a bad article on a notable person needs to be improved. Claudia Lynx is clearly notable, she played one of the lead roles in Legion of the Dead (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0441041/) and Lady Magdalene's (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0783538/), alongside numerous appearances in tv-seriers and advertisements. She is clearly no Angelina Jolie by any stretch of immagination, but certainly notable.Jeppiz (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, those are not reasons that fall upon wikipedia guidelines for notability. By this logic every aspiring actor/model in Hollywood (and were talking about millions) would have a wikipedia page. Those are not credible movies, they are not even run of the mill. "Legion of the Dead" and "Lady Magadalene" I don't think anyone has ever heard of, meaning they were probably extremely low-budget independents that failed to gain distribution, the level of which is something any struggling actor can claim participation. She did not have the "lead" as you claim in Lady Magdalene either....though these films are so small and lacking of notability that it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Minor guest spots on an episode of a TV show over 10 years ago do not make a person notable either. There are countless more individuals who have made more prominent guest spots and to a greater frequency and no one would think to give them a wikipedia page.

Having looked into the matter a bit more, I tend to agree. As it happens, I saw Legion of the Dead (extremely bad movie btw) and thought it to be more widespread than it appears to be. Having looked into the matter, I withdraw my keep-vote.Jeppiz (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kmehrabi (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the present state of the article, but whether the coverage in WP:RS necessary to meet WP:NOTE and WP:BLP exists at all. Many people have tried to find such references, and have been unsuccessful. IMDB entries do not, by themselves, establish notability. Emily Jensen (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are good reviews (but possibly not Wikipedia approved ones) of her performance in Legion, along with her 'opponent' Courtney Clonch. This is a lot more than can be said about the film itself.... To call it a 'B' movie is, by many accounts, an upgrading. Her part 'opposite Martin Sheen' doesn't get mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and therefore is probably minor. (Open to reliable correction.) On the whole, I don't think there is very much of note in her career so far. She probably needs a lucky break to live down the association with Legion. I wish her luck in getting that break. If someone can come up with some good references for achievements, I'll consider coming down off this fence. Peridon (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. WP:BLP Simply an unsourced self-promotional piece. The sources are a personal website, a MySpace page, and an IMDB, anu LA unknown wannabe actor can get make something like that. With all do respect to the person who said "strong keep," a page can be improved, but a persons notability cannot be (not instantly). The point is, there is nothing distinguishing about this person from any of countless actor's and actresses in Los Angeles that have had nothing but a few minor spots few and far between. By this logic, everyone who spends 2 minutes on an episode of Law and Order should have a wikipedia page. Also, these are not 'B' movies being discussed. 'B' movies are still produced by major studios. Her work consists of independent films that never achieved distributions. Countless such films are made every year, almost all of which, almost no one has ever or will ever hear of unless they have a reason to investigate them as in this discussion. Such spots are so minor that we can make a warranted assumption that they have never earned more attention than the discussion we are currently having in wikipedia, right here, right now. Kmehrabi (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The filmography presented by Jeppiz in their keep does not meet WP:ENT. The roles offered in the article do not show her meeting WP:ENT. I was not able to locate significant media coverage showing she meets WP:ENT or the WP:GNG. Dlohcierekim 19:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the prior AFD's two keep votes, I wholly disagree with them. These are not major roles and do not establish meeting WP:ENT. Dlohcierekim 19:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP After investigating the "sources" for this page, it's clear this person does not meet notability standards. This was probably a promotional page set up by the individual or representing management. Pay63 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)— Pay63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete WP:BLP This person is not notable, their sources are not credible. This is blatant self promotion and has no place on wikipedia. Housh (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)— Housh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Plainly not enough for a reliable biography (myspace, imdb etc). I'm afraid that reliability, verifiability, notability and WP:BLP together outweigh WP:HOTTIE. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mkativerata. I'd not seen seen that. Dlohcierekim 19:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on delete IMDb is not a reliable source and if that's all you got, it's not notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I echo Mkativerata conclusion: myspace and inmag.com web-pages do not satisfy the substantive documentation requirements. Documentation is lacking in part because this person has not really graduated beyond the "aspiring actress" class. Remove the promotional content of this article and there's little remaining. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete. I note that the article makes reference to her as a Persian pop singer. Is it possible there is non-English WP:RS coverage of her? Does anyone read Farsi? I notice, for instance, that there appears to be another entry for her in the Farsi version of Wikipedia (fa:کلاودیا لینکس). If this English-version of the article is deleted, would it be proper to nominate the Farsi version as well? Contrariwise, if the Farsi version is adequately sourced (can't really tell since I don't read the language), wouldn't that mean this article should be preserved as well?—Rnickel (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I clicked on the links in the Farsi article and they're the same three WP:NN sources as the English article.—Rnickel (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Hub[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- this how it's spelled

I can't see anything here that meets notability guidelines. Lots of references but no significant coverage of this website. The closest it gets is referring to a lawsuit against Pink Visual's copyright holding company. Other references don't mention Porn Hub at all and are more generally about Porn 2.0, or just defining the site's various categories. Beloved Freak 15:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am now neutral on whether or not this is deleted. I don't think that the Alexa rankings make it unquestionably notable, and I'm not convinced that the lawsuit confers notability directly to this website as it's between Ventura Content and the owners of Brazzers, although porn hub is involved. For me, it boils down to the significant coverage, which I think is borderline here. Teen Porn 101 is probably the best source mentioned here, and there are numerous less than significant mentions. I wonder if it would be better merged into Pink Visual or Porn 2.0.--Beloved Freak 10:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view but can the article not be made a stub? It may then be improved. Stubs do not have much information but there are not deleted? I am not especially knowledgeable of the guidelines and please tell me if this is not possible. Thanks. Phyprt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyprt (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short articles are sometimes called stubs (see Wikipedia:Stub and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment) but they still need to meet the guidelines for inclusion. The relevant ones here are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web). I appreciate that you've added a lot of references to the article, but in my mind, there isn't significant coverage of Porn Hub in those references.--Beloved Freak 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This website does not receive significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Generalized coverage of "Porn 2.0" is insufficient to establish notability. Emily Jensen (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourced claim that it's the 55th-most-trafficked web site (and the cited source indicates it's the 36th-ranked, in the United States) sounds pretty notable to me. TJRC (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I hesitated to bring this to AFD. However, as far as I understand, Alexa rankings are not generally relied on for establishing notability. See for example Wikipedia:Search engine test - not a policy or guideline but it makes some good points about the problems with Alexa rankings.--Beloved Freak 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stubs written by Wikipedia novices are sometimes not following guidelines. Please not that guidelines are guidelines not unbendable hard rules and cannot be known in thier eniteirty by casual contributers. --Zarutian (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here to discuss the adequacy of the article as submitted by the original contributor, but instead whether sufficient sources to meet the notability guideline exist. Since it's difficult to prove the non-existence of sources, we proceed under the default assumption that the sources aren't available, until shown otherwise (unless the existence of references is obvious from the subject matter). While a reasonable effort to find suitable references should precede an AFD nomination, the burden of establishing notability ultimately lies with editors seeking to retain the article. Emily Jensen (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - no significant third party coverage in reliable sources. See WP:WEB. Alexia rank is here irrelevant. Claritas (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porn is not something reliable sources cover significantly. Have you seen any newspaper cover a company in the porn industry? Me neither. --Zarutian (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are arguing against the notability guidelines themselves. You might be better bringing up these points at the guideline talkpages. As well as significant coverage in reliable sources, this article also has the option of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (web).--Beloved Freak 19:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pornographic content sometimes does receive significant coverage in reliable sources: the Hustler article is a good example. Emily Jensen (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSignificant coverage in independent and reliable sources such as the copyright lawsuits discussed in the article plus [27], [28], mention in many others,(says it is a "mainstay search", [29], [30], [31], [32] show it is discussed enough in mainstream news sources to justify an article, plus 55th most visited internet site per Alexa. Edison (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. Emily Jensen (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename to Pornhub. There is some mainstream coverage linked above identifying this as one of the top porn sites at the moment. There's nothing in-depth really. Pcap ping 12:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Griebel[edit]

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

Profile of a candidate in a forthcoming election, which the author admits was created with the election in mind. Unelected politicians are not inherently notable. Using Wikipedia to raise the profile of a candidate is WP:SPAM. Tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of being overly promotional but rejected as non-speedyable following a toning down of the content - though the article still has 5 links to ozforgovernor.com and the sole remaining reference is to a candidate profile in a local newspaper. The article started as a copyvio of the subject's campaign facebook page and retains the same structure so there is clearly a WP:COI. Delete - notability not established; article is non-neutral. I42 (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and agree, that unelected politicians are not inherently notable. There are, however, many candidates in many races who are known only as business executives and have wikipedia pages based on this notability. Had Oz Griebel not become a candidate for governor, I believe his wikipedia page would still meet the standards for acceptability. I have done my best to reference reliable and impartial sources and use neutral, objective language. I will continue to work at making the page acceptable. Do you have any suggestions as to what additions would make the article more neutral?Jsrgnt (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per the nomination, Oz Griebel does not appear to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Should he hold some public office in the future or become the head of some major entity, then he might become notable, but Mr. Griebel is not at present. Also, because the article’s creator created this article to essentially promote a candidate, this might also be a conflict of interest situation. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was not created strictly to promote a candidate, but to offer additional resources to those interested in Connecticut's public discourse. I believe that Oz Griebel does meet the notability guidelines. As the former CEO of a bank and a major economic development organization, he is not unlike the CEOs in the Wikipedia List of chief executive officers, all of whom have their own articles.Jsrgnt (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know this guy from Adam, but a quick Google search suggests he is prominent in his field, was the chairman of a major bank, was involved in government advisory panels and is the chairman of a major regional development organization. He is quoted or referenced as "Oz Griebel" (a fairly unique name) in 436 articles, a select few of which I list here:
- The Day (Connecticut), June 2005 Chairman of state "Transportation Strategy Board", article devoted to him.
- Boston Globe, March 2009 President of the MetroHartford Alliance, extensively quoted.
- Norwich Bulletin, Feb 2010 Editorial about Griebel's candidacy.

Notability is thus easily established. A person who is already notable does not lose notability because they become a political candidate. Non-neutrality is a reason for cleanup, not a reason for deletion. Thparkth (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of his pre-existing notability. Even by my admittedly broad standards, he wouldn't be notable as a politician long as he is only running for the Republic nomination. If he does become the Republican candidate for governor, I would consider him notable. the amount of sourcing available for the two major party candidates for a state-wide office will always be sufficient, and we would save a great deal of trouble over the next year if we accepted this now--and for the candidates for the national legislature. (I leave it up to those who know UK politics whether in the UK it should be considered as the 3 major parties). However, we need to be very careful with these articles not to let them be turned into advertisements--his minor civic offices are not significant content whether or not he becomes governor. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has generated enough coverage to conform to the notability standards. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:GNG if nothing else. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Order of Saint Hubert[edit]

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

Suspicious organisation, failed notability (only 3 ghits, no reliable sources). Connection between organisation est. in 1695 and vanished in 1700´s, and organisation established in 1950 seems quite rubbish.Somebody tried establish notability, but references are about Order of Saint Hubert (Bavarian). Yopie (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. After investigating the history of edits of the article it seems that Yopie has first put PROD then CSD A7 and now AfD tag on it in bad faith. Do not edit Wikipedia to proove a point, Yopie. --Zarutian (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly see no evidence of bad faith here. Yopie seems to have followed WP:BEFORE reasonably appropriately. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 00:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think this organization exists, and sees itself as a continuation of the earlier order, but there is essentially zero independent evidence of notability, or even of existence. Thparkth (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indiaction of noatbility. Edward321 (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage so fails WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wozniak (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. This page was created as vanity page by WP:SPA account Hazmanager (talk · contribs) (note subject's company is "Hazmat Pictures", although Hazmanager has recently tried to remove that information ([33]), perhaps to conceal the COI). The only substantive content has come from creating editor and anonymous IP editors, which may be the same user.

PROD was declined by the creating editor, with no reason provided (edit summary was "External links").

It seems to be a magnet for COI edits from the originating editor. For example, Hazmanager has attempted to fluff the article by using deceptively edited quotes (see [34] for a correction); has removed the article issues template without addressing the issues ([35], [36]); and blanked the talk page ([37]).

The COI issue isn't independently a basis for deletion -- the basis for deletion is the non-notability of the subject. But it's indicative that no one except the article's subject seems to have any belief that the article's presence is warranted. TJRC (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was that PROD "declined" by mistake as you and that editor had an near edit collission? --Zarutian (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my edit followed his. TJRC (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Although as witer/director/actor/producer, Wozniak's career[38] is pushing up at WP:ENT... it seems all he receiving are mentions... [39][40][41]... and not in what Wikipedia considers RS. And even in the Sun Times an actual RS,[42] , its only a mention. His manager is trying a bit too hard to create and fluff what is not yet worth creating. Perhaps when this individual recieves some personal recognition for his work a far leaner version of this article might be worth considering. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced of his notability, but he's certainly versatile-- in 2005, he played the roles of a "Frankie the wayward sociopath" and "Jesus, the savior of all mankind" in the same year. Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There are multiple appearances throughout television and film, thus satisfying notability for an actor, the article does need some work in that it appears clearly to be a vanity piece. Noteability is established though. Charles F Groves 18:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

All that has to be seen is the IMDB page [43]; Mr. Wozniac has been involved in numerous films, as an Actor, Writer, Director, and Producer. Each in numerous projects. Seems notable to me. All of these or the ones i have checked anyway have been credited in the projects themselves as well. Frankly I do not understand all of the votes for delete, and I see the comments above, and I agree that the article could be leaner and a bit better referenced, however being as involved in as many aspects of the entertainment industry should count for something.Charles F Groves 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I do not believe IMDb should be considered a reliable source, see IMDB#Sources_of_data. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the nom, my basis is that he does not meet WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Nuujinn points out issues with IMDB as a RS; I would also add that, even if reliable, IMDB is pretty much a catalog and cross-referencing of actors, directors, etc. with the works in/with which they have worked. Presence in IMDB is not in itself an indication of notability. More specifically, he doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT. The closest is probably "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He's been in a lot of works, but none of them appear particularly notable. A couple have Wikipedia articles, but some of those are questionable stubs created by the same editor who created this article. They're harmless, though; they probably ought to be deleted, but they're not hurting anything. This one, however, is using Wikipedia as a puff piece and promotional vehicle, contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia. If it were a harmless stub, rather than a WP:PROMO and WP:COI magnet, with the same editor continuing to puff it, I probably would not have bothered bringing it to AFD. TJRC (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete For the number of roles he has had, it seems like more notice should have been taken of him. But I can't find anything written ABOUT him at all. Admittedly it is hard to search Google for him, since stuff keeps turning up instead about the far-more-notable Steve Wozniak of Apple Computers. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any reliable sources establishing notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Woman (Musical)[edit]

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

Musical of unclear notability that has not yet premiered. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any relevant sources, and none have been provided. This may just be some non-notable, very amateurish production, or even possibly a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find evidence this exists. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Streak Security[edit]

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

Adlok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a WP:SPA, to have created this orphan article to promote a product the user has an interest in (originally with much puffery), and to have removed a maintenance template in this edit. The article has no verifiable references from reliable sources. Also, the presence of "Ad" (as in advertisement or advertising) in the user's username is a cause for concern. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Blue_Streak_Security. — Jeff G. ツ 22:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. There is no coverage in reliable sources about this product. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advertising. The product (apparently software used for security guards to check in) is very back-office and an unlikely candidate for real notability. Google News knoweth it not. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. no reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government perception affected by mass media[edit]

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

Page has a history of vandalism and seems to exist only for the purpose of trolling. Trich25 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen far worse histories of vandalism, and that is not of itself a good reason for deletion. I'm not 100% certain about the value or point of the article, but I've seen it before without rushing to get it deleted. The fact that it's been here for over four years also isn't of itself a reason to keep, and nor is the presence of similar articles in French and Portuguese (closely linked to each other) and German. (I've not checked then thoroughly for similarity, but I've removed the Albanian link which went to an article about the geography of the Central African Republic.) Peridon (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a made-up topic that is poorly sourced and poorly written. — Timneu22 · talk 15:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay written from a particular point of view, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for another year. If you (DumbBOT) arent 100% certain about the value or the point of the article then you cant be sure it should be deleted. --Zarutian (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, it's Peridon that Commented he wasn't 100% sure, and DumbBOT that completed the AfD nomination by listing it properly. I didn't !vote, and DumbBOT (being a BOT) can't anyway. Peridon (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as synthesis. The unambiguous way to cover the proposition if it is a real topic is to wait until a book on it becomes really notable, and write an article on the book. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to believe that this article can ever advance beyond a case of WP:SYNTH. Spiesr (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay - besides being a title that is most unlikely to ever be used as a search term. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypmocracy[edit]

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

per WP:NEOLOGISM Regancy42 (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced and no Google hits as well. JNW (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something made up that one time. ... discospinster _talk 23:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't care if this actually is a real term... how is this notable?? The word originates from a 2010 play by students at Dutchess Community College in Poughkeepsie, New York. So what? Please speedily delete this nonsense! — Timneu22 · talk 16:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather me-too-ish of you. Please give better reason than that why this article should be deleted. --Zarutian (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a better reason, but I have removed it because it isn't needed, since nobody has suggested a reason to keep. If you are interested, you can look in the page history of this AfD to find my further comments. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow/speedy delete. WP:G3, WP:NFT. — Rankiri (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Me-too per Zarutian. Blatant madeup Not sure if it fits in speedy deletion criteria though. Acebulf (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think name is a typo anyhow and meant to be Hypnocracy. If not, no references, WP:DICTIONARY and looks made up. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm pretty sure they mean hypmocracy the way they spelled it here, because they say it means a "hypocritical democracy", which would make "hypmocracy" a portmanteau of those two words. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few things convey "non-notable" as "2010 play by students" and "community college in Poughkeepsie, New York." Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Brooks (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and GNG. She only appears to have won one non-notable award, which seems only to have existed from 2006-08. Also she only has one AVN nomination, not nominations across multiple years. EuroPride (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's evidence that the UK Adult Film and Television Awards are ongoing and that there have been awards since 2008. I found an article on the Telegraph which states: "Named best director in the 2008 and 2009 UK Adult Film and Television Awards". Additionally, there have been mentions in the mainstream media about the awards: BBC and Channel 4 news for one. Tabercil (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. EuroPride (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She won the UK award, which is still a notable awards show. And having two nominations (one win) means multiple years. Silver seren^C 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Tabercil. If nominator wishes to afd an award winner based on the argument that the award is not notable, perhaps he should try afd-ing the article for the awards first due to its notability issues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. UK award itself isn't really notable, but the awards ceremony gets press coverage because of the publicity stunts used to market tickets to it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus somewhere that states that it isn't notable? And is there a list somewhere of notable porn awards? I know there is somewhere, can you link me to it? Silver seren^C 01:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well originally PORNBIO stated that it was anything listed in Category:Pornographic film awards, but that's been pulled out and replaced with "Has won a well-known award such as one of the AVN Awards." Problem with that statement is that it leaves things kinda at loose ends as it's now a North American-centric definition... Tabercil (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering the UK awards are on that list. I have no idea why they would choose to make the requirements even more vague. Silver seren^C 01:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Notable awards shows" don't have a Coming soon banner and nothing else as their official website. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tabercil and Morbid. --93.158.79.103 (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per notable award. Epbr123 (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc. Where are the examples of non-trivial coverage from multiple, reliable third party publications? Oh, there are none? The award doesn't give me the warm fuzzies, especially given that the official website for the awarding agency is "coming soon". I bet. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 13:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Curiously, the release for which she supposedly won an "award" appears not to exist, outside of the "award" announcement.Google search results This reflects both on the notability of the "award" and the reliability of the sources cited. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There isn't an actual request for deletion yet in this discussion. If someone actually wants this article deleted, they can renominate it at their convenience if they supply a reason to do so. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pender Early College High School[edit]

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

The article is not a means of promotion. It is a notable article. Searching for it on google, one will see the notability. It has been noted on PR Newswire, StarNews, The Pender Post, and it is a school after all. If PECHS does not deserve a Wikipedia page, then does Isaac Bear Early College? Does the Early College at Guilford? I believe yes. --Dcamposeco (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why should this page be deleted? It might need editing, but not deleting.--Dcamposeco (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know it's not gospel, but I agree with this:

...Put another way, if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accommodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do... (Jimbo Wales, Partial solution to rampant deletionism, Wikimedia, 2003-11-07.

This is not a bad article, and any defects it has can be repaired. It meets the Jimbo Decent Two-Page Article criterion.™ TJRC (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The enrollment is on the low side for a stand-along high school article. But it can always be merged into, say, Pender County Schools. There's no reason to delete it.—RJH (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I note that the nomination was the sole contribution by an IP - curious! No grounds for deletion have been specified. In any case, sources are available from which the page can be expanded to meet WP:ORG. The arguments for keeping high schools are at WP:HS/N. TerriersFan (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7 nonnotable, g11 ad, g1 nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National camping day[edit]

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

Stifle (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I added a Speedy Delete tag on the article. This shouldn't need to go through AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 16:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RN.ORG[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I thought about CSD G11/A7 here, but it is an accredited ~~institution of higher learning~~ by some state nursing agencies. However, no references establishing notability are given in the article, and I can't find any via a Google search. There is a COI issue, as the article was created by User:Beachdude2k, who indicates an affiliation with RN.ORG on his user page and has a history of spamming articles with RN.ORG links. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original proddder. I concur with the observation that this subject appears to lack notability. However, I disagree that this subject is "an accredited institution of higher learning" as it appears only to be recognized by a few state agencies (who are not accrediting agencies) to provide continuing education. I don't think that level of recognition is sufficient to establish notability. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I modified my rationale to reflect your concern regarding accreditation. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from IP editor copied from the talk page:

I have cleaned up the page, tried to make it look less like an advertisement, fixed the ambiguous references as suggested and removed some of the duplicate wording.. The courses on RN.ORG are indeed accepted by the various state boards of nursing within the US. California, Florida and West Virgina have unique requirements which require specific courses be approved by them thus the provider numbers from these specific states however other state boards of nursing accept CEUs approved by these boards of nursing. If you have any questions please feel free to email larry@lsnyder.com. THanks for all the work you guys do.. 190.157.60.26 (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted here by P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. This is not an "institution of higher learning". It is not a degree-granting institution at all. It is a vendor of continuing education courses for nurses. The fact that the courses are accepted as valid CME by some states is not in any sense the same thing as "accreditation". So it is not a school, it is a company. And as a company it totally fails WP:N. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of centenarians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A huge list, 200KB. It has now been a full year since the previous nomination got its consensus to keep, and still this article is just getting bigger. How big will it be a year from now?? Anyone who votes to keep please make sure you know of a way to reduce this article's size. Georgia guy (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a big list is not a reason to delete and AFD is not cleanup. Also, even though I am under no obligation to propose solutions just because I'm voting keep, I would point out that had you looked at the talk page before you jumped straight to deletion, you would have noticed that we've been making progress cleaning up the list (removing entries, even the entire "Relative of someone famous" section) in preparation to split the list into three different pages, which I have proposed here: User:Canadian Paul/List of centenarians by profession (A-H), User:Canadian Paul/List of centenarians by profession (I-R), User:Canadian Paul/List of centenarians by profession (S-Z). Canadian Paul 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, why couldn't you create the new pages right away?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's mainly just cleanup issues now - we've had some objections to splitting the list by this criteria, but they haven't been perused as of late. The only remaining issue is what to do with the misc. section, but I've been occupied with the WP:GAN backlog elimination drive and no one else has stepped up to the plate. It can be taken care of in May, as Wikipedia has no deadline. Canadian Paul 15:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the objections?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because no valid reason to delete is cited. The nominator says "anyone who votes to keep please make sure you know of a way to reduce this article's size"; but with intelligent structure Wikipedia can manage much larger lists than this. Using nested lists, we have a list with 213015 elements.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that list is an index to a group of normal lists. The list of centenarians is one huge list. Georgia guy (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem we can fix without deletion, by creating sublists. WP:BEFORE tells us that where we can fix problems without deletion, we should.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix this problem yourself by creating sublists of the list of centenarians?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and so could you, with less effort than you've already devoted to this AfD. It's really very easy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggest someone do so if this article survives Afd. Georgia guy (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, "someone" has done it already. :-) The new page could use some reformatting work and the sublists would benefit from a nice navbox, if you're feeling creative.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why not have a "list of 40 year olds from Pennsylvania" list? It seems to have absolutely as much relevance as this list. — Timneu22 · talk 20:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a big article is no reason for deletion. Clearly defined list with set inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Lugnuts (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you still have voted as such even if this article were 500 KB?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cite WP:NOT. How is a list of mostly non-notable people a notable list? This list will always be incomplete, and the people listed cannot be validated for notability. My grandmother is 98... should I add her to the list in two years? Of course not, and neither should anyone else add theirs. This article is pure rubbish. — Timneu22 · talk 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article. It's a list. Individual elements of a list need not be notable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever. It is still a nonsense list. — Timneu22 · talk 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And truly, I'd like an answer: should I add my grandmother in two years? I think this list (and the potential to add random people to it) is absolutely against all WP notability guidelines. — Timneu22 · talk 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does your grandmother have a Wikipedia page? If not, then no. As you can tell by reading the talk page, or even looking at the article, all subjects must have an English-language Wikipedia article to be included. Besides, it's not that bad; at least you have to have said article to be added. I can't imagine what you must think of some of the lists on this template. Canadian Paul 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the AFD was primarily because this list is "too long", which could quickly be corrected. However, even if this list includes only notable people, why is it relevant that they lived to be 100?? Quite simply, it isn't. It's an arbitrary number, and makes a worthless encylcopedic topic. There is room for list/category overlap, but in this case I don't see why either is necessary. — Timneu22 · talk 00:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list is inherently not notable. We are WP:NOT a directory of non-notables. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 23:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only individuals with Wikipedia articles are listed. It was called "List of notable centenarians" for a while, but then someone came and moved it back to just "List of centenarians" saying that it violated the naming guidelines.Canadian Paul 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main reason for deletion is that it was too big. The fact that it was a year since the last nomination is rather petty. The issues that needed resolving before splitting the list were almost complete and it would probably have been split within a few more weeks. In any case, it has now been split and as this article is the "parent" article for the new lists it makes NO sense to delete it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well defined criteria, the subject of the list is extremely notable, as most cultures on earth honor those who reach 100. as long as the list is only notable people (whether for their age, as in the oldest on earth in various categories, or notable for other reasons), its fine. as to length: not a reason for deletion. if WP/internet/tech civilization remains in human society for 10000 years, wont nearly all lists capable of growing become much bigger by orders of magnitude? even nobel laureates would become unwieldy by that time. we can decide in the future to trim back or reorganize any of our lists, but once something is notable it will always be considered notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Before Wikipedia existed, the Biography Index kept lists of famous centenarians. The New York Times, for many decades, kept indexes of persons 90+.Ryoung122 04:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that a list is too long is no more a reason to delete it than a long article. We find some way of dealing with it, but not deletion. I'd say we were not paper, except that even if we were we could handle it. As with all such lists, the "notable" is presumed. Personally, I think it should be moved back to the original name, and that the guidelines should if necessary be reversed, and require that addition DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is quite large; however, as was mentioned many times previously, that does not mean it should be deleted. Bcperson89 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sections of the list have each been split into their own articles. Bcperson89 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the persons on this list are notable centenarians. Ofcourse, when you're Dutch you have no idea how notable an American mayor is, and the other way around most Americans wouldn't know a Dutch news reader who reaches the age of 100. And as said before, deleting an article because it's too big is quite strange. Guidje (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Following behind Bcperson89's work, I have modified the navbox to include the various lists, and I updated each of the sub lists to include a proper header as well as the navbox. It certainly looks like this AFD will be keep now; might I suggest that this article is renamed to Lists of centenarians? Since it is nothing more than a list of lists, this seems appropriate. — Timneu22 · talk 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I support that, after the AFD has run its course of course. Canadian Paul 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I run the "Noted Nonagenarians and Centenarians" website, I did NOT create this article and I don't give a rat's hindquarters if you keep it, delete it, or make copies and shoot them all into outer space! Better yet, why don't you delete Wikipedia all together? The fact that you folks think you're doing anything "scholarly" is laugh-out-loud funny and pathetic at the same time. What's even more pathetic is that I - who should know better - try and help you out. You're beyond hope. It's like trying to put out a blazing inferno with a glass of water. When I think of all the thousands of articles out there that you folks allow that would be looked down upon by a second-grader or written by some non-English speaker who couldn't even communicate that he wanted directions to the bathroom makes my head want to explode! You people can worry and fret all you want to. Please leave me out of it!!! Walter Breitzke (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music Channel[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No significant hits in Google or Google news. Claims of hosting the "Romanian Music Awards" cannot be verified. There is an MTV Romania Music Awards hosted by MTV (Romania), but that is not this company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a dozen music TV channels in Romania. I can't even tell which one this article is supposed to be about. Completely vague and even a home page link is absent. Pcap ping 20:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News hits are too other music items unrelated to this article. A general Google search turn up other hits in music unrelated to this article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Elektra[edit]

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

Article fails to establish any level of notability. Fails GNG & PORNBIO. EuroPride (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. EuroPride (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree does not meet PORNBIO or GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod, which was removed on the spurious grounds that appearing in 20 porn films satisfied notability requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article as it stands states she is notable without giving sufficient backed-up evidence that she is notable. For example, "She is also a well known star of girl/girl erotica and various alternative fetish and horror films", which carries no cite at all. Tabercil (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Rules[edit]

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

Unsourced, unotable, and poorly-worded. Yes, this series is much-derided by New Zealanders, but due to a general lack of sources in Gooogle News archives as well as virtually no information available about the series, I feel this article should get the axe. Phil A. Fry (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's somewhat more difficult to find references for shows from 1993, right before the Internet became widespread, but the show seems to have been legendarily bad, and is still remembered as "atrocious", one of TV's "disasters", "cringeworthy", "awful", etc. Much-derided is notable in and of itself. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have articles for Turn-On, South of Sunset, The Trouble with Tracy and Pink Lady and Jeff, all equally awful, all of which aired on national television networks. It meets both the 'it was nationally televised' and 'it was critically derided' standards quite easily, and though the pre-Internet existance doesn't help, the above links found by Mandsford certainly help add to a keep case. Nate • (chatter) 05:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - bad films are often notable; notoriety equals notability in this case. Bearian (talk)

Keep - The Google news search results show that this program seems to have burned its way into the minds of New Zealanders as one of the worst television shows to have ever. This article has one of the cast members really ripping into it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordinary Radicals[edit]

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

This documentary film does not appear to meet notability through WP:NF (or general notability). It seems to fail prong 1 because, as the article indicates, the film played in limited cities and was not widely distributed. Likewise, it also does not appear to have "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The other four prongs also seem unavailing. The page was deleted in 2008 for blatant advertising, so I did not prod it first. Novaseminary (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the film was not released until 2008, WP:NF criteria for films 5+ years old become inapplicable. It's always going to be difficult to show notability for a specifically Christian-genre film, as they rarely get the distribution or press that do the highly financed and promoted films of major studios... and are thus unlikely to be reviewed in mainstream press. It would stand to reason that we'd have to consider it per the WP:GNG and possible notability to the Christian community. So, in looking then toward the GNG, I was a bit surprised to find coverage in such as Lexington Herald Leader, The Huntsville Times, and The Waltonian. Would anyone care to opine whether United Church of Christ has a reputation for inaccuracy? Or offer opinions about (understandably) Christian reviews such as that offered by The Rubicon? The article could definitely benefit from some judicious editing and proper sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The sources are definitely something. I'm not sure that reviews in a college newspaper, two relatively small city local newspapers, a blog, and a church demnomination online newsletter get it over the hump of WP:GNG, though. This is especially so considering that WP:NF's implementation of WP:GNG seems to indicate that the types of multiple sources required to meet notability in this context are of a degree far more significant than appears here. Despite the snarkiness of the comment above, one need not accuse the United Church of Christ of inaccuracy to think that this documentary has not quite yet reached notability. Novaseminary (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment (not an !vote) above was based upon the briefest of 2-minute searches... and based upon that, I might expect that there are more available with a more diligent search. Independent documentary films, and more specially independent Christian films, do not often get covered by mainstream press... so this one actually receiving coverage in WP:Reliable sources was a pleasent surprise.[44][45]
And I might urge careful when painting a reliable source as somehow being too small to be of consequence, as even here in WP it is shown that the multiple-Pulitzer Prize-winning Lexington Herald Leader has the second largest circulation in Kentucky.... and the Huntsville Times has the third largest circulation of all 25 daily papers published in Alabama. Your descriptives toward them seem a bit dismissive.
All my original comment shows is that in a 2-minute look, I was able to find two decent and respected RS that reviewed the film significantly and in depth. No doubt there are many more. Does the GNG demand 2? 8? 16? 25? And even though it is now apparent that it does have in-depth coverage in respected reliable sources, my further thought from above was that an independent Christian documentary might have its notability also determined in context to what it is... which IS something that is encouraged by guideline. Though nice for investors, marketing and distribution for financial recoup is not and should not be the only singular indicator of note. And beyond the available reliable sources that cover it, that the United Church of Christ [46] (not exactly a tiny backwater cult) thinks the film is notable enough to review is indeed worth consideration, as might be reviews in other Christian publications... though these are perhaps given lesser weight... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Fair enough. I didn't mean to belittle or be dismissive of any of the sources. Indeed, I don't intend to belittle the documentary, either. It looks rather interesting (but my opinion on that is irrelevant). "A film may be brilliantly created and acted, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough..." says WP:NF. My only point is that despite what appears to have been some good effort at sourcing in the article itself, there is still limited coverage of the documentary. (As an aside, I find it curious that the documentary has an article, its creator has an article, but the group covered does not even though the group has received the sort of coverage that would easily make them notable under WP:ORG or Wp:GNG.) If there is any reason at all to have WP:NF -- and maybe there is not -- I think the guideline indicates the coverage produced so far is too thin. WP isn't the IMDB or Netflix. Some non-trivial national coverage (even if not in a secular paper, but in one or two of the major Chirstian news magazines) or several more local pieces would get it there in my book. Maybe they will be uncovered. Novaseminary (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [47] seems like notable coverage to me. Dream Focus 16:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is, of course, the same Lexington Herald Leader article mentioned above, which is undoubtedly a good RS. I wonder for those who think one regional review is enough, though, is there any point in WP:NF requiring at least two national-level reviews? If WP:NF serves any purpose, it would seem to be to guide this kind of discussion. Other than Schmidt's suggestion that this guideline is too strict for Christian and other more targeted documentaries, nobody has put forth any reason to disregard WP:NF. Further to Schmidt's suggestion, such an exception for determining notability within a niche (though Christian documentary is a really big niche) would seem to create an exception to WP:NF that would swallow the rule. Novaseminary (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And without doing more digging (yet), I can still point out the above proffered Hunstville Times... so that makes at least two good RS without my having (yet) spent the time looking for 3 or 4 or 7 or 10. The "attributes" that suggest two "national" reviews are written as just that... suggestions to encourage searches, and not as mandates to exclude content... with an unfortunate bias that often acts dismissive of films of certain genres or from certain geographic locales. Use of common sense is not asking anyone to ignore or disregard those suggestions, but only to undertand that they are not mandates... they are guides. And even if determined notable only to Christians in the American South through The United Church of Christ review and the papers serving Kentucky and Alabama, that should be enough of a presumption of notability for en.Wikipedia to allow it to remain and be further improved. With respects, you sent the article to AFD less than three days after it was created. It has potential for improvement. Reviews in RS are available. Is there some hurry to remove it, rather than allowing it be improved over time and through regular editing so as to better serve the project? Come back to it in six months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Novaseminary: The guideline pages are changed constantly by whatever small group wants to camp there and argue nonstop with everyone else to get their way. Also they are suggestions, not absolute rules like the policies are suppose to be. AFDs are decided by consensus of whoever is around at the time to argue in them, and the opinions of the closing administrators. Dream Focus 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All fair points, though if Dream Focus has such a low opinion of the guideline editing process, I wonder why Dream feels better about the AfD process. (FWIW, WP:NF's edit history seems fairly stable.) As to Schmidt's question, part of the "hurry" to remove the page is that it might have been created to promote the documentary rather than merely to cover it. The creating editor's edit history (to date) hints at as much, especially coupled with the fact that the article was previously speedy deleted for being a promotional piece on the same day that the only other article this editor has created, Jamie Moffett, was also speedily deleted (and was created for promotion purposes as evidenced by the talk page which was preserved). Finally, to the third (and only other) article this editor has even edited, Shane Claiborne, the editor added an EL to the documentary's website. Of course, the article could have been created with a huge COI as a complete promotional piece, and that wouldn't alone be enough to delete an article (rather than salvage it) if the subject is notable. If what is sourced on this article now (assuming it is the entirety of what can be found) is not enough to keep the article, though, I would not assume other good sources are out there until they are shown in this instance. Novaseminary (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clean up and continue improvements to this fledgling article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but expand the article on its main subject, Shane Claiborne. WP has too many articles about sources and not enough about the real-world topics the sources cover. The mere fact that someone made a documentary film is not notable. Probably most of WP's articles about documentary films and non-fiction books should be deleted per WP:Coatrack. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. With respects Kitfoxxe, ignoring the filmmaker Jamie Moffett and then asserting that only one of the film's two subjects might merit expansion of an article seems an unbalanced suggestion. Further, it is not being asserted that simply "because" "someone" made a documentary it might be automatically notable... quite the opposite. It is being asserted that coverage in relible sources shows notability per WP:NF. I do admit to being quite confused by your summation that many articles on already proven-as-notable documentaries and/or non-fiction books should be deleted under an inapplicable essay... as this seems a bit of personal POV. Notability is notability. Inclusion of films in Wikipedia is not just about those films that have huge budgets, major stars, or accomplished publicity departments. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani Peruvian[edit]

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

no stated notability, famous examples or population stats Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redirect to Mosque Bab ul Islam might be logical, although I'm having trouble finding sources to confirm that the mosque is a creation of Pakistani emigrants to Peru. Mandsford (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one] to start off Mar4d (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Searches show no evidence that any journalists or scholars have written non-trivially about this population, so no possibility of writing an encyclopedia article. Additionally, oppose redirection because the title is a Wikipedian-invented neologism. Terms like "Pakistani Peruvian" or "Paquistaní-peruano" have zero currency in the real world. cab (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports calendar November 2006[edit]

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

Redundant to November 2006 in sports WOSlinker (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason to have multiple articles on the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one Good Lord, a 143 KB article on "November 2006 in sports"? And this 16KB one is supposed to be inferior to that? Even by the lower standards set for sports articles, the one not nominated is excessive. Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia." Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think that many scholars would agree with that sentiment, I think the quote might be "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article is not as thorough and can easily be merged and redirected. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

99 percent of the articles on Wikipedia aren't as thorough as one that needs 143KB to tell its story. I'd rather keep this one as a model of how a Wikipedia article should be written. We can still leave the other one with a disclaimer of some sort. Mandsford (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the creation entirely novel list topics contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.

I hate to keep doing the "Brand X" thing, but this article at least makes an attempt to source its content, while the other one doesn't even bother. When putting together a page from multiple sources, whether it's about World War II or an article about events as recent as 2006 in (film, music, baseball, birding and ornithology, etc.), it's essential to provide a link to a reliable and verifiable source for each statement made. Mandsford (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citeman Network[edit]

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

Spam. Some weak assertions of notability that foiled a speedy, but I believe this is clearly a non-notable website with grand claims being made in the article. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacked sources. Alexius08 (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also advertising: ...a sole mission to help improve organizational business management.... our network acts as a knowledge base for business problems where professionals look for advice and information, we are confident of not just a stable but escalated growth rate over the coming years.... network add more of these positive perceptions - through self-improvement, improvement in the lives of the employees of the organizations who join us, improvement in the business they are doing.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - purely advertising. . . Rcawsey (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easycore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Only references are to sources which fail WP:RS, such as blog posts. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to pop punk. A quick google search bring nothing but blogs and groups on social networking sites. Inhumer (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are sources.

Billboard: [48]

San Francisco Chronicle: [49]

Just letting you know. Silver seren^C 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Those are referring to a totally different style of music.Inhumer (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very different style, despite using the same name. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just merge and redirect to pop punk. It seems to borrow from pop punk and seems to be more related to that then anything else. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with redirecting is that, as pointed out above, the same name is used for different styles, so to redirect to one or the other would be confusing. Better would be a disambiguation page, though I am not sure that either of the meanings as enough currency to make it worthwhile. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of mathematics[edit]

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

Delete This is original research and synthesis. There are references for individual parts of the article, but no evidence that the topic as a whole has been considered in this way before. Much of the article is clearly personal assessment. For example, the following sentence openings really cry out that the thing is a personal reflection or essay: "Another reason to consider where mathematics is going...", "Educators consider the future because they want...", "In order to get a handle on where mathematics is going, one needs to understand ...", etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article was previously speedy-tagged and later prodded. Speedy tag was removed by DGG with the edit summary "deletion reason not relevant" and no further explanation. Prod was removed by the author of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the speedy tag said "no content" and I did not and still do not think an explanation of why that was not the case was necessary.

Delete: looks like crystalballing to me, backed by primary sources. Alexius08 (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - pure fortunetelling - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is NOT an essay, or personal reflection, or original research, or synthesis. It is an encyclopedic article describing what has been published about the future of mathematics. Regardless of what WP:Crystal says, the subject of the future of mathematics is notable, has been written about many times, and there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it.

(For the record, I created the article with username:Futofma). Bethnim (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It hard to see that there is a single cohesive subject being talked about. It's more like a collection of various speculative comments from people in a bunch of different specialties. I'm not going to say 'delete' because I'm not convinced that it's impossible to have an article like this. But before any article with a title "Future of ..." is created it should be questioned whether there is any sort of agreement among experts as what trends will be. The author has at least given cites for many of the statements, but opinions of individual people are just that and don't belong in an encyclopedia, even if they are published.--RDBury (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject may be considered dubious (so many people are neophobes), but the fact that there exists citable work on the subject indicates that there is a worthwhile page to be included here. Exactly what its content is to be can evolve in the fullness of time like everything else, but IMO we should not delete. --Matt Westwood 10:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite to remove some rough edges. "Agenda-setting problem sets" is a valid and interesting subtopic; people trying to define subdisciplines of future mathematics is somewhat more problematic, because such speculations are hardly authoritative: but here we are evaluating the topic "future of mathematics", and I would say it is encyclopedic and supported by an adequate literature. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does seem to be a notable subject even if speculative. It is okay to write about other peoples speculations. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's OR and synthesis: there are lots of references but little that I can see on the future of mathematics. The future of particular topics – combinatorics for example – and education, but not of mathematics as a whole, except for some very old programmes. It's also poorly written: very unencyclopaedic language, lots of "so and so said" and quotes (with surely some copyright concerns) and then a section which omits content, just says "you can read about this here". Stripped of all this unencyclopaedic content and speculation I can't see anything worth keeping.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to the inclusion of particular topics then by the same rationale no Wikipedia article should discuss individual aspects of any subject but should only talk in vague terms about a subject as a whole. I don't think short quotes are a cause for copyright concern. As for omitting information that is only because I haven't gotten round to it - this article is a work in progress, like any Wikipedia article. Bethnim (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JohnBlackburne. One would like to predict the future of mathematics, but, in, say, 1980, one wouldn't have been able to predict the future of Fermat's last theorem and the 4-color problem. None of these people are experts in "the future of mathematics", so it's pretty much idle speculation, even from those who are expert in some vaguely relevant topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 4-color problem was solved in 1976, if I recall correctly. And since that's a red link, we need another redirect page. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course specific events will happen that weren't predicted. That's not the point. People routinely plan for the future. Prediction is about recognising and being prepared for possibilities. Bethnim (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that people like Hilbert, Poincaré, Von Neumann and Weil have actually addressed the topic of the "future of mathematics", in prominent contributions that are well known in this subfield. In fact discussions of the future of mathematics seems to be a legitimate topic in the history of mathematics, if nowhere else. Hilbert was wrong about the future of logic, one might say, but exactly how and why is of genuine interest, and can be written about here based on legitimate references. The existing article is not that great, but AfD should really address whether there is a topic here valid for inclusion. Some of the points made above can be referenced themselves by a quote from Roger Godement, who said "To speak of the future of mathematics is an exercise in fantasy which cannot be discouraged too strongly" (mentioned in Jean-Michel Kantor, Hilbert's Problems and Their Sequels, Mathematical Intelligencer vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 21-30). In other words I think an article on this as a topic is fine; but properly it is not about prediction, it should be about what has been written about such predictions. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Alexius08. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rework and rename "Future of mathematics" is a bit too grand, but there is some ok material in the article, and a reasonably cohesive subject with some significance in education and some historical interest. Maybe "Research trend anticipation in mathematics" or something like that. It could even be in list format, or folded into an article about sociology of mathematics (using Thurston's "proof and progress" essay, Hersh's book "The Mathematical Experience" and so on). Arthur Rubin: I'm not sure what you mean about the 4-color theorem in 1980. It was proved in 1976, although there was debate about the proof method (massive computer enumeration), e.g. Tymoczko 1979. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If notable people engage in thinking about the further development of mathematics, apparently finding this a worthwhile topic, and their ideas are recorded in what we consider reliable sources, then it is entirely within the scope of Wikipedia to report on these ideas, just a we do for the topic Ultimate fate of the universe without invoking WP:CRYSTAL. The name and organization of the article may not be the most felicitous, but that is not a reason for deletion. --Lambiam 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that we have more than one editor arguing against deletion because WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. However, WP:CRYSTAL was not one of the reasons given for deletion in the nomination. Nobody has given any answer to the reasons given there, apart from the author of the article saying that the article is not original research or synthesis, but not explaining or justifying that statement. Nothing that has been written above by those editors arguing for "keep" has in any way lessened the force of what is said in the nomination: various people at various times have spoken or written about what they have thought the future of mathematics may bring, but it is not sufficient that various people have said various different things and that they have been assembled together: that is syhtnesis. More than one editor above has said words to the effect "Several prominent mathematicians have speculated about the future of mathematics, so it must be a notable topic". However, this is not an article about "Hilbert's predictions about the future of mathematice" or "Poincaré's predictions about the future of mathematics", and nobody has put forward any evidence that the particular view of those predictions put forward in this article has received any prior coverage in reliable sources. In fact as far as I can see nobody has even claimed that that is so. Matt Westwood says that "there exists citable work". Yes, but the citations do not support this particular interpretation of how to fit together unrelated opinions of different mathematicians. Dmcq says "It is okay to write about other peoples speculations". Nobody has denied that, and that is not the point: the point is that the article is synthesis, with elements of original research, and, as I have said, nobody above has even made an attempt to show that it isn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia articles are more up-to-date and comprehensive than any single-source, so necessarily will have assembled information together that has never been in one place before. That is not synthesis or original research, and if you think it is then do you also think Derivative (generalizations) should be deleted because all that information has never been assembled elsewhere before ? Bethnim (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think what JamesBWatson is saying about the current content may be a fair point of view; but the presence, for example, of OR in an article is not by itself enough to justify a deletion (add ((fact)) and remove in time is the way). Applications of WP:SYNTH may often be met by quite light rewriting: it says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, and that can be avoided by not drawing such conclusions. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I was not suggesting that no Wikipedia article should contain information on a topic collected from different sources. I was saying that in this case the article consists of nothing but a collection of different ideas, but it attempts to present them as parts of a theme, whereas that theme is previously undocumented. If anyone can produce evidence that this theme has in fact received significant coverage in reliable sources then I shall be happy to change my mind on the question of deletion, but so far nobody has done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the book Mathematics Unlimited- 2001 and beyond satisfies your concerns. It is all about whither this, and what's next that, open problems, challenges, research directions, prospects for the 21st century, how to prepare students for the computer age, relationship of mathematics to society, mathematics and its applications. Also the book "Mathematics: frontiers and perspectives" which is about current perspectives on the future frequently refers back to Hilbert's problems. Bethnim (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The recent work Mathematics: frontiers and perspectives, produced under the auspices of the International Mathematical Union and written by several winners of the Fields Medal, demonstrates the continuing notability and merit of this topic. Bringing our article to a high standard is doubtless challenging but it is our editing policy to persevere. Deletion would not assist this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any such article is inherently speculative and uncertain, and therefore this is not an encyclopedic topic. That said, do try to preserve this material somewhere - I suspect the more recent stuff can be worked into appropriate articles as current developments and directiosn for research, and the bibliography appears to be a jewel. Ray^Talk 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I prodded a very early version of this article, which had little or no content. However, the article has improved hugely since then, and I am now unconvinced by the delete arguments given above. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because the article is not itself making predictions - it is about notable attempts by mathematicians to predict the future of the subject. WP:SYNTH does not apply because the article does not try to "reach or imply a conclusion". There is good article emerging here about a particular genre of mathematical writing; I have tried to clarify this by rewriting its lead paragraph. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think this article should be renamed to a more appropriate title. Limeisneom (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria Ski Jumping Team[edit]

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

~~No sources. Not updated.~~ Withdraw KzKrann (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak keep' Common Knowledge that Bulgaria exists, and likely has a ski jump team. This article simply needs to be expanded and sources added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakee73 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That something exists is not a justification for inclusion. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, Bulgaria exists and it is likely that they have a ski jump team. The problem is that I can not find any coverage of a Bulgarian ski jump team. There is nothing to establish notability of the team. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the sources that were added to the article my recommendation for delete stands. The sources are all primary and they only confirm that Bulgaria has a ski jumping team. The sources do not discuss the team or even discuss the individual members of the team. This discussion is what is required to establish notability for the team. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, they have a ski jumping team, and i have found sources. KzKrann (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post the sources!Charles F Groves 14:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakee73 (talk • contribs)

I did, in the article. KzKrann (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Ok, I did not even look before. looks like a keep to me for sure, the article could be expanded certainly, but not deleted.Charles F Groves 19:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakee73 (talk • contribs)

Delete. There don't appear to be any world-ranked male or female Bulgarian ski jumpers,[50] so it's pretty unlikely they'd get any media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was withdrawn so why is this relisted? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's withdraw was basically a change in their recommendation to Keep, but others had already recommended Delete, that is why this was not an early close. At the point that this came up to be closed the admin could not determine a consensus so they relisted to try to get a consensus. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources OK. KzKrann (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bulgaria exists. Their Ski Jumping teams exists. Unfortunately, that ski jumping team doesn't seem to be notable enough and there aren't enough sources, gSearch returns just 43 hits. So fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability about this group and hardly any resources. Yousou (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports calendar March 2007[edit]

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

Redundant to March 2007 in sports. WOSlinker (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason to have multiple articles on the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't know which is worse, having an article where March begins in February, or a WP:NOT#NEWS article that lists the events of a month in reverse order (in this case, a backward march-- 31 March, 30 March, 29 March, etc.). This one seems to be the lesser of two evils, in that it's heavy on sources, takes up a lot less space (9,764 bytes vs. a ridiculous 79,699, and it doesn't look like an editor copying scores off of the sports section every morning. For some reason, this one is nominated and the other isn't. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is the best list out of all of them. So defiantly merge and redirect this article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the creation entirely novel list topics contravene the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Byron, died 1398[edit]

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

Ignoring the fact that the article name is inappropriate. There is very little to go on this as an article. Notability seems to be because he was an ancestor of Lord Byron. I know if we came across an individual with the title sir in his name today he would be considered notable but this chap seems to be one of many sirs from the 1300s and potentially a minor character of the day except on a local level. Wikipedia is not the place to construct separate articles for every individual in someones family tree. Polargeo (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons of lack of notability for a separate article:[reply]

Delete all. Being "Sir"ly even today doesn't confer automatic notability. None of these people have any claim other than being related to Lord Byron. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Most of the notability of this bunch of characters depends entirely on their eventual descendant THE Lord B. Insanity can be inherited from one's kids, but can notability over so many generations? The Lords Byron were a fairly notable bunch (including one known as 'Mad Jack'...) The John article is taken from the Yorkshire Arch. text cited - but the Google version is scanned badly. I have traced John to the mid 1300s - with no great show of anything other than existence." "So far as I am aware, the 'Lord' is not a peerage title, but merely the lordship of the manor of Rochdale - a transferable or saleable thing. When you find English 'titles' for sale, this is what they are. Nowadays, they are just a paper exercise. See Viscount Rochdale for the modern peerage Rochdale title. No dates are given, making the article somewhat problematical in terms of usefulness. A Sir John whose title was "Baron Byron of Rochdale" was the ancestor the later infamous Lord Byron, This Sir John Byron was created Baron Byron of Rochdale and did not inherit his title - and was not de Byron." Extracted from messages from me to Polargeo. I doubt that anyone wanting information on this group of Byrons would be looking to Wikipedia for it. Peridon (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handi Irawan D[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. The article was prodded, and DGG added a "reference" and removed the prod. The only "reference" (the one provided by DGG) is a link to a catalogue page showing an entry for a book written by the subject of the article. There is no sign of significant coverage in independent sources anywhere as far as I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Handi Irawan, created by the same editor as Handi Irawan D, was deleted as spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "source" only proves that he had a book published. If that's all there is, then this guy is not notable enough for an entry. Given the repeated recreation under multiple titles, I believe all names used should be salted. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The standard for BLP prod is that there be no references to anything that might support any of the claims in the article. That he wrote the book he claimed to write was relevant. that he is president of a national organization is a reason for keeping, and that is documented by his personal website, which is sufficient for routine biographical details such as that, since it is consonant with the book title. I agree something more would be highly desirable, hence the weak keep only. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connor and Owen Fielding[edit]

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

Contested prod. BLP article about very young twins who now appear in one significant role ina movie. However, the character is important, the children used to present the toddler not. They have received very, very little attention (note that the second source added to the article is a Wikipedia mirror, not a true source) and fail WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. How much acting is really done by toddlers who share a role in one movie? Not notable. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ILLIJAH[edit]

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

Co-nominating:

Obviously promotional, probably speediable as A7-music, but because he opened for J. Holiday 6 days ago, I guess that could be maybe, if you really were looking for it, an indication of notability. Can't find anything in wp:rs Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete there is some notability here, but primarily based on future potential rather than actually having done much as of now. The promotional tone ("Catch ILLijah performing live on stage...") certainly doesn't help any. I wouldn't be too surprised if we have a decent article on this topic in a year or so, but not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No signs of notability. Claim of opening for J. Holiday can't be verified. I've also listed the duplicate articles created by the same editor for alternative names. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. unsourced and this is the crucial policy based argument for article inclusion. The keep votes have not overcome this and are not arguing from a policy based position so the consensus is to delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of York Conservative and Unionist Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:CLUB and WP:ORG as there are no Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar hits.

Lots looks like WP:OR and large parts also fail WP:V Codf1977 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion was suggested on the discussion page some time ago and various contributors have attempted to increase the number of references to verify much of what is said. As a historical group, many of the activities of the group have extremely limited online references which has made this process slow. The article directly links to three further pages which are extremely similar in nature to this one, none of which have been suggested for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_York_Conservative_and_Unionist_Association#See_also. There is absolutely no doubt that the article needs further verification but that should not, under any circumstances, mean it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.66.180 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However none of that address the Nomination, in that it fails WP:CLUB and WP:ORG, can you proved any links to coverage ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the group is national in the scope of its activities, having been the foundation for many high-profile political and politics-related careers. The problem is verifying that and providing links to what would be considered to be genuine third-party sources, something the various contributors have made progress in doing and still are attempting to do. Many of the sections of this article do have references as suggested, yet it is the proposal to delete the entire article due to certain sections lacking verification that is wrong. Deletion of this article in its entirity would merely destroy the excellent work put in for it to then be re-written. Better get the facts in and await verification than remove the article because of some items lacking verification.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.66.180 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010(UTC)

The scope of the activities is defined not by what past members go on to do, but by where the Association itself functions, and unless the name is misleading that is York. I can not see how this is anything more than a local branch of a political party, I have done searches for references to it (there are links at the top of this page for you to try as well) and can find nothing - no one else is writing about the Association. I really can't see how this article can be saved, If you want to to see if the Article incubator can help then try that. Codf1977 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is an excellent reference guide to the history of a 40 year old University political association, an organisation in which many members of parliament (e.g. Chloe Smith, Paul Goodman, Harvey Proctor), business, journalism (e.g. Michael Brown, Jonathan Isaby), and public affairs practitioners cut their teeth. There is public value in this entry remaining on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.48.166 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how does address the main point of the nomination, that is the fact there does not appear to be any coverage of the Association and as such it fails WP:CLUB and WP:ORG, can you proved any links to coverage ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted to generate input from established users. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear that any reliable sources exist. If they do, please provide them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. As suggested above, this article should be incubated as nobody has argued that there is a problem with the article besides a lack of online sources. This will allow time for users to seek sources and edit the article accordingly. Again, there is no similar discussion taking place on any of the three other groups of this kind, all of which are linked to from this article. Why is the deletion of OUCA not being discussed, when OUCA is, by its own admission, a local branch of a political party, whereas the University of York Conservative and Unionist Association is independent of the national Conservative Party?

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleggers (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable webgame with no references from reliable, third-party sources, especially sources recommended by WikiProject Video games. The single claim of notability is from winning player-chosen Game of the Month awards on a largely unreliable (see discussion here) game review site. Wyatt Riot (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are more notable online multiplayer games that don't have articles. This one doesn't even come close to being notable. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:N. That reference is junk. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 15:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skyfex[edit]

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

Nothing more than a sales brochure for a non-notable software product. Article by single-purpose account. I have not found any coverage in reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, spam. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty fast. The only "sources" are some one-liner blog entry in a "round-up" and a "review" on a hinghly dubious site, no1reviews. Pcap ping 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barenaked Recess[edit]

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

prod template unjustifiably removed. Felt obligated to relist TheHYPO (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - information on demo that is verifiable might be of historical interest. Merge/redirect to Barenaked Ladies or Gordon (album). DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Addendum - or Delete if that info is not verifiable. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that none of it is verifiable. The only sources are a) an unverifiable fan discography (which has contributions by band members, but no citation on this album specifically), a torrent of the tape which is one person's claim of the album content, and two or three isolated stories of "the band gave me a copy of the tape, and here's my story". Nothing that meets wikistandards IMO. eg: the leaked tape contains "Blame It On Me" while someone else who claims to have received a copy of the tape from the band claims that their copy did not have that song. There is no other source to verify either way. TheHYPO (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on your assessment of the sources (or lack thereof). See the addendum to my vote above. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, demos are generally not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that the references are vague and unreliable. Unverified info can't be merged. Xtzou (Talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veiculo longo streetwear[edit]

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

Contested PROD; This product does not appear to meet notability requirements Chzz ► 04:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's also not appropriate for the english Wikipedia - Jwoodger (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - English articles on english wikipedia. It also has the side effect of not demonstrating any notability, so there's no point in translating. Shadowjams (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, probable spam. -Reconsider ! 07:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.
Delete unless anyone can find references. I can't find anything on Google News for "Veiculo longo streetwear", and a search for "Veiculo longo" gets lots of long vehicles but nothing about clothing. If the topic were notable, the article could be translated. Since the topic is not notable, I did not copy the article to the Italian Wikipedia, since it would probably be speedily deleted there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is seems to be only an advertisment written in Italian User:Lucifero4

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of novels, the action of which takes place within 24 hours[edit]

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

Absolutely silly criterion for inclusion; this has little to no relevance on novels as a whole, and there are absolutely no sources. In fact, I don't see how it CAN be sourced. It'd be like having "List of novels whose first word is 'the'" or "List of novels with under 50 chapters" -- just willy nilly random stuff like that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT and WP:GNG. Nonnotable intersection of topics for which no reliable sources are evident. Deor (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the novels articles i checked on showed referenced sources that the book took place in 1 day (most book articles here are utter crap). i know of one such novel, "Ulysses". I also dont see any indication that this is a notable intersection. where are the books or articles examining this phenomenon of 24 hr novels? maybe someone is willing to userfy and incubate this list, as its just horrible right now and may not be salvageable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a defining characterstic and prune the non-notable entries. See also the CfD page, too. Lugnuts (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, and maybe even important, but not suitable for an encyclopedia since it is based on original research. Better to find sources that have discussed this issue and write an article, not a list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think that it has the potential to be sourced, and that it's not "absolutely silly" (there's a television show called 24 that operates on that type of storytelling premise). We have an entire category with the equally awkward title Category:Books which are set within one day, and it seems to have a lot of entries, so the premise isn't a rarity. I imagine that there will be some people who say "we have a category, who needs a list", but no need to go down that narrow avenue. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they do, they can be slapped with a good dose of WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move As the one who started the list a long time ago (although the title was different then, as were Wikipedia policies), I suggest we move the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/List of novels, the action of which takes place within 24 hours. All the questions concerning verifiability and whether it should be included at all have been addressed numerous times before, with exactly the same arguments and counterarguments as here (see, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/List of literary works with eponymous heroines). In no respect is such a list more random than any other, and it is very helpful to the student of literature if they want to work on narrative time versus time narrated. It seems to me that people who don't read novels or do so only for pleasure can't appreciate this fact. <K F> 08:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the creation entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found (I can't find any) which indicate that this has been used as a way to classify novels into a coherant group by someone else. No prejudice against moving to wikiproject space as suggested above. Guest9999 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, what do you mean by "no prejudice (?)"? No objection? <KF> 11:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry about my poor (now corrected) spelling, I'm using a temporary replacement computer and have obviously become over reliant on the Firefox spell checker. To answer your question, yes I mean no objection. Guest9999 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus transit systems in the United States[edit]

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

Borderline listcruft. If it were ever completed (unlikely), this list would have thousands of entries, and be of very little use. Every city of a very modest size has a bus system, and most of these systems are not likely to have their own articles. A person wanting to know about them would be more likely to look in the article about the city. L P ^talk 02:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or reformulate - delete as endless list, possibly reformulate as a list of lists by state... But the category system could be used for this anyways. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that "a person wanting to know about them would be more likely to look in the article about the city" makes the assumption that every city's article has a section about its mass transit system. Some users of reference works prefer to glance at tables rather than to click on individual articles. It's a sortable table and worthwhile as a navigational aid for persons looking for more than the name of the bus line. Although there are cases where a category is just as good as a list, that wouldn't be the case here. More often than not, the names of transit systems often do not give a clue as to the location of the operation (Unitrans, Tri Delta Transit, SMART, SEPTA, MARTA, etc.). Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Comment - I created the article because I noticed that, although there's a lot of articles on United States bus systems, the articles seem poorly organized and there isn't any equivalent to List of rail transit systems in the United States where a curious person can browse all of the systems in the United States. I'm also not sure what Lord Pistachio means by saying that the list would have thousands of entries, because I would be surprised if there were that many entries. --Apollo1758 (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both you (Apollo1758) and the nominator (LP) are allowed to cast a "vote" to go along with your comments. Although it's likely that the nominator would say delete and the article's originator would say keep, it gives a clearer picture on how many separate people are weighing in with opinions. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Keep. The articles pertaining to United States bus systems lack a comprehensive parent article, and according to WP:LISTS, one of the purposes of a list is to serve as a helpful navigational aid by listing articles associated with a topic. In addition, WP:CLN states that the usage of categories and lists to group articles is beneficial and complementary, and that neither should be considered in conflict with the other one. --Apollo1758 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-done and concise compilation, akin to List of rail transit systems in the United States. Serves as a natural table of contents and index of Wikipedia, per WP:LISTS. TJRC (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions are unsupported by the policies to which you point. For example, WP:CONPOL says that OR is a novel narrative or historical interpretation and this is not the case in this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the policy against original research does not mean that one would have to track down a previously published list or table. It does require that the entries on a list be sorted, which would be fairly easy, since most city transit systems have a website. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it has not been published elsewhere, then how would you distinguish it from WP:MADEUP? Without a verifiable source for this list, there is no rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia in accordance with WP:BURDEN. Why should Wikipedia be allowed to be used as platform for original research when it comes to lists, but not to articles? Every topic must be verfiable, whether it is a list or an article - hearsay that the topic can be verified, or that the existence of list topics is exempt from WP:V is not acceptable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every item on the list is verifiable from sources that are published elsewhere, so it's easy to toss in sources. An article, a table, a list-- all are, ultimately, a collection of statements of facts, arranged by the persons who write them. Facts should be cited so that people can see for themselves. It's simply a matter of sourcing the individual facts on the list in the same way one sources multiple statements within the narrative of an article. All that is required is a citation to a reliable and verifiable source. The first item on the list, ABQ RIDE, has a link within its article ([51]) which shows that it operates bus routes in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The link can be taken from one page and brought to another page, depending on how much sourcing is considered reasonable. There's no difference. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended, but you may be confusing a list topic (which has not been verified) with the content of the list. So if I create a "List of stuff" and you add ABQ RIDE, that does not mean that the list topic has been externally validated. This list lacks a published definition which provides evidence that this list exists in the real world. If there is no antecedent for this list topic, then it is original research and fails WP:MADEUP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A helpful navigational list per WP:LISTS. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PURPLIST for navigation. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely not a novel list, you can find lists of transit systems on the American Public Transportation Association website [52]. Otherwise, perfectly valid survey of public transportation companies in the US, and serves a valid navigational purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a person might well want a survery or general listing before proceeeding to details. The argument against this is an argument against having any general articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen plenty of band ideas for lists come through AFD. This is not one of them. Transit systems are a major notable feature of any metropolitan area, and a list of them makes perfectly good sense. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A helpful and entirely encyclopedic list, as types of transit systems are generally grouped in a general navigation list (e.g. List of rail transit systems in the United States, List of United States light rail systems by ridership). References can certainly be found for this, and nothing about it constitutes original research. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Reformulate. There are five to six thousand transit agencies in the US, however most of them are provide limited social service functions (e.g. senior, disabled, Medicaid , etc). The list should be limited to those that provide transportation to the general public and should be categorized by state. In this way individuals can find out which communities have transit and have a link to the page if it exists. Rkilcoyne (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) rkilcoyne[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Editions[edit]

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

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL with no 3rd party, reliable sources. ℳøℕø 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As much as I hate this kind of "sourcing", which is nothing more than a google news search term link (which isn't a real source), when I use it there are mentions about it. It seems to have been actually announced and there's coverage. If it turns out to not develop I would say a later deletion or merge would be appropriate, but there's some coverage here from reliable sources. It's not some guy's blog. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've added some additional sources, including the New Yorker article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional in-depth coverage by CNET, The Daily Telegraph and PC World: [53], [54], [55]. — Rankiri (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable. —innotata 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It would be nice if someone could add the sources found by Cbl to the article. NW (Talk) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Sash[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. No assertion of notability. BLGM5 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. The player is on several preseason lists for 2010 including the Lott Trophy, CFPA National Defensive Performer of the Year, and CFPA DB of the Year. I believe he also owns the interception return yards record at Iowa in a single season. (so the vote is 1-1, am I correct?)Obamafan70 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment doesn't quite work that way, it's not really a "vote" per se. However, thank you for your comments as I believe the comments of the "newbies" are just as important as those of us experienced old knocks... welcome to Wikipedia!--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point, there are nearly 50 players on each preseason watchlist. There are also thousands of players that hold school records. I do not think this college player is notable at this time. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Keep for now... the article as written could definitely use some work--additional sources, independent sources, and so forth. And while certainly the subject is notable in the Big Ten Conference, that does not necessarily equate to notability on a global encyclopedia. However, I'm willing to reserve judgement for now and see if the article comes together. I did some research, and it's possible that there may be enough general notability to support the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sold--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This guy is a first-team All-Big Ten football player. If he played for Michigan, I would write him a WP:GA. Any first team player from a BCS conference can keep his article until a year after his eligibility expires.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that if he doesn't play in the NFL after college, then his article can be deleted? By that logic, then he isn't notable now. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether he ever plays in the NFL or not, his notability is established by extensive non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press. Examples include: (1) Oskaloosa Herald, February 28, 2010, Tyler Sash, a true sportsman; (2) Omaha World-Herald, January 2, 2010, Iowa fan favorite: @#!%* Sash!; (3) Omaha World-Herald, January 2, 2010, Sash's TD stands out in wild year, (4) The Gazette, December 9, 2009, Tyler Sash a first-team All-America according to CBSsports.com, (5) Quad-City Times, November 6, 2009, SASH-MARKS Safety climbing school record charts for interceptions; (6) Newton Daily News, November 5, 2009, Iowa’s Tyler Sash named Jim Thorpe semifinalist; (7) McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), November 1, 2009, Sash pick starts miraculous Iowa day, (8) Oskaloosa Herald, November 1, 2009, Sash’s “Pick Six” helps Hawkeyes rally past Hoosiers, (9) Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA), September 15, 2009, Sash honored; ISU faces road streak, (10) Quad-City Times, September 14, 2009, Iowa's Sash takes honor, (11) The Gazette, September 13, 2009, Defense was Sash-and-burn, (12) McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), September 13, 2009, Three picks make Sash the 'oskie'master: Oskaloosa native ties Iowa interception record in win, (13) Oskaloosa Herald, August 9, 2009, Sash anxious to return to playing field, (14) The Gazette (Cedar Rapids-Iowa City, IA), January 2, 2009, Red-shirt freshman Sash provides spark, (15) McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), January 2, 2009, Iowa defense continues to show power: Sash has two interceptions , (16) Omaha World-Herald (NE), January 2, 2009, Hawkeyes' safety Sash shows progress, (17) Oskaloosa Herald, January 2, 2009, Sash plays key role in Iowa’s Outback Bowl win, (18) The Quad-City Times, January 2, 2009, Iowa's Sash turns heads, momentum on defense Freshman snags 2 interceptions, (19) The State (Columbia, SC), January 2, 2009, Sash picks perfect time to progress, (20) Omaha World-Herald, November 11, 2008, Big Ten honors Hawkeyes' Sash, (21) McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA), September 19, 2008, Safety Sash looks back at key pick: Sash?'s interception keyed Hawks win, (22) Oskaloosa Herald, September 15, 2008, Sash had dream of a day in Iowa’s 17-5 win over ISU, (23) The Gazette (Cedar Rapids-Iowa City, IA), September 7, 2008, Sash starts ahead of Dalton, Ferentz wanted look at red-shirt freshman in a starting role, (24) Daily Gate City (Keokuk, IA), August 6, 2008, Sash looking to make impact, (25) Oskaloosa Herald, August 5, 2008, Osky’s Sash anxious to get action on gridiron for Hawkeyes, (26) Ottumwa Courier, December 16, 2009, Sash named All-American, (27) The Daily Iowan, Sash a Thorpe semifinalist, November 5, 2009, (28) Tyler “motherbleeping” Sash’s bleeping good season, January 1, 2010, Gazette. (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment looks like a lot of local sources that any college football player would receive. — X96lee15 (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Not at all. I regularly scan the AfDs for college football players and decide which ones warrant saving. Sash has WAY, WAY more coverage than they typical college football player receives. A typical player is just going to get passing references in game coverage. Sash has dozens of feature stories about him in multiple newspapers. And it's not just in the UI student newspaper. It's in dozens of papers throughout the state of Iowa and in Nebraska, South Carolina, and the McClatchy-Tribune Regional News. This guy's clearly above the notability threshold. Cbl62 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources presented by Cbl62, the subject meets WP:GNG.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like this one can be closed as keep. Hopefully people realize the sources found need to actually make it into the article, or the problem doesn't go away. BLGM5 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine L. Bowie[edit]

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

No evidence of multiple, non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:N. The closest that this article gets to claiming notability is by saying "Whether she was one of the first African American women to join the Women's Army Corps (WAC) is uncertain", but this speculation is not at all supported by the reference. PROD declined on the basis that "if she was first black woman to join army she is notable", but this is not claimed by the source, let alone demonstrated. Considering that the article mentions that "In the Army of the 1940s, African American enlisted women served in segregated units; lived, ate and played in segregated facilities; and trained in segregated classes", it is unlikely that she was the first - certainly that would have been brought up, or at least suggested, if she were. Canadian Paul 01:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above. Rapier (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found a few hits [56], but not enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Doesn't meet WP:MILPEOPLE, either. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zettai ryouiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

foreign dicdef. delete UtherSRG (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been provided which show that it is prominent in modern Japanese culture. --Jean-Luc Pikachu (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since when was "foreign dicdef" grounds for deletion? And it appears to be a major part of Japanese culture. 53,000 Engligh ghits. Notability is clearly established. ALI ^{nom nom} 00:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since when is a "foreign dicdef" grounds for deletion? Since it's a dictionary definition per WP:NOTDICT. The "foreign" part is irrelevant.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless actual reliable sources can be found to establish notability and expand beyond current stub state. GHits are not sufficient proof of notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be notable, and being a stub is not grounds for deletion. --E2eamon (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete, it already exists on Wiktionary, and this is a dictdef. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition adequately covered in Wiktionary. --DAJF (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion as reposting of article previously deleted following AfD. No new material is provided in this version. --DAJF (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nice catch of the alternate spelling.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've speedied this, but I've forgetten what to do to close the AFD. Gimme a couple to figure it out. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Rodriguez Music Executive[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Has been speedy deleted 3 times at Flash Rodriguez. No secondary sources found in searches, just press releases, social networking sites, etc. Cptmurdok (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - THIS ARTICLE DOES MEET THE CRITERIA AND SHOULD STAND Flash Rodriguez is verified in numerous video clips listed in the references. In addition to appearing on numerous music media websites such as Global Grind and all hip hop.com. In addition, news stories linking him to celebrities and credits listed on fancast.com IMDB and the nytimes film page. I feel deletion is unwarranted and the page should stand as it does fit the criteria requirements. --Themusicinsider (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusicinsider (talk • contribs) 00:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highly recommend that this article remains, as it meets all required criteria. Article is factual and only contains biographical information and accomplishments in the entertainment industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusicinsider (talk • contribs) 00:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous independent sources listed in just the articles "REFERENCES" section, alone. Global Grind is NOT self-published. Also, video testimony from Grammy Award winning persons and celebrity executives are more than ample references. Please stop being so negative and let the article remain. It appears as if you have a personal vendetta. --Themusicinsider (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets criteria!!! Subject of article is found on numerous independent website and media publications and celebrity websites. Subject of article also appears in online and literary publication "The Music Business Registry" by Ritch Esra. This publication lists all valid and credible music companies and executives. Subject of article is credible and relevant to his industry. Website is located at http://www.musicregistry.com/frame.html --Themusicinsider (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Music Registry is nothing more than a contact directory, per its own website. -C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a directory that verifies that the subject is a valid and legitimate executive in his industry, as that is the only explanation for him being listed therein. --Themusicinsider (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All sources cited are self-published, press releases, or the like. The content is not verifiable with independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) (!vote reclassified from delete to strong delete at 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC): see below.)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Does not meet the requirements set at WP:MUSIC. I am concerned that this article keeps being recreated ... if it is being done by the same editor a block might be in order for disruption. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the creator of the Flash Rodriguez articles was blocked for a spam username. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the previous page that was deleted was NOT a SPAM username, but was however an inexperienced editor who was deleted and editing without proper knowledge of the techniques. --Themusicinsider (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason listed for the deletion was a spam username or use of the account only for blatant advertisement. I'm just going by the logs. —C.Fred (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article is clearly not an advertisement or braggadocios. Please change your vote to KEEP the article.--Themusicinsider (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article appears in images on numerous red carpets on wireimage, including music industry award ceremonies and is listed as CEO of The FEAM Group.--Themusicinsider (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. After looking at the references cited in the article currently, the best I'm coming up with for a claim of notability is "Flash Rodriguez worked in the Camera Crew on the TV show Diddy Runs the City." Clearly short of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The testimonial from Ephren Taylor, btw, is published by the YouTube account named FlashRodriguez, so it's right back into the realm of self-published and dubious independence. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you have some type of personal issue with this article. So are you saying that a world renowned Executive was forced to make that public statement? You are also selectively disregarding the independent media coverage such as http://www.ihiphop.com/?p=47985 , http://hhnlive.com/news/more/731 , http://www.ballerstatus.com/2005/08/05/publicity-stunt-accusations-against-vida-guerra-are-false-says-her-rep/

Ironically none of these stories are SELF PUBLISHED!!! --Themusicinsider (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iHipHop appears to be a blog, per its FAQ; it's not clear it qualifies as reliable. It's not clear what HHNLive is. Baller Status appears to be reliable. However, all that article says is that Rodriguez owns Flash Records, and he and his company are being sued by Vida Guerra. Further, the link to Baller Status was not in the article, and still isn't at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please !vote only once. After your "keep" or "delete" post, everything else is a comment. I've reformatted the entries above to remove extraneous !votes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per C.Fred. A diligent search of Google & Google News found no mention of this person in reliable sources. All quoted sources are connected to the subject (press releases, etc.), so there is no third-party information on notability, and as a BLP having no reliable sources is a major problem. Even if it were to survive this AfD, it more than likely would eventually be stubbified because of BLP concerns. If it weren't a BLP, I'd suggest that it be userfied until some reliably sourced information becomes available. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You just stated that you did a Google Search and Google News search, if that's true then you would have found all of the referenced articles, which are not press release driven. These articles are interviews and editorials. This article should NOT be deleted, as it is regarding a credible music executive who is notable and relevant in his industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusicinsider (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he is notable, then there should be some record of it. A few press releases and blog entries and such are not an indication of notability, and your repetition that they are will not make it so. I believe it's quite clear to everyone here that you believe that article should be kept, so it's not necessary to repeat it over and over again. It's obviously not changing anyone's opinion, and it's not going to influence the closing admin's evaluation of the arguments made, which is based on Wikipedia's policies – so, please, give it a rest. My evaluation is that the subject of this article has not been shown to be notable, and the only thing that is going to change that is some coverage in reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. The current "references" do not meet WP:SOURCES. Wyatt Riot (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the relevant criteria; not enough WP:RS. Shadowjams (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; blogs and YouTube videos are not reliable or acceptable sources for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 17:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Browser[edit]

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

As discussed in the talk page, the article has multiple issues. Most importantly it may not meet the notability criterion. JokerXtreme (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. See: WP:NOT#INTERNET. --hydrox (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems notable; third party sources don't say much other than "it exists, and we think it is great", but the article (as of now) is just descriptive anyways. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. Did you find any sources that cover the subject in any detail? The article's references certainly don't. — Rankiri (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - independent sources only have trivial coverage (passing mention), nothing of significance, thus it fails WP:N.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless this article can be improved before a verdict is reached, I vote to delete it. --Jesant13 (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Relationship Between Elizabeth II And Her Husband Philip[edit]

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

This is a good example of WP:NOT -- a subset of another article. It would be a fork but I don't see any example it was forked out and this information (this is unsourced) is already covered in the article on Elizabeth II. Shadowjams (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; unsourced here, and is already detailed in Elizabeth II#Marriage
Delete per nom. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources in this article, and without sources there is no means of verifying the content. --Jesant13 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately as WP:BLP violation -- Both Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Queen Elizabeth II are living people. There's no reason to allow this type of unsourced content concerning them. Even if sources could be provided, this article would still violate WP:BLP by giving undue weight to the purported circumstances described. Emily Jensen (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same statement is in the Elizabeth II article, with more relevance but less detail. It's unsourced, but that seems to be a simple fact to verify/disprove from any number of dozens of biographies. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their common ancestry and blood relationship is already covered elsewhere. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but no prejudice to recreation with sources. Outback the koala (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This would be better placed as part of a family tree, with WIkilinks for the entries. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate of information already present in Elizabeth_II#Marriage: Now the debate's underway I don't see much point in speedy tagging, but would this have qualified as an A10? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mostly all above. I think it's not an A10, though; the only way I can see to CSD this is via WP:IAR. Frank | talk 11:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding the snickers and coughs generated by the title (punch line: "at least four times"), this is a bit of information that can be referred to in the article about the Prince Consort. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information is already covered in Elizabeth II#Marriage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Plus it is redundant creating an article with information already found elsewhere. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sometimes you can tell just from the title that an article isn't going to be any good as written. Bearcat (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MusicJapanplus[edit]

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

No third party sources can be found for this site. Fails WP:GNG. MS (Talk|Contributions) 17:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Found two sources from Anime News Network, however; it still fails WP:GNG. MS (Talk|Contributions) 17:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy notability criteria, and seems overly self-promotional. --DAJF (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable web magazine which does seem self-promotional. I can't verify the references in Japanese as I don't know the language. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siperia[edit]

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

As the place has burned down almost four years ago it serves no purpose in the wiki. The page seems to be only about the fire that destroyed it, which is not in any way sensible; only sources about the activities in the building are written on their former web page, which is hardly a reliable source by any standards. More importantly the subject matter (controversial community house in Helsinki) has only significance in the fennophone sphere, and specifically nil to petit significance in the anglophone sphere. As such, I am not nominating it up for deletion in the Finnish Wikipedia, but see no reason for an article in the English Wikipedia. --hydrox (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. --hydrox (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that something no longer exists is not a reason for deletion. Consider Carthage. The fact that something is not located in an English-speaking country is also not a reason to delete. Sources in any language are equally valid. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.

The article in the Finnish newspaper (translation) appears to be a routine news story about the fire, and I'm not so sure that squat.net is a WP:RS source. Are there any additional sources? — Rankiri (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly – only concrete, reliable source that can be found for the article is about the fire and the end of the activity. However, I suppose the fire itself was not important, but the community activities – however this article will eternally fail to document the activities as there are no contemporary sources available. The article has had a pending request for citation about the activites for 1½ years ([57]). And yes, anything on squat.net is most obviously not reliable – the sites are maintained by various politically motivated organizations that could potentially have a high incentive for manipulation. --hydrox (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage by reliable sources beyond WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is too small and it does not seem to be important enough to remain on Wikipedia. --Jesant13 (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bel-Air Centre[edit]

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

Questionable notability. First source is a real estate listing; second, a personal website on drive-in theaters; third and fourth, press releases on stores opening and closing. I don't think the latter two are enough to carry this article, even though it does assert notability as being the only true shopping center within Detroit proper. It's also a strip mall, and precedent seems to be that strip malls are far less likely to be notable than enclosed malls or lifestyle centers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rescue Looking at a search for sources, I believe some can be found. Dew Kane (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search and Google book search shows some results. Things happen at the mall, it listed for them, thus a notable location. A travel book, Explore Michigan: Detroit, list it among notable places to watch a movie. As locations go, this seems notable enough. Dream Focus 20:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be a major or regional shopping center. No outside coverage about the center itself. If kept, it should be renamed "Bel-Air Centre (Detroit)" to distinguish it from similarly-named center in Mobile, Alabama - and probably other places. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An address and phone number listed in Explore Michigan: Detroit are not significant coverage. No reliable sources with significant coverage found. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not come close to meeting WP:N. The sources contain only trivial mentions of the subject. Independent secondary sources with non-trivial depth of coverage are required to substantiate our required threshold of notability. See also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer the author to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources out there which cover this mall. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you know of a reliable one with significant coverage? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Martinez[edit]

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

While it cites some pages with this dance instructor's certainly enjoyable time teaching, he is not notable and the page's content and style point to an obvious resume that exists solely to boost his credentials. Noopinonada (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources discuss him that I am able to find. The current article is written like a personal website vs an encyclopedia article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely has some WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. The article has the term "well-known." That is also POV. The article as says he coined the term Afro- Latin Funk. That claim needs to be sourced because for all I know some random choreographer could have coined that term. The article in general needs sources. The article in general reads like a bio from a personal website. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Klaxon.com[edit]

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

A non-notable blog. Refs provided are mostly primary or not-reliable. I was unable to find any non-primary sources on Google News. Likely sock or meatpuppetry as well, as the article about the related blogger Joshua Wilwohl looks exactly like this one but was written by a different account. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do not see any notability established from reliable sources. Truthsort (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are from the BBC [58]. It's also sourced on sites such as Steve Emerson [59] and the National Disaster Interfaiths Network [60]. The U.S. Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense also sources The Klaxon.com [61] and so does Providence, Rhode Island, emergency management office [62]. This why it was added because it is notable in its field. Newsuser070 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about the podcast from the BBC as I am unable to stream it from work, but the others do not count, I believe. Some other website simply using material posted at this website does not make it notable. The website itself must be the subject of coverage, meaning it must have had articles or books, or some such material written ABOUT it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent article done on The Klaxon.com by reputable national agency in emergency management [63]. Newsuser070 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MD Rabbi Alam[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, not having held elective office. Fails WP:BIO, not having been the subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Biruitorul ^Talk 21:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the nom. But without prejudice to being re-created when just being on the Kansas City Property Maintenance Appeals Board is all you need to have an article as per WP:KANSASCITYPROPERTYMAINTENANCEAPPEALSBOARD. Codf1977 (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and there is no hint of anything else that would meet notability criteria. Valenciano (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freefall (webcomic)[edit]

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

Absolutely no reliable sources found. Freefall + webcomic on Gnews turns up absolutely nothing. Asserts notability with one Web Cartoonist's Choice award, but that alone is insufficient to carry the whole article, especially with no other secondary sources whatsoever. The rest of the article is in-universe and/or OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article asserts notability and has references. I don't see very much in-universe material, on the contrary, a significant part of the article talks about the webcomic from an outside perspective. JIP | Talk 06:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. It does assert notability with that award, but I really just don't think it meets our standards. If it can be saved, I would strongly recommend stubbing it to only reliably-sourced content (if there is any to be found). In addition, I removed a paragraph that was sourced only to forum posts. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poorly sourced. Neither the single blog source nor little-known "Web Cartoonist's Choice award" meet our standards. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comic won a Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards, which is enough to assert notability. The quality of the article is absolutely okay. --84.57.181.140 (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sharksaredangerous. One extremely minor award just isn't enough, if it was an Eisner award it would be a whole different story. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, I was awaiting the final choice on the "web cartoonist". Though it is a minor award it is notable within its community. The Eisner award is also not well known outside its community I might note. The award I believe is enough of a Peer review to establish notoriety, within a community. That and the fact the comic has been in existence for over 10 years, and the article is likewise as old deserve consideration. Furthermore I think I was finaly persuaded by the wikinews article [64].Baronger (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have edited your comment above to fix the syntax to the external link to Wikinews. JIP | Talk 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move This is perfect for wikifur which already has a nice article on the subject. I propose an inter-wiki merge.

Sure. That'd be a good idea no matter what the outcome, if the article here can aid the article there. However, what's out there elsewhere doesn't figure into decisions about what to have here. We could blow up the encyclopedia without reducing the sum total of human knowledge. --Kiz o r 16:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable, no sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a tremendous amount of bother about the WCCAs around the time of the Wikinews article Baronger mentioned. It resulted in a broad consensus among the webcomic project that the awards are sufficient to establish notability. They're well-known in their field, they're established, they're prestigious enough to be front page material for winners and nominees of the superlatively popular Hugo Awards and Eisner Award. (Even if the awards didn't establish notability, then notability would be in the wrong: notability, as you know, is not a goal in itself, but an arbitrary standard of significance to help us keep our coverage useful and maintainable. Any such standard that disqualified a work that's received major accolades in its field would be silly.)
Eric Burns is fine as a secondary source. The link goes to a blog, sure. Blogs aren't categorically rejected as sources, they're only seldom used because the great majority of blogs are by pseudonymous writers whom we don't know from Adam. Experts' blogs like this one aren't. For instance, the video game wikiproject is actively using Greg Costikyan's contributions to Play This Thing! as a secondary source.
OR and in-universe are editing matters and don't enter into this. --Kiz o r 16:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable per WP:N, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A few paragraphs on a personal blog doesn't cut it. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The issue of notability aside, if a brief blog is all there is with respect to third party coverage, then there is simply not enough material to write a verifiable article about the topic. Sandstein 12:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. redundant to individual articles Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping malls in Niagara County[edit]

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

A list with only four entries is hardly a list at all. This is an extremely inappropriate way to handle this topic, as ~~three of these four malls are notable enough to have their own, standalone articles, as seen by the work in my sandbox. (Fashion Outlets would be the odd one out.)~~ all four malls are notable enough for their own articles.

Note that I have already created a decent-length, well-sourced article on Lockport Mall, and am about to do so with The Summit and Rainbow Centre. Once those are made into full articles, this article would be rendered almost entirely redundant -- doesn't a list have to have at least five possible entries to be a list? -- and the terrible quality of the writing ("these factors combined to slaughter the malls of the 1970s and '80s") would have to be axed either way. ~~As for Fashion Outlets, it can be a redirect to an appropriate section on the community, since it's the only one out of the four that would be unlikely to support a full article.~~ Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate into articles on each. From there, determine which ones are worthy of keeping and which ones should be deleted. Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All four malls now have articles on their own. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate into distinct articles for each. This article might survive if turned into a list, but the individual malls need to be judged separately. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, if articles are created, then delete this article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Bishopsgate[edit]

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

Google news finds almost no reporting on this vapourware construction project. Google books finds nothing at all. If Wikipedia were a crystal ball, which it isn't, this article might belong here. It's not, it doesn't. A passing mention in the List of tallest buildings and structures in London would be more than adequate coverage of this non-building. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why not do that? Boldly trim it, merge it and redirect it. You don't need an AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A planned skyscraper in the capital of a sovereign state is notable. There is a reliable source referenced (skyskcrapernews.com), so only need inline citations. --hydrox (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only as recently as two weeks ago there appears to have been public activity regarding these plans: [65] --hydrox (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy for now. The key factor is enduring notability. It might have notability if the building goes ahead (depending on whether a building that tall is notable in a district full of tall buildings), but it certainly won't have enduring notability if it doesn't go ahead. At the moment, we don't know what will happen, so it's a WP:CRYSTAL. Happy to revisit if and when building starts. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a major contractor on board, that has just bought 50% of the project, and it is now within 12 months of physical construction starting. So it seems pretty likely to be going ahead. But the key factor is present notability -- a proposal for a major building like this on a site like Bishopsgate is notable, and something we should cover. (In addition to it having the required sourcing for notability by-the-book). Jheald (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 user space. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userland (computing)[edit]

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

This article attributes two different meanings to this "term". First is partially original research (the Jargon File does not state anything about privilege separation, and it is quite unclear what separation the article refers to). Second meaning is unsourced at all. So, there is a dab page Userland where these two meanings should be listed and briefly explained, but this page is not an article and should be deleted. Also, I'm going to remove that link from ((Operating system)) which will help to estimate how this "article" is linked; now that template effectively jams the list at Special:Whatlinkshere/Userland (computing). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to user space is the obvious solution. I've never seen "userland" used to refer to a user's home directory. Also, privilege separation is a very well-defined concept in operating systems. (PS: if you think that something is wrong with an article, go to the talk page first. Requesting deletion is really unnecessary here) -- intgr [talk] 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have no objections against redirection to user space. Mentioning of privilege separation (as a part of criterion) leads to undefined classification of root-owned user space processes: must they be classified as userland, or they are not userland nor kernel? If there is something unclear in article, it obviously is not a significant argument against article in whole. But on the edge of deletion due to another defects, where all other content is trivial or questionable, it may became a valid weak argument for deletion. Certainly, if I did not invoke this AfD, I would try to improve or remove this. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please, fix a link in ((infobox OS)). I am not sure that it is so narrow as user space. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to user space, since it's a synonym in most cases. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should be redirected to user space — mikelifeguard@enwiki:~$ 23:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Yes, this is a valid term, but a lousy article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Brown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Major WP:ONEVENT and WP:N issues. As tragic as the Columbine High School massacre was, but (per the article) this person's only claims to notability are that he was a school mate of the assassins who got them into some trouble once, that he was a short-term suspect (which doesn't seem to be significant since it isn't mentioned in the main article), and that he published a book. The majority of this is already in the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure of old AfD.

Abdullah Al Dosar[edit]

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

Unremarkable, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability MaenK.A._Talk 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Abdullah Al-Dosari (singer), duplicate article, other article is nominated for deletion too. --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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