< 6 April	8 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 delete. Shimeru (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FiveBooks[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable company, created by an account associated with the company. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid RL0919 is right. The subject of the article is not notable enough. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not quite sure about this. I'll see what others have to say on this. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, FiveBooks is a new website, maybe it is not so notable yet, but it is growing. FiveBooks was a part of www.thebrowser.com before and separated on the 8th of March 2010 as an independent website. FiveBooks has a coverage by english language newspapers , such as Moscow Times, St.-Petersburg Times, Khaleej Times, Prospect Magazine UK and some others. Also a translated interview into German with Hans Ulrich Orbist should appear here: http://www.edition-nautilus.de/programm/belletristik/buch-978-3-89401-450-6.html , published by Edition Nautilus Publicity, Hamburg.

there are some links of syndicated FiveBooks interviews in English language papers abroad:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_n_ideas/article/robert-services-top-5-books-on-totalitarianism/399087.html

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=30758&highlight=five%20 books

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=30783&highlight=five%20 books Thank you, Anon111 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Anon111 — Anon111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, WP:GNG^[1]. — Rankiri (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a site with really in-depth discussions with top scholars, including Nobel Laureates, about important topical matters. For example, Eric Maskin is interviewed on "Economic Theory and the Financial Crisis", Harvard economist Robert Barro on the "Lessons of the Great Depression." So there's a ton of those - and there are few other resources like this - sort of blending the academic with accessible journalism (well accessible to the general reader) I think the entry needs to be written up better, to show the significance of the site, but not deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.170.130 (talk) — 74.39.170.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I don't think that the quality of the content of the website is questioned here or that it might be quite notable at some time. But right now, it doesn't seem to have significant coverage per WP:GNG. For instance is there a reliable secondary source that describes what FiveBooks is in detail? --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article about The Browser has issues itself. I've added some tags there. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JokerXtreme, thank you for your comment. Isn't that a tough bar for a website (or newspaper)? The focus is always on what they're covering rather than what they are - even if it's the New York Times. The site's interviews have been cited in a major economics journals, now appear UK intellectual magazine Propsect (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/fivebooks-trevor-philips/) and have been translated into Chinese, in the economics magazine, Bijiao. I'm not sure that the fact that none of these undertake a huge analysis of what exactly Fivebooks is (especially given it's pretty obvious) means it isn't notable. (there are some more links related to FiveBooks- about the site: http://www.raphkoster.com/2010/03/16/fivebooks-on-games/; syndicated FiveBooks interview: http://www.mbsadr.com/arabic/pages/mozakerat.php?nid=6) Anon111 (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Anon111[reply]
- Well ok, I changed it to a "weak delete" and I will make my mind after I hear to what others have to say first. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Weak delete~~ Delete as wp:spam, see my comment below. Interesting idea, might take off eventually. But for now, it is still just an interesting idea, not notable by Wikipedia's criteria. The connection with Prospect is exactly one issue old, and there is almost literally NO coverage on Google. In order to qualify for listing in this encyclopedia, there has to have been "independent recognition in reliable sources". Yes, that may be a tough bar for a website to meet - but if it doesn't meet it, it just doesn't belong in Wikipedia. There have to be standards here, otherwise everybody could post any old thing they want, and Wikipedia's value as a reference would be lost. Sorry, maybe in a few years, but not now. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean no coverage? In my area, economics it comes up a lot. eg. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Zjc1ZTEzNzgyMjY1YmI2ZDUzMjY3YWZmMDgxNTNhNTI= . I use Wikipedia to find out what things I don't know what they are - are. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? I don't normally contribute to these comments, but it seems a bit odd to delete a page that I came to precisely to find out what exactly Fivebooks was, only to see it is being considered for deletion because not enough people know what it is. In my view, if anything, the entry should be expanded, because the description is quite frankly a little sparse. But that I suppose is a whole different discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.133.46 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC) — 74.44.133.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you for the National Review Online link; I believe that does qualify as a mainstream reference in a reliable source (sure it's a blog, but it's a blog of a major publication). That causes me to change my vote from "delete" to "weak delete". A few more references like that and I would change my vote to keep. And by the way, you said the article should be expanded; why not go ahead and be bold and expand it yourself? For example by adding this reference? --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The source is only interested in Robert Barro, not in his interviewer. — Rankiri (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am switching back to "delete" after reviewing the history of the page and its author. User:Anon111 is the author of the page, and has made literally hundreds of contributions in the past few months, ALL of them related to FiveBooks or The Browser, with whom Anon111 is affiliated. (See User talk:Anon111). After Anon111 was admonished for personally adding so many external links to the two publications on Wikipedia pages, he/she then began asking third parties to add the external links.[2] IMO we are witnessing a spam-storm here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 14 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. There seem to be a number of possible outcomes here, especially as there are two possible communities referred to. Best to close this as NC for the time being to allow further discussion to continue without precluding a further AfD in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underwood, Ontario[edit]

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

No references, a population of 100? And is considered part of another community Whenaxis (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Not sure - Population centers are inherently notable and this appears to be one [3] Having a population of 100 is not a reason to delete an article of a town/village. Many have far less and are still inherently notable. If it was population 50, I'd still vote keep.--Oakshade (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Whoops!. It seems this article is referring to a different Underwood in Ontario. Right now I can't find any info on it.--Oakshade (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be an article about two different places. The first two paragraphs deal with what appears to be a neighborhood or housing development in Markham; the last paragraph, with a hamlet that forms part of the municipality of Kincardine. Although the article originally dealt with only the first one, I'm unsure of that one's notability: I can't find mentions of it anywhere except in real-estate sites, and if it's just a subdivision (housing estate), there's a pretty strong AfD tradition of rejecting such places as nonnotable. (The complete lack of relevant Google News hits suggests that it's not a place whose name has "verifiable widespread usage".) The second place, however—which is the one that appears in the Google map linked by Oakshade above—seems to meet our usual requirements for verifiable populated places; it had a separate existence before being incorporated in the municipality in 1999, and there are some sources (for example, this) that could be used to support at least a stub on it. My opinion at the moment is that the article should be kept and rewritten so that its topic is the Kincardine place, but I'd like to hear from someone who is familiar with Markham and can clarify the nature of the Underwood there. Deor (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intersection of Steeles Avenue and Birchmount Road [4] doesn't appear to be a unique community. I can't tell where the name "Underwood, Ontario" would have come from [5]; there's an "Underwood Carpet Cleaning" but it isn't anywhere close to the intersection. Although Wikipedia is very generous when it comes to populated communities, there's a tendency for people to want to write about their own neighborhood separately from the community in which they live. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reason why I nominated this article is because I live in Markham, and I've never heard of this community before. I nominated Legacy, Markham, Ontario for AfD because it has no notable areas that I know of. I'm very familiar with the Markham area - and I believe that Underwood (in Markham) should actually be part of the community Milliken. We could also rewrite it so its about the community in Kincardine. Whenaxis (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - simply "not hearing of this community before" is not a verifiable source of information and not grounds for deletion.--Nyuarsx (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, if the article was created on nothing more than that the author claimed to have heard of this place, that is a verifiable source of information? Nevertheless, even if the burden of proof was on us, I think it's pretty clear that we've proven that there is no Underwood at the corner of Birchmount and Steeles. Mandsford (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - To make the accusation that I was trying to make a formal fallacy bydenying the antecedent is both inappropriate and absurd. See WP:Civility --Nyuarsx (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at it as well. The suggestion that the nomination was made on the grounds of "Simply 'not hearing of this community before'" was what most people would consider to be an attempt at sarcasm. The basis for his nomination was that there were no references and that the article was describing part of another community. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a direct quotation of the the nominating editor's reason why (with why emphasized in italic): "The reason why I nominated this article is because I live in Markham, and I've never heard of this community before." Making my statement obviously not sarcasm but a direct response to the reasoning of the AfD. --Nyuarsx (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively Merge as part of the greater undisputed community that it resides. --Nyuarsx (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just merge and redirect to the appropriate article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article about the hamlet in the Municipality of Kinkardine. If anyone wants to merge any sourceable information about the other place into Milliken, Ontario or Markham, Ontario, it will be available in the article's history. Deor (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article would need a rewrite, but you're right, there is what looks like an unincorporated (but populated) community by that name, on Highway 21, northast of Kincardine. Unfortunately, I can't transmit the street view, but the signs marking Underwood are very clear. That would be a keeper. Mandsford (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- So everyone agrees to rewrite the article and merge the information of Underwood, Markham into Markham or Milliken. Rewriting the article into the hamlet northeast of Kincardine. Whenaxis (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I found a viable map for the Underwood near Kincardine: 1 just wait for the street view to come in (usually a copuple of seconds) Whenaxis (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Underwoods. The Geographical Names Board of Canada has listings for both. This may be another case of "once notable, always notable", referring to an agricultural community that existed before the IBM golf course was built. You can use this form to check a Canadian place name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eastmain where in the article or in the Geographical Names Board of Canada does it state there was an IBM Golf Course? Whenaxis (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milliken, Ontario, since it is considered to be part of Milliken. Dew Kane (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Outback the koala (talk) 07:58, 13 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy, Markham, Ontario[edit]

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

No references, no significant and notable areas within community Whenaxis (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same situation as "Underwood, Ontario"-- it's part of Markham. This would more properly be called "Legacy Drive, Markham, Ontario". There's a very nice, upper middle class subdivision with houses along Legacy Drive, that all seem to look alike and it's adjacent to a nice golf course, but the notability for populated places doesn't extend to places that could be properly described as part of a larger community. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just merge and redirect to the appropriate article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Canadian Geographical Names Data Base at http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/search/search_e.php does not have a listing for Legacy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neighborhood. --Bejnar (talk) 15:17, 11 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. The first book is borderline, but this one clearly fails WP:BK as pointed out. Debatable how notable the author is? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Logic of Half a Moustache[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Author is not notable. WP:CRYSTAL. Re-create it if it sells enough. Triwbe (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Oppose I think there is a misunderstanding. The book is currently a Waterstone's bestseller in Bradford and has received 2 newspaper reviews, one of which is referenced. See Khan's article for notability of the author. Just because I've only just started writing the article, and it's not finished yet, that's not a reason for deletion. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that: both articles fully referenced. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both the book and its author don't seem to meet the respective notability guidelines (WP:BK, WP:AUTH). The above review by Mahmud Khan's hometown newspaper is insufficient. Where exactly is the other review? — Rankiri (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The linked review is the only ONLINE link available. There are print reviews which can be referenced but obviously not linked.--Aquillyne-- (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be Internet links, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. But I think any modern day biography should have some Internet coverage, preferably at a national level. Normally notability should be at a national or international level. Whether regional sources are sufficient, I do not know and we must let the community decide. --Triwbe (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A short notice in your hometown newspaper of a print-on-demand book doesn't seem sufficient to me. I think the Mahmud Khan article should probably get deleted as well; I'm not at all certain that the first book, in Urdu, wasn't self-published. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is currently a Waterstone's Bradford bestseller, which is highly notable. I can't find you a link for that, but it is. Notability shouldn't just be based on whether I can provide a link. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Over 2000 Google results on the title. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's concept of notability is based on significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, not on arbitrary sales figures. Also, please see WP:GHITS, WP:INHERITED and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. — Rankiri (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources added, see photo from Waterstones. Note I think I have verifiability licked here, so sources aren't really the issue - I'm just trying to demonstrate the notability of the book for Wikipedia. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this falls under the Self Published Source criteria. I can easily have a picture of myself taken in a local bookshop and have it published on the Internet. Infact I know a writer who did that, even did a book signing session in his local bookshop, but the book was also self-published and neither him nor his book were notable. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Please see WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUBLISH to be clear on what we mean. --Triwbe (talk) 13:00, 14 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) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Bangladeshi Poetry[edit]

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

quite simply, it doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a "Dictionary of Bangladeshi Poetry"; this is simply an advocacy page for the creation of such a document. Ironholds (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The quote "so its logically realized to build up a Dictionary for Bengali Poetry for Bangladesh" makes it out to me thats a soapbox, also does not have any reliable sources. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: per WP:NOT. XrhenryX (talk · contribs) has also created similar original research articles such as Mythological Dictionary of Indian Subcontinent, and also contributed to his own vanity autobiography Rahman Henry. --Ragib (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SOAPBOX. Warrah (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: XrhenryX (talk · contribs) (the creator of this article) also wrote his autobiography Rahman Henry, which is currently under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahman Henry as well. --Ragib (talk) 06:35, 13 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 - A3 ("Article has no meaningful, substantive content"). Non admin closure (pure housekeeping) -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H-Eugene[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Speedily deleted 3 times, recreated in substantially the same form for the 4th time, recommend delete and salt. GregJackP (talk) 21:33, 7 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. Shimeru (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wykked Wytch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD ended with no consensus simply because only one editor contributed to the discussion after two relistings. I outlined the history of the article in more detail on the last nomination, but in hopes that a shorter explanation will entice more editors to contribute to this discussion, I will simply state the key issue: Wykked Wytch fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles. Neelix (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band most likely hasn't been signed to a record label with a notability enough to have a wikipedia article. The format is askew from that of the preferred format of band articles. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as this fails WP:MUSIC as described. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band has been the subject of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, so passes both WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1: Allmusic, MusicMight, and a couple of Blabbermouth news articles: [6], [7].--Michig (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MusicMight covers every metal band, even if they were a bunch of friends who just cut one demo and split up. In fact, users can register there and add information etc. Therefore, that cannot be used as a source to assert notability. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't always been the case - most bios are from the old Rockdetector site which was not user-editable. The content has also formed the basis of several published books.--Michig (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is also coverage of a legal dispute over the use of their name such as "Letter of the Law -- Wytch's Brouhaha: Demoness Ipek Clashes With Mark Warlokk --- Obscure American Postal Court Adjudicates Who Gets Their Mail" by Jess Bravin in The Asian Wall Street Journal, 23 July 2001. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not very good, and seems to be "making the case" rather than providing interesting or informative content, or providing references to support wp:GNG or wp:music criteria #1compliance. However, unless the statements contained are brazen lies (which I doubt)they indicate high likelyhood of the band meeting wp:GNG and wp:music #1. Given this high likelyhood of compliance, give the editors a few months to get this article in better shape with respect to the above... it could be given an AFD test at that time. North8000 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Allmusic indicates notability, also covered in VampireFreaks, a WP:RS. Poor article quality is a separate issue from notability. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right. I was thinking that the small overlap would be references in the article establishing the "coverage" aspects of GNG and WP:Music #1 of 12, but even that (references establishing coverage vs. references to back up the statements in the article)is still a separate issue, as you pointed out. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 14 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) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Survival (EP)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable album (not charted) from non-notable band (no entry on the actual band, though some of the members formed a later band). GregJackP (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable band. Fails WP:N and all points of WP:MUSIC. OlYeller^Talktome 20:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable album from a non-notable band, having a member that went on to be part of a notable band does not make the album notable.--Terrillja _talk 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article virtually tells us that the recording is not notable. Sourced only to forum/message board. No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage for this in indepedent reliable sources, and fails WP:NALBUMS. This EP is listed in Circa Survive's discography, and that's plenty. Gongshow ^Talk 23:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable album from a non-notable band, lacking significant coverage in the media or other reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:46, 8 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. Shimeru (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial_of_the_Communes_of_Nord-1_(A-C)[edit]

Also nominated:

Keep - I have no clue where to go with this. My page was marked for deletion, I wish to contest that, arguments are on the Talk page of my article. I tried the 'preloaded debate', but that sets me up as a seconder of the deletion, as far as I can tell. I have never had to contest a deletion before, so please forgive me if I'm doing this all wrong. David V Houston (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Informative – Notable – and easily verifiable. What more do we ask for any piece here on Wikipedia? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous votes. Peter17 (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usefull and notable. --Bruno2wi (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete four subpages as original ProDder. Proposed deletion reason was "List of as such not notable things. It is logical to add and describe coats of arms to each individual commune article, as has been done. It is not a suitable list for Wikipedia though to have a 4 page, 200K total list of coats of arms of (mostly) small villages in the same region." We have on the one hand the coat of arms in each commune article, with th heraldic description, which is informative and pertinent info. We have a good overview of the coats of arms at [8]. As it is noted at the top of Category:Wikipedia image galleries: "Generally, such a page does not in itself constitute an encyclopedic article. A much wider range of image galleries can be found at the Wikimedia Commons image repository; pages consisting entirely of images are better suited to the scope of that project and it is probably best to create them there." Perhaps a soft redirect from Armorial of the Communes of Nord to the Commons page is an option? When doing this, no information is lost, and people on Wikipedia have a good way of finding the info, without us duplicating the work done at Commons. Fram (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't have any strong objection to keeping the articles, as they are properly sourced and the topic appears to be notable. I think we should, however, explore the idea of transitioning this over to commons - as Fram rightly notes, they do the image gallery thing pretty well over there. But there need be no urgency. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No objections. Notable for me. Odon Kalder (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC) (Kalder on french Wiki)[reply]

Keep. also Notable for me. --Chatsam (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks OK to me. (Not often I'm that brief...) Peridon (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree this articles and the others french armorials of the departments. It should be interessant to have the same thing for the United Kingdom and others Commonwealth realms. Lord Fitzwarin (talk) 17:30, 14 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempora Heroica[edit]

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

The only secondary source provided is a forum post, which is not a reliable source. A Google Books search does show it mentioned in "Archipelagoes: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases", but be aware that this cites Wikipedia as a source, so again not usable. Web search shows the usual directory entries and self-published works. Marasmusine (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's something deeply shady going on with those "Webster's Quotations" entries in Google Books with all the Wikipedia material. There's a lot of them, their supposed titles are apparently random words, and they come up for all kinds of searches. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those books are computer-generated, and, as they are print-on-demand, most of them probably don't actually exist physically - see Philip M. Parker. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any RSes. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable by longevity and publication (Archipelago codebase, as noted by Hobo Dave); Usenet suffices to establish longevity, self-publication suffiices to demonstrate publication. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Detete - Can't find any significant coverage --Teancum (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Niche notable MUD trees (Archipelago) -- Hobo Dave (talk) 7:57:55, Apr 13 2010 (UTC)
Delete. None of the "keep" opinions offered address the total lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. I have spent some time looking for such sources, but can find none. Longevity and self-publication are not reasons to have an encyclopedia article about a subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the Archipelago codebase isn't simply that they self-publish something, it's that they publish one of the codebases other MUDs use. I don't anticipate that changes your position, but I wanted to note it. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain a bit further? I'm looking at [9] and [10], but struggling to see how they qualify for WP:V, let alone lend weight to WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the TH document, we're using a self-published source for information about itself, which WP:RS is okay with. Obviously that doesn't establish notability by coverage, but it seems to me that codebase publication argues for notability. The r.g.m.a post doesn't seem to contribute much, though I am kinda vaguely waving my hands at the issue of whether anybody actually uses this codebase they publish, and possibly documentation that they were publishing it 11 years ago helps with that. [11], while again not counting for coverage, documents that it existed in August 1994, and there I'm claiming that being 16 years old is a big deal for an online game, which I don't think is a completely crazy position. Obviously both these arguments require a non-legalistic approach to notability; if one wishes to simply apply the General Notability Guideline and have done, then we still have no independent RS coverage and the article is still out of luck. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:45, 14 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. There is no such thing as "partial" notability or partial compliance to both meeting retention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Chu[edit]

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

Delete - Article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, see especially WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability_(academics).

No independent reliable sources have shown that this person has made a significant impact in their impact in their scholarly discipline.
The awards cited are not highly prestigious.
This person is not a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association.
This person's scholarship has not impacted a substantial number of academic institutions.
This person does not hold an endowed or distinguished chair.
This person has not held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
There is no evidence this person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
This person has not been editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
This person is not in the field of literature or fine arts that meet the standard for notability in that art. See WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destitute (talk • contribs)
Keep – I believe Ms. Chu meets our requirements as an expert, under the Nobility guidelines, for inclusion here at Wikipedia. I was impressed with her scholarly works, as shown here at Google Scholar [12] and found some impressive interviews at Google Books as shown here [13]. In addition, there were a few interviews at Google News as provided here [14]. Each taken independently, would probably not warrant inclusion. However, taken as a whole, I believe meets our standards. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a number of sources. Admittedly, most of them are just mentions, which would mainly be used to reference specific facts about her, but taken with the information that Shoessss supplied above, I believe it establishes notability. Silver seren^C 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The scholarly sources have not been cited very much and there are no major news sources about this person. It is borderline if she is a department head, but overall I think it should be deleted. MiRroar (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG or guidelines for academics. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This biography does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. That a source mentions her in passing is not very good evidence for her notability. I was unimpressed with her scholarly works, which have not been highly cited. That she does not meet any of the criteria that Wikipedia specifies, which have been detailed in the first response, suggests that this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.132.232 (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC) — 98.151.132.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I agree, doesn't meet the guidelines for academics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tebp (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By my count, Chu has an h-index of 9, but by the nature of her work has also received news coverage in non-academic media. I believe that the combination of the two establishes notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search produces results. [15] Dream Focus 08:12, 15 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 (done by R'n'B) as G3 (Blatant hoax) - Non admin closure (Pure househeeping) -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks_3:_The_Chipmunk_Rampage_(film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: The Chipmunk Rampage (film)

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

I brought this because an IP removed the prod. The reason is ..notability.., I would have to say notability is premature in this case and utterly unverifiable. No links on google. 20th century fox shows no listing under future releases (which lists movies up to november). this article should be deleted. If its real.. someone else will re-add it with sourced accurate info as the production moves forward. I do want to point out that IMDB does show a 3D Alvin and the Chipmunks in development for release in 2011 and that all. there is almost no other info even on IMDB (and the movie is supposed to be released in a matter of days) and not even the name of the article cannot be verified. Also the original poster has been blocked indefinatly for making fake articles like "Reasons why Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Sucks". Tracer9999 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G3 (blatant hoax) or CSD G5 (creation by blocked user). Erik (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V. Can't find this film outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Possible hoax. Definitely not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete. Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D is a real project, announced by Fox around March 10. A March 10 Variety article says "Studio has set a release date of Dec. 16, 2011 for "Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D."[16] and this news has been picked up in various media, e.g.[17]. The "Rampage" title is quite possibly made up, as may be the references to a 4th and 5th film. ~~Maybe~~ Per comments by Erik and Accounting4Taste, it is best to delete and start over. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC) switching to Delete Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel – Sequel, where we can add this kind of information. As the article stands, it seems to be a hoax that used the announcement as a launch pad for so-called validity. The article title and content is pretty much invalid, so deletion is ideal. If production begins on a third film, it should be at Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D. Erik (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement here. Formally switching to delete.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to believe that this film is in production -- not enough information to even know if it's live-action or animated -- at any rate, doesn't unambiguously meet the future films policy. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:00, 7 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 close. No argument for deletion presented, article has been redirected per WP:BAND.

Xavier Muriel[edit]

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

I recommend a redirect to Buckcherry, his current band. This musician has been associated with several notable people (though not the actor Robert Wagner, as indicated by an incorrect blue link), but there are few verifiable sources to indicate notability on his own. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you're not suggesting deletion, why are you bringing it to AfD? A redirect can be made by any user, not just admins. Be bold and do it yourself. — Gwalla | Talk 20:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because redirect is often the outcome of an AfD discussion. And in this case the article has an extensive history so more discussion would be beneficial. But I'll do the redirect myself. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:39, 8 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 early close due to blanking. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business Report[edit]

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

See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a manual or textbook. &dorno rocks. (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close - author blanked. Non-admin closure requested. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:24, 7 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) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Kore[edit]

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

Football player who has not played at a fully professional level and therefore fails the WP:ATHLETE guideline; also fails WP:N. He appears to play for a French amateur club at present. The prod notice was removed without explanation. I suspect this article (like others) is an advert by an agency. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His club plays in the Championat de France amateur, and as such he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. There is insufficient coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the Championnat de France amateur is not a completely amateur competition (despite its name) it is certainly not fully-professional (a couple of member clubs are full-time, most are semi-pro and a few are amateur). This footballer hasn't played in a fully pro match so fails WP:ATHLETE. For what it's worth, he didn't play for Saint-Lo in 2003 as the article claims ([18]). Big Dom 21:03, 13 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) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kandar Chappargram[edit]

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

I can only find five hits total for "Kandar Chappargram" on Gogole, two of which are Wikipedia. I can't even verify the existence of this. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no verifiable information that the location even known as that name. This may even be a speedy delete as a hoax. The author is the subject of a sockpuppetry case which would prove repeated vandalsim. OlYeller^Talktome 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's located in Pakistan. However, it is too small (pop < 2500) to be notable as a CDP (Census Designated Place). kgrr ^talk 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –Reluctantly. Sorry to say I could find no information as to the actual existence of the village. If however, an editor can provide a source that the place actually exists, I would happily change to Keep based on Wikipedia Notability (Geographic locations). Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Check this place on Wikimapia: Kandare-CHAPPARGRAM It may qualify under option 3 if all the information for the three sections can be found. kgrr ^talk 03:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the creator has contributed nothing but WP:OR, much of which turns out on investigation to be about functionally unverifiable subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 12 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chappargram[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated article at Chappargramies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and with repeatedly recreated articles on some of the listed families, by a sockpuppet-using block-evading user. This is a village so nto technically eligible for A7 but there are only 43 Google hits for this place and Google Maps knoweth it not. I don't know if it's a hoax, a local name for somewhere usually known as something else, or just seriously obscure, and the sources in the article don't help. Because there aren't any. See also Kandar Chappargram, whose existence I can't verify. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It took some searching, but there is a more detailed map created in 2005 for relief organizations [19]. Chhapargram (with double 'h') can be found at the bottom (below 34.7 N and between 73.0 an 73.1 E). Googeling on the double-h spelling does show some references, but nothing substantial. Article appears very much 'original research' based. Kandar ([20]) appears to be a sub-town of Chhapargram, according to the wiki-entry. Zero hits in combination with the double-h spelling. Both towns/villages appear to be located in the Ajmera county ([21]) which does have a geo-location mentioned. Main Google hit can be found on [22], which appears to have some similar sounding text as the Battagram article. This wiki article appears to be the base article for the fragmented stubs floating around (the 'see also' list on that page seems to be a main level list linking to several of the pages having been up for speedy deletion). Several articles have been replaced by a redirection to the Battagram article ([23][24],[25]). Overall a set of fragmented stubs without much potential, IMHO, to expand to separate articles. Most of the information could be included in the Battagram main article, instead of separate pages, assuming that it is not 'original research' and well referenced. Rwos (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Chappargram is in Battagram district of North West Frontier Province, Pakistan. Here in the US we have articles for unincorporated areas where there is population of more than 2500 - Census Designated Places. E.g Eastgate, Washington. Someone listed Chappargram on Wikimapia [26]. It has a population of more than 7,200, which is significant next to what it takes to list a CDP with the Census Bureau here in the US. It needs a bit more documentation and references, but should not be deleted. kgrr ^talk 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reliable independent source for that? I can't even find the equivalent of a census bureau entry for this, we can't even verify the spelling. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and added two sources that mention the town. Silver seren^C 19:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These extremely trivial mentions can hardly serve as evidence of anything. — Rankiri (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect/selectively merge to Battagram. The article consists of unverifiable original research. The Google results show no reliable information about the subject: [27]. Suspiciously, the search engine also has no results for the Pashto name^[28] and only two possible results for the Urdu name^[29] of the village. One of them appears to be a blog; the other one [30] seems trivial and possibly unconnected to the subject: "In the Punjab خصوصیٞمحلہ بٹگرامٟنمائندہ چھپرگرام girls' primary school تعمیرکیاجائے squalid Mohalla Punjab while talking with newspaper representatives, said that our localities میںگرلز primary school, we are deprived of زیورتعلیم girls of NWFP we authorities are to appeal to the federal system that our girls from the زیورتعلیم to ornate approved the school."^[31] — Rankiri (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a word with Zia86khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it seems this is his home village and he's determined to write about it and his clan, despite the fact that the sole source seems to be himself. It's getting old. We also have Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zia86khan pending checkuser. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean to have a word in Pashto, I'm afraid I don't speak it. You'll probably have better luck leaving a message on WT:PAK. — Rankiri (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching for the spelling "Chappergram" finds reliable sources confirming that this place exists, and has a school[32] and an army camp[33]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these sources yesterday. In [34], "Chappergram" is the name of a school. It's possible that the school is named after the village, but for all we know, it can also be located anywhere in Battagram. [35] only mentions the Chappergram ARMY Camp. Saying that the source confirms the existence of the village is WP:SYNTH. In addition, none of these sources deal with the problem of WP:OR. — Rankiri (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Village exists if we look here (listed on a government website), it lists a polling booth, in the Government Primary school in Chappargram, the same page also lists another one in the Government Primary school in Ajmera (so it is not the name of the school but the location. Also if you look at the "Area / Village / UC Name" column it lists Chappargram - thus this is not the name of a school but of a verifiable settlement. Pahari Sahib 12:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that the village/settlement exists, but is that enough to warrant a separate entry? Looking at the map I referenced earlier [36], should each settlement have a separate entry? I am not sure if there is a wiki policy for geographical locations, and I know that there are other geographical locations that are included in wikipedia, like Kramer Junction (as a bad example of why a location should be included), but should there not be a reason to include a location? For example Booligal, population 212 (as a good example of why a location could be included). Notability? Other references that have provided this notability to avoid original research articles on wikipedia? Rwos (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:OUTCOMES, our precedent is that "cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source." A government website is surely a reliable source. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a populated place, as verified on official sources. As for the map, yes, Wikipedia should include every one of the settlements. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a hoax. It is a verifiable village. --Stormbay (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been verified as a real village. Dream Focus 07:27, 14 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) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How the Stats Really Stack Up: Cosleeping Is Twice As Safe[edit]

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

No reason to think that this paper published in what seems to be a non-peer-reviewed journal is of any notability -- possibly qualifies as original research Accounting4Taste:talk 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable paper. If it is kept it needs to be stubbed as most of the article appears to be about the author rather than the article itself. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a point of view fork from Co-sleeping and as an article about a non-notable paper. Edison (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the notability of the subject is not apparent. Put simply, this fails WP:N due to the lack of reliable independent sources that even mention the subject, let alone provide significant coverage. In fact, I could find only a single reference to the article in a reliable source (here), and that merely cited the article - it did not offer detailed information about the article as a subject in its own right. As a general rule, I would suggest that very few articles should have WP articles about them (with the possible exception of highly notable articles such as Einstein's On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies); most articles simply aren't that notable in the grand scheme of things, and this magazine article is no exception. Jakew (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. The subject of Co-sleeping is quite notable, and our article on the subject appears to be neutral and well-sourced. If this paper meets our reliable source policies, then we should include it there. But the paper itself isn't notable, and shouldn't have its own article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:46, 8 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. I've userfied the article for the requesting author Black Kite (t) (c) 00:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City of Canterbury budget 2010−2011[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic article about one budget of hundreds of a district council. Reads like a political propaganda piece and doesn't actually give due balance to the overall budget itself. Coatrack article, etc. GTD 14:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The budget itself doesn't appear to be notable. The potential closure of the museums appears to have a lot of coverage but I'd refer to WP:NOTNEWS. If it is kept the article needs a serious clean-up. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a coatrack. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- obviously non-encyclopedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but give me a few days to tidy up affected articles and images: No worries, you can have this one. I've copied it outside Wikipedia as per the guidelines. However, please would you kindly give me at least another few days as from this message before deletion, so that I can tidy up links etc. - otherwise the deletion will leave a mess which others will not know how to clear up. Since I last edited the budget article, much has happened regarding this budget which has affected the content of other articles.--Storye book (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ George The Dragon: at the same time as proposing the deletion, you removed all reference to the budget from Whitstable Museum and Gallery, yet that one is the only one to have been physically affected by the budget so far. Some of the exhibits described in the article were removed to make the space cited in the budget proposal. The other institutions affected by the budget all need a note and citations to say that the Council has voted to close them in in 2011, after a year's reprieve. The images will have to be re-categorised. These tasks will not be difficult so long as the Budget article remains so that I can copy citations, but the task will be time-consuming.--Storye book (talk) 10:16, 13 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) 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous movies[edit]

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

Now called List of famous movies and tv shows. Was List of all movies

Per WP:SALAT, this is an inappropriate topic for a stand-alone list. The list is too broad in scope and, assuming it continues to expand, will become too long to have any value. Moreover, the criteria for films' inclusion in the list are completely subjective; the word "famous" is too vague and open to interpretation. Besides that, this appears to be one user's opinion of which movies are famous enough to be included on this list; this is clearly not encyclopedic and violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Finally, please note that (a) this list has been moved by its creator from its original title, List of movies and tv shows on Internet Movie Database, and (b) this article's proposed deletion was contested by its creator. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list will become impossibly long if it is completed since all films of any note at all are listed at IMdb. The new title is no better as the criteria for "famous" is vague and there are many hundreds of "famous" movies, if not more. Xtzou (Talk) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, especially with "famous" being ambiguous. It could refer to well-known great films, well-known bad films, or well-known cult films. Not appropriate to use IMDb as a reliable source, much less the main one here. Erik (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above rationales. it seems unfortunately obvious to me that creator is showing pattern of disruptive, bad faith editing. if simply ignorant of good guidelines, they wouldnt be trying to game the system like a pro.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SALAT. IMDB.com already exists, we don't need to recreate their database here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. This is a completely arbitrary selection, with no stated criteria other than being a movie. Note that the very first supposedly "famous" movie in the list doesn't even have a Wikipedia article yet, which suggests that it may not be as famous as the article creator thinks it is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to all of the above comments (to which I agree), a list containing a parallel copy of the movies listed at IMDB could really not be kept up-to-date, and so it's an impractical list to try to maintain. -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete. For all the reasons stated above, and to cut off any additional disruption (unintended though it may be) due to the repeated page moves that this article is undergoing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply saying "famous" means that any film (or now TV programme) can be added - which will make this nigh-on-useless. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A highly subjective list. Warrah (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and getting painfully obvious as Snow Delete. We have IMDb for a list of famous movies and we don't need such a list on Wiki. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is a subjective list. Plus what one person deems famous may not be the same for another person. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:55, 9 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kvno1jrc jalandhar cantt[edit]

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

Schools are always notable, and I do not know much about Indian dialects, but I doubt this string of letters with a number in it corresponds with the foreign name of any school. Blue Rasberry 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, this doesn't appear to be a name of a real school. Marokwitz (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its an abbreviation for "Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment". The number is there because,sometimes the military base/settlement is too big to have only one school; Since KVs don't have individual names they are numbered instead. Seems to have been created by a student (hence the short name). It is a government Higher secondary school coming under the Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV) school system. I have stubbed, added coords and sourced the article now.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Keep and Rename to Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 (Jalandhar Cantonment), or something similar. The current article is beset with unfamiliar abbreviations, but the intended subject appears to be Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 Jalandhar Cantt., whose website is at http://www.kv1jrc.com/ . This school, evidently located in Jalandhar Cantonment in Punjab (India), is not currently listed at List of Kendriya Vidyalayas, and the Education in Punjab (India) does not yet discuss secondary schools either. The school's very generic name makes searching for additional content awkward; the search string <"Jalandhar" "Kendriya Vidyalaya"> yields 285 GHits but many of are listings, or references to other KVs in Jalandhar and Punjab generally. The school website is informative, however, and should provide enough detail to create at least an intelligible stub. WP:HS/N suggests that as long as the school's existence is verified, articles like this should be kept to avoid systemic bias. (added after edit conflict) Sodabottle's edits make this clearer.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The name has been changed. Everything seems to be fine here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a senior high school. TerriersFan (talk) 17:22, 7 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, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Tutvedt[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN, un-notable politician Dlabtot (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw -- I misread the criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 13:15, 7 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. Shimeru (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Iran[edit]

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

Currently hopeless WP:OR and no sources at all but does not meet speedy deletion criteria. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. I agree that the article is currently full of unsourced OR... but the usual google searches indicate that sources do exist on the topic, and these can be used to fix this problem. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article would need a fundamental and total rewrite to be useful. I concur that the topic has potential, but in cases where there is nothing worth saving in the article I believe the typical course of action is deletion. That said, if anybody does make a good stab at improving this (and I may hop over to the article and see if it can be stubbified in some way), I'll go the weak keep route on this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a but- send it to the incubator, if, as Blueboar states, there's a viable article to be had on the topic, then it behooves us to write one that conforms to neutrality, notability, and verifiability standards.. This article, isn't it, however, and shouldn't be sitting in mainspace. Nuke the article as is, and allow incubation for creation of a viable article. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second the above Good call. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:50, 7 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) 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ann McGowan[edit]

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

Delete: Unsourced bio, mostly impossible to read gibberish . Appears to be some sort of machine translation. Marokwitz (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Barely an assertion of notability, just gibberish. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and it barely squeaks by CSD A7 and yes it does look like a babelfish/google translation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 13 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. The only keep that actually adressed this article, instead of all bus route articles, changed to "redirect" on closer examination of the sources available. So among the people discussing this article, and not some general principle, the consensus is clear that it should either be deleted or redirected. Anyone wanting to create redirects after the deletion is free to do so of course. Fram (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 231[edit]

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

Another non-notable London bus route. This one had been tagged with ((notability)) and ((unreferenced)) since May 2009, and a few hours ago both tags were removed in this edit which added some refs but nothing approaching evidence of notability.

Per WP:GNG, notability is established through substantial coverage in reliable sources, and there is no evidence of that for this route.

There is already a List of bus routes in London, so after deletion this title could be re-created as a redirect to the list. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere. Jeni ^(talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assessments there seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability. Meanwhile, Jeni contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, then editors really do not have valid grounds for complaint that community-wide forums are used to remove non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you choosing to ignore the discussion and mass AfD articles? You have noted in a comment somewhere that the discussion has been ongoing for a week, what you have failed to notice is that there is currently a couple of editors already going through each bus route article, assessing them for notability, adding references where needed and redirecting where notability isn't there. I see this as a pointy nomination more than anything. I'd have thought an admin would be setting an example and contributing to a discussion rather than these rash nominations. Jeni ^(talk) 23:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only AFDed 6; I PRODded 13, which you disrupted by removing the PROD without offering any reason to keep the articles. If you persist in disrupting lightweight mechanisms for removing non-notable material, don't accuse anyone else of pointiness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for removing the prods were very very clear, if you took the time to read the edit summaries (where it is generally accepted that reasons for PROD removal are located). Jeni ^(talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clarity! Indeed, your reasons for removing the West Midlands PRODs were that you asserted notability for those bus routes, even tho there was no evidence of notability and no claim of notability. Those reasons were indeed clear: clearly nonsense. If you think that this is a notable bus route, it's little wonder that you don't want the wider community to scrutinise the notability of any such articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does that have to this discussion? Jeni ^(talk) 00:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because it is evidence that all your procedural ruses are just a form of disruption, and that your actual purpose is trying to keep non-notable material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep – since there is an on-going discussion elsewhere, please withdraw discussion to that location. The article can be renominated, if necessary, after the conclusion of the current discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no discussion of this or any other individual bus route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on its own merits. All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be; whether they are better merged is a question of style. The information is encyclopedic. . If people look at these articles and decide that they want to keep them, that makes a practical policy of exception to the GNG.There are other ways of showing notability, and it is in fact contrary to the current WP:N guideline to say the the GNG is the only way. Personally, I think trying to remove establish borderline articles is a very poor use of time here, when there are so many important things like unsourced BLPs to attend to, DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability offers another way only where there are agreed separate guidelines.

There is a very good practical reason for GNG: that it is an inevitable consequence of the core policy WP:V. Without it, an article can exist only as either original research or as repetition of primary source material.

In the case of these articles, most of the material is simply unsourced, a situation which is all too common with topics which fail GNG. This article is a good example of that: it has no footnotes, and there is no indication of whether the content is from primary sources, or some unreliable source, or is just something made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may have been wrong to remove the notability tag, but I genuinely felt the route's history was significant enough that it justified an article. After a small expansion and the addition of a new source, I still feel that this is true. See below. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done sourcing one of the points in the article, but none of the sources comes anywhere near meeting the test in WP:GNG, of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has 3 footnoted sources:

Ref	Significant coverage?	Reliable source?	Independent of the subject?
http://www.eplates.info/230s.html	Yes	No	Maybe
TfL Bus tender results	No	Yes	No
First Group timetable	Maybe	Yes	No

So I don't see anything which can justify keeping the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly it seems that you're right, so I can't really argue my case any more. Move to Redirect as better than deletion since the page is already linked to from a number of others. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect can be created after deletion, but redirecting without deletion leaves anyone free to simply revert the redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the worst argument for deletion I've ever heard in my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeni (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 March 2010
As you should know if you had read the nomination, the substantive argument for deletion is clear, and founded in policy: that the article does not meet WP:GNG. You have offered any evidence to counter that.

So why exactly do you object to deleting the article, and then creating a redirect? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive deletion spree made without due diligence per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, please. I did indeed follow WP:BEFORE. I do not claim to have perfectly checked for every possible source, and an exhaustive trawl is not required by WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would say that your keep !votes and lack of AGF are more disruptive than these nominations.--Crossmr (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom. Orderinchaos 17:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - apparently no coverage in reliable sources, which is a necessary precondition for us writing an article about a subject. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this lacks significant coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG's analysis of the sources. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Reyk _YO! 11:15, 10 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. It has become wholly obvious that this article has no basis in truth. Criterion G3 therefore applies. ~ mazca ^talk 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conor kavanagh[edit]

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

A football autobiography. It seems that this person once played for Blackburn Rovers' Under 18s,([37]) which as far as I can tell, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. I can't find anything that verifies that he plays for Leeds United. There are a few casual mentions but I can't see any significant coverage that shows that he meets general notability guidelines. Perhaps someone that knows more about football will find something. Beloved Freak 12:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is essentially a hoax. Nobody of this name plays for Leeds United, nor, as far as I can find out, ever has. There is a Conor Javanagh who plays for Clitheroe F.C., a team in a very minor league, and in no way comparable to Leeds United. Nothing else in the article can be verified as far as my searching indicates. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may be a speedy but I'm not in any hurry. Agree with nominator. OlYeller^Talktome 16:50, 7 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. Shimeru (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Summers[edit]

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

Delete Biography with two sources, both unreliable. Notability assertion does nto go beyond WP:HOTTIE. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDoes not meet PORNBIO, has no reliable sources. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Terri Summers (birthdate matches) has made a few porn films. I don't think by itself this reaches the WP:PORNBIO bar, but whatever we do to source hardcore pr0n actresses would be worth a try. Since this person seems to exist, I would not object to Wikipedia:Userfication until notability can be established. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete less than notable. - Schrandit (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Damn, she really is a HOTTIE. When it comes to notability though... NOTTIE. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources at http://www.myspace.com/terrisummers1 78.55.203.243 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 78.55.203.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - I had prodded this article before. There is no indication of notability. EuroPride (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have time to research it now or in the coming few days but if this is deleted, please userfy it to my user space. I'll try to find a few sources for the claims. Being Pet of the Month in seven countries seems like an unusual thing and if true may be able to be sourced. Dismas|^(talk) 00:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a myspace page counts as WP:RS. Concur with above observations on failing notability guidelines. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I removed the Prod actually. She was Pet of the month in 5 countries and Pet of the Year in the Netherlands, however the only definitive source, Penthouse.com, does not make this information available for free. Pretty frustrating really, but I guess I did not think sources would be this hard to find. If I could figure out what year she posed in Penthouse I could possibly find it on archive.org, but I can't even find that. Please userfy to Dismas, I'll improve it if I feel inclined. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:18, 10 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 CSD A7. Amalthea 13:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santoshkumar Kammar[edit]

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

Contested CSD-A7. IP repeatedly removes CSD tags. Not notable person, reads like a resume. GregJackP (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The ip in question is clearly the creator (see here) so CSD-A7 still applies. Codf1977 (talk) 12:34, 7 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 Nomination withdrawn with no calls for deletion. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Venn-Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable author. There are sources in the article, but they're either not independent, not in reliable sources (Youtube, a Perth GLBT community newspaper...), or they're minor (a short radio interview on an obscure programme five years ago). I just don't see the sort of independent reliable sources that we'd need to have an article on this fellow. It's not open and shut though, hence bringing it here for further discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn, somehow The Age link didn't come up when I googled for him, but I agree that that does put him over the line. My original rationale no longer holds so I am withdrawing this nomination (but I will allow someone else to close it for the sake of propriety). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP :Anthony Venn-Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am the author of this article and I included an article on Anthony Venn-Brown not just because he was an author but because of his community activism in the gay and lesbian community . And I know that people have been consulting this article in recent days . I don't think we should be excluding articles as reliable sources because they are GLBT newspapers - I think they are a valuable source of information . In terms of the radio program of 5 years ago - I hardly think a nationally broadcast abc radio program is not a valid source although it is now now 5 years old . However I have included some extra/more recent links in the article . I also need advice - Anthony Venn-Brown was recently interviewed on the ABC program - The Hungry Beast - can I include that as a link to the program even though the program can only be viewed by Australian viewers. frollus— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frollus (talk • contribs)

Keep The Age has coverage about him the includes family details, work history, and he's been recognised as one of Australias 25 most influential Gay people. add that to being an author he meets notability, thats ignoring the ABC interview mentioned by the articles author Gnan garra 15:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see the nominators concern - but I would consider the 2005 ABC link not minor (being an Abc-ophile might be my bias) - in that the link has been kept - many links from that era on the abc simply vanish for less notable issues. http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=anthony+venn+brown - I find interesting - the audio book and archived websites are the clincher for me Satu Suro 15:28, 7 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) 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Roberts[edit]

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

Whatever this is supposed to be, it has no place here. If this is a real person, then it's an unsourced WP:BLP failing WP:BIO. Quite possibly simply a hoax that's been here for three years. None of the sources pan out, the article initially claimed that "Damien Roberts played the role of Matt Doran in Home and Away", while actually Matt Doran portrayed a character Damien Roberts in that show.

The image that used to be in the article is File:DamianRoberts portrait 20030425.jpg, now transferred to commons, which is actually a woman from uglypeople.com with a beard painted on, and was uploaded and placed in the article by the original creator.

PROD declined three years ago by the uploader, and wasn't followed up. Let's delete it already. Amalthea 10:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds bogus, and doesn't currently contain any real claims to notability. Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia didn't get its first 2 million articles without a good share of things that were simply "made up". The creator of this article put this one together as his or her sole contribution, then disappeared. The part about his discovery that his father, who had died before his birth, had been a Romanian militant ice-cream truck driver was a nice touch, and is much like the story of Bill Clinton except for the Romanian, militant and ice-cream truck driver part. Generally, a local radio station personality would not be notable under any circumstance. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all above. Google does not provide anything else to establish notability. noq (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 12 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) 00:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbre[edit]

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

This is supposedly a disambiguation page, but not even one of the articles it points to is entitled arbre. The rest of the content is a dictionary definition, and of a non-English word at that. I don't see any reason for the page to exist; without it, typing arbre into "Go" gets you search results, which is probably more useful. Trovatore (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just tweaked it a bit to get it into the proper WP:DAB format, what do you think now? Amalthea 11:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read WP:DAB in quite some time, it seems, didn't realize that partial title matches were actively discouraged. Nonetheless though, and even if the three ambiguous topics are only redlinks, it looks useful to me. Page search is particularly helpful for page title matches, not so much with a rather generic word in article bodies. The three redlink topics are only referred to in hits 20, 22, and 82 when searching for "Arbre".
The question is whether a DAB page should provide navigation between standalone articles, or between topics. I've no real opinion on the partial matches, and the See-also link to Baum should almost certainly be removed. But even if it's only the three redlinks and the wiktionary connection (and personally I would bring back the '[...] is the French word for "tree" and [...]' bit) I think it's a useful DAB page, for someone who actually looks up that word in search for one of those meanings, more so than a page search. Amalthea 09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amalthea's cleanup. Article appears to be a proper disambiguation page, now. Some of the topics are thin, but we have enough to justify a DAB page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly the first 3 entries meet MOS:DABRL, although the later ones appear to be partial matches. Boleyn2 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The redlink entries, and the partial-match entries, would be reasonable inclusions if there were a reason to have a disambig page in the first place. But can a disambig page be justified when there are only redlinks and partial matches??? I don't think so; I've never seen one like that, and I don't think it's a good precedent. --Trovatore (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very nice job on Amalthea's part there, it looks like a real disambiguation page now and works fine. Silverseren^C 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I see only keep !votes, but not a single one of them has offered a rationale why it's better to have this page than not have it. I thought the purpose of disambig pages was to help people navigate among pages that would otherwise share the same name. When there is not even a single existing page that would plausibly named arbre, it seems very strange to me to have a disambig for the term. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple articles, as the page shows, that have to do with the word "Arbre" and it is good for Wikipedia to have a disambiguation page for readers to find the one they are looking for. Silver seren^C 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it good? Isn't that what the search engine is for? The existence of a page called arbre short-circuits the search engine from redlinks and from "Go". --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's what disambiguation pages are for. Read WP:DISAMBIG. We use them in order to direct readers to various articles that may fall under an ambiguous term. Silver seren^C 20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the term is not ambiguous, not in the sense of having multiple articles that would naturally be called arbre! What you have is, some articles that mention the word arbre, and two things that plausibly could be articles called arbre, but aren't. The wording I remember for the purpose of disambiguation pages is something like to help readers navigate among articles that have the same name. This wording appears to have been changed — how much was this discussed? I think the old wording is better. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was changed was because there are some articles that have a slightly different or longer name that is not exact, but still relates to the overall topic. So just having disambiguation pages have those that have the "same name" cuts out a significant amount of articles that readers may be looking for. This is why it was changed. Silver seren^C 21:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that discussion? I don't see it on the talk page of WP:DISAMBIG. --Trovatore (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have added redlinks for the 2 Belgian places. One of them was already linked (just as Arbre) from List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities_in_France, so I've fixed that link. PamD (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - dab pages fulfill a more refined role than a string-match search. If I type "Arbre", it is very handy for me to see a list of pages that are called—or could be called—Arbre, not just an undifferentiated set of pages that happen to have the string arbre in them. A redlink/bluelink entry might even point me to a page that does not currently have the target string at all, leading me to a closely-related page to the topic I'm interested in, even if that topic is not at this point specifically covered by its own WP article. (And perhaps encouraging me to add material about that topic.)

Note that if none of the redlinked entries had an appropriate bluelink, this role would not be fulfilled, and the entries should be removed per WP:MOSDAB, at which point the page itself might collapse into nothingness. This does not seem to be the case here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:17, 13 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) 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chon ma'aronim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chon ma'aronim

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

Someone added the comment "The above is a prank article with no connection to any known ceremony in any known religion or ethnicity." on March 26 at the bottom, and then today blanked the article and replaced it with "I have deleted what was clearly a prank article with no connection to any known ceremony in any known religion or ethnicity". Clearly an editor who doesn't know about AfD, so I've brought it here for them instead. I'm currently neutral myself, because I haven't done any checking yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything on this online; looks bogus to me. Brianyoumans (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I strongly suspect this is a hoax, and therefore vandalism: a member of a Jewish bride's wedding party responsible for the brit l'chorayam, the ceremonial sacrifice of a young male goat's manhood. The Chon Ma'aronim is traditionally a non-Jewish participant, whose job entails restraint of the goat by the horns. The position is held in esteemed honor by the wedding party and is considered essential to the post-wedding meal, at which the goat is served. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've done a bit of searching now and I can't find anything - so yes, I think it does look like a hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:31, 10 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 - Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, by JzG. Non-admin close. Beloved Freak 12:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Webbs[edit]

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

I doubt that publication in a single magazine in a single state is enough to meet WP:BAND Wintonian (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? just looks like Artists trying to get their name out, what do you care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adw151515 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC) — Adw151515 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Delete - Meets CSD A7. Codf1977 (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Famous throughout... Milwaukee? Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 11:47, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. The only editor who commented in favour of deletion has changed his !vote to "weak keep", and the nominator has stated that he wishes to withdraw. (non-admin closure) Intelligentsium 02:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. Mathew[edit]

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

Contested prod. An attempt it made on the talk page to address the criteria of WP:PROF, but they fail to pass muster. Previous deletion discussions have suggested that Principals of theological colleges are not inherently notable. StAnselm (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think his academic position plus his religious offices add up to notability. He was the Secretary of his denomination, which apparently numbers roughly 1 million believers - it sounds like an important position. Brianyoumans (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added three sources. As for meeting WP:PROF, I would say that Pradeep had a good rationale for the criteria on the talk page. Silver seren^C 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:V. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep. Pradeep provides three reasons for keeping on the article talk page:

Claim: WP:PROF #1 is met by 11 citations. HOWEVER, we generally require hundreds of citations, or a reasonable h-index.

Claim: WP:PROF #3 is met by membership of the Society for Biblical Studies in India. HOWEVER, this is a non-notable society (per the AfD discussion of its article), and nowhere near the "highly selective and prestigious" nature of the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society demanded by #3.

Claim: WP:PROF #4 is met by having supervised doctoral students. HOWEVER, this is part of being an ordinary academic, and does not make "a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional arguments for notability would be the principalship of two theological colleges: Mar Thoma Theological Seminary, Kottayam from 1981-1986 (unsourced) and of Dharma Jyoti Vidyapeeth, Faridabad from 2000-2002 (we have generally leaned away from taking short-term principalships of theological colleges as satisfying WP:PROF #6, but there have usually been some people who disagreed) and his role as Secretary of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church (an argument outside of WP:PROF). I don't believe the latter is a notable position: the article on the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church does not mention a Secretary role. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buried at the bottom of the article, I note a festschrift in his honour, and on the strength of that I'm switching to "weak keep." The article needs a great deal of work, however. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a poorly written article! Why wasn't that in the main body of the text? Yes, the festschrift would (almost) qualify him under WP:PROF, though the guidelines say that it's not usually sufficient by itself. But given the other considerations, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think keep. Has a number of publications. Appears to be notable. Bio probably needs work to eliminate nn awards, that sort of thing. bio has had a number of contributing editors, as I recall. Supervising doctoral students should not qualify for bio, by itself. Expected, as mentioned above. Student7 (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having said that, it isn't "publications" that should be counted, but rather how often they are cited by other academics/researchers. I'm getting 400+ hits on google, but a lot of those are bio sketches. There are people who track this sort of thing. Be nice if we could see that list. India is not high on the list of articles with 40 or more citations in all fields, not just theology. Student7 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Looks to me as if he is probably a notable academic. Ghits are probably not a good means of judging things in countries where the Internet is less established than in the West. There are a lot of Christians in India and it is appropriate that theri leading acadmics should have articles. I have pruned off some of the succession nox items, where it is unlikely that predecessors or successors will be notable, or where it is an appointment without a clear succession. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Agree with previous comments. Keep. However, I would prefer if this article was renamed to reflect his full name rather than initials for first and middle name. It adds consistency and makes it more readable. If he was popularly known as KV Mathew then we can mention that in parentheses in the article summary. Another point: Is Mathew the correct spelling? Seems unusual. Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nom has withdrawn the nomination. As to the name, "Mathew" seems to be correct. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. What about renaming the article? Are there any guidelines for that? Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 16:17, 12 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. Tone 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fincham[edit]

If you came here because this was mentioned on BBC Radio 1, 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)

Contested prod. Reason given for the proposed deletion was "No independent third party sources provided to establish notability". I would agree that there are significant problems. WP:NOTE says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This subject doesn't seem to meet that criteria. Of the three referenced web sites, only one is unconnected to the subject and that only includes the subject in a list, it doesn't provide significant coverage. To conclude, I don't think this subject meets the notability criteria and so I think it should be deleted.

I would note that this article, and its proposed deletion has been mentioned on BBC Radio 1 (Hello Scott Mills). Listeners were encouraged to try to campaign against the deletion. For the assistance of anyone unfamiliar with how deletion discussions work on Wikipedia, it is important to realise that they are not simply votes. Ideally anyone participating here should explain their opinion with reference to what the relevant Wikipedia policies say. The admin who closes this discussion won't simply count the votes but will instead make an assessment of the arguments made for and against with reference to Wikipedia policies. Adambro (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the admin who first identified the problem with this. There is little need for me to duplicate Adambro's considered and accurate reasoning. It breaches WP:BLP by not containing references to independent reliable sources. It fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. The JPS ^{talk to me} 08:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPIP says, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." That hasn't happened here - we have artificial promotion from a show in which Fincham is involved. And being followed on Twitter does not make one notable either. Of course, if any visitors wish to add reliable, independent sources, they are most welcome. StAnselm (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being one of the lead campaigners in the effort to save this articles, I spent a LONG time (probably too long considering my dissertation is due in soon) searching the Internet for independent coverage. I can confirm that there genuinely is none, besides the one fact about twitter I found. hence my decision is for this articles deletion. --Kingsmill (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing any independent coverage that would provide evidence of notability. The closest thing there is to a claim of notability here is 'he is also the second highest producer of British radio on twitter being topped only by Rachel Jones' - except that Rachel Jones is itself a redirect, as 'large number of Twitter followers' is not by itself grounds for notability. As it is, this is practically an WP:A7 candidate. Robofish (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the original creator of Matt Fincham's Wikipedia account, so I suppose I'm likely to be biased; however, he is well-known throughout the UK and there must be surely be millions of people who know who he is. Furthermore, despite being most famous for the Chris Moyles Show, he has broadcast in some capacity on three previous shows, and it is likely that his fame will increase in the future. Apologies though for not including more references; I used to know Matt vaguely many many years ago and consequently did not rely on references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discombobulating (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find nothing about him other than trivial mentions, and the aforementioned comments about Twitter. "It is likely that his fame will increase in the future" isn't a reason to keep; Wikipedia's not the BBC staff directory, and there are literally tens of thousands of people who appear on the 59 radio stations and 24 TV channels that make up the bloated beast that is the BBC. – iride scent 01:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Twitter ratings are not accepted to establish notability. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 8 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 merge to List_of_names_for_the_Biblical_nameless. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible)[edit]

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

This is a blatant POV fork of List of names for the Biblical nameless, after no consensus was reached at Talk:List of names for the Biblical nameless#The Martyrdom of the seven brothers and their mother. StAnselm (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since it was made clear that List of names for the Biblical nameless concentrates only on the Hebrew Bible, we would be doing our readers an injustice by having incomplete information and not including the books that that article omits. As the article creator previously stated, a complete encyclopedia should include all pertinent information, which includes the Catholic Bible as well. If there's still any POV issues I'm sure a change of article title to something more neutral can rectify that. -- œ ^™

Actually, nobody was taking that position. Rather, some editors (including me) were saying that the Deuterocanonical books should appear in List of names for the Biblical nameless in their own section, rather than being mixed with the Hebrew Bible (since they were never written in Hebrew, and are not accepted by Jews as part of their scriptures). -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree that the former list is only about the "Hebrew Bible" or the King James Version. List of names for the Biblical nameless can be edited by anyone. I think that the comment that it "concentrates only on the Hebrew Bible" comes from someone else's observation that the article had, up to that point, only been the Old Testament and New Testament, without consideration of the Apocrypha. That doesn't mean that there's some type of bar against edits that regarding books that are in the "Catholic Bible" but aren't in the "Protestant Bible", however one would want to define those terms. It should be noted that the "Biblical nameless" article doesn't simply refer to people who are unnamed. It refers to people who are nameless in one book, but who do have a name in another source (from the article, Lot's wife, not named in the Book of Genesis in any version, is called "Ado" in another work called the Book of Jasher). The examples given in this article (the four angels out of seven who aren't named in the Book of Tobit) would be appropriate if they have names elsewhere). Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I certainly cannot see any reason to object to a third separate section identifying people who are nameless in the non-Hebrew language books of the Septuagint that are named elsewhere. I began the head article quite a few years ago. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Smerdis of Tlon, assuming there is relevant content to be merged. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Delete. This material should have been added in an "Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical" books section of List of names for the Biblical nameless. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was discussed, but the author of this new article did not want that - here he says, "I could not see a section entitled Deutroconical & Apocrypha, grouped together as one section, giving credence to them as appendages, whereas Deutroconical are an essential part of The Bible for me." Hence, no consensus was reached, and this article was created as a POV fork. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I have already said, for a Catholic, the Bible contains a number of Books and sections of Books that are not in the Hebrew Bible. No agreement could be reached to their inclusion in the original article page. As I have already said the apocryphal are utterly seperate from deuteroconical and have a seperate history. An Encyclopaedia should have a comprehensive coverage on all subjects. I have taken the subjects from a scholarly point of view and have shown clear references to well known Exegets work on these subjects. I created the article as no alternative was open to me or others, and you yourself said to me you wanted closure on this issue to get on with your lives (StAnselm). This article is not meant as a fork but as a complement to, as no agreement could be found. I have not covered the same material that is covered already in the List of names for the Biblical nameless, hence, it List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible), is not a fork but a complement to. The material covered in List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible), is only the most obvious, and leaves the many others to when/if agreement has been reached.

You say that anyone can edit the List of names for the Biblical nameless, yet when someone attempted, their edit was deleted even more than, I think, three times. And no way forward was open to any additions, or any ammendments. This gave me no alternate but create a new page, and on scholarly lines.

Hence, I say keep the Article page until a clear agreement/alternative is reached, otherwise we are bordering on a sensorship.

I proposed catagories on the lines:

1/ Hebrew Bible

2/ Deutroconical

3/ New Testament including Revelation

4/ Apocryphal

But even this was unacceptable. Please do remember that deutroconical literature are an intrical part of the Bible for a Catholic, and cannot be confused with apocryphal. To propose a section made up of both together is offensive to a Catholic and according to the talk page it is offensive to The Orthodox Churches. I have heard and headed the Orthodox feed-back.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty I had with your fourfold division, is this: Does "apocryphal" include books that are not included in the canon of any Christian church? If so, in what meaningful way can those books be said to be "biblical"? StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this article page on the talk/proposal pages at least for a week prior to creating it.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if you started it in your own user space (User:Bernard Mc Nally/List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible)), that's your business. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I note the rejection of good advice from œ ^™ about notifying the creation of this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a scholarly point of view, a lot of Books / Literature had to be autentacated to be cretatable. Hence, the history of its acceptance is important. In The Letter to The Hebrews, tradition accepted it was sourced to Saint Paul. The content of the material itself is a crediable point, and this is were the study of Hermeneutics comes in. (see: The Jerome Biblical Commentry, Article 71, Hermeneutics, Raymond E. Brown, S.S.).&.(Epistle to The Hebrews, Article 61, Myles M. Bourke)

Apocryphal literature, would always remain a source of study, for this literature is defined as of uncertain origin. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a particular example, see: (The Jerome Biblical Commentry, Article 68, Apocrypha; Dead Sea Scrolls; Other Jewish Literature, Raymond E. Brown, S.S.). Every good Commentry will include all this literature, and any good Encyclopaedia will, too. They all throw light on The Bible. The truly independant sources would be the histories of Pliny and Pliny the Younger. The writing of Jonathan would be questionable if they were Biblical.

I hope I have explained how apocyphal literature is seen as truly Biblical. If you do not assept my word then consult Raymond E. Brown, S.S. in the articles attributed to him as mentioned above and below.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend; Raymond E. Brown, S.S. article 71 on Hermeneutics, considered the best in it's field. The answer to all your questions are to be found here.

Item 54: "...He believes that the literal exegesis of NT texts, limited though they may be, is the exegete's primary theological duty, while the reader's duty is simply to be obedient to what the authors of the NT wanted to communicate as revelation, even if it is quite foreign to the modern mentality (cited in J. M. Robinson, New Hermeneutic, 41). This is meant as an example of the study.

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, if something comes to light in history or in Archaeology that throws extra light on the source or authorship of any of the apocryphyal, then you could find them being added to The Bible! I can give you some parallels of this.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that (1) the part of List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible) regarding authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews belongs in that article, and (2) there is limited value in listing all people and angels with no names anywhere. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Angels' names are mentioned in other literature!

The article page is about the Biblical nameless, not their names. Their names could be found in other sources. Why is there such an economy of thought here?

The article page is meant to be a list, rather like a list of contents of a book, etc. Indeed there could be an article page on everyone of the entries, but as a contents list is valuable to a book, so this is to an encyclopaedia and as a spring to study and read further. Have you read The Jerusalem Bible and studied The Jerome Biblical Commentary or others?

If you are so objecting to the apocryphal literature and their inclusion, where do you think we should look for the Angels' names? Or for the names of others? If they are missing from the Bible where should we look for them, and if we do find them could we include them? I feel if I encluded them, with their sources, they would be objected to, too! If I mentioned the Book of Jasher or The Dead Sea Scrolls to a source of missing names and place them in, then surely those who object to apocryphal literature on the grounds that they are not accepted as Canonical by any Church will object. Hence, the reason to keep the page Scholarly.

This article page is meant to be an aid to study further, not as merely a show-piece.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not very clear that there was no way forward?

It would appear that any inclusion on the article page would be challenged or removed. Those who do not accept apocryphal literature here would object. Hence, there was no clear way forward, for the names of the nameless in the Bible are all to be found in extra-biblical literature.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm still having trouble getting a full understanding of the details behind this disagreement. Could you explain once again, clearly and simply for the uninitiated, why a separate section entitled "Catholic books" within the List of names for the Biblical nameless article is unacceptable to you? -- œ ^™ 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to explain. What you have asked, would be a way forward and would be totally acceptable, to me.

However, it may not be agreeable to all.

When someone attempted to place an entry in List of names for the Biblical nameless, of a family in a Book that is found in a Catholic Bible that are without being named ( 2 Maccabees ), was deleted from the article page. Then the entry was placed back again. This happened approx. three times. The objection was that it was in a catagory for The Hebrew Bible, and it should not be there. Which is understandable. However, no one of deleting attempted to place it in a new category.

However, when I tried to open a discussion about what catagories would be acceptable to all, no agreement could be found.

Someone objected to apocryphal being in (that is Books, not in the Bible, but of uncertain origin). This seemed to be contradictory as the names in the article page all come from this source!

Someone wanted the Books of uncertain origin grouped with Books in a Catholic Bible but not included in the Hebrew Bible (deutroconical). This catagory I could not accept.

Someone wanted unnamed people in the Bible but not named elsewhere not to be included.

Hence, I started a new page of the "nameless", not offering to put in suggestions of their names from other literature. List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible), contrasted with; List of names for the Biblical nameless. These names all come from extra-Biblical sources, by definition. Hence, to object to the use of apocryphl (books of uncertain origin), in the article page is objecting to the article page itself!

Hence, if clear new categories were created in the original article page along the lines of what you have suggested, that would be a way forward. However apocryphal literature is essential to the article page, as how are we going to suggest and source names for them if not from these extra-biblical material?

The new page I started was on scholarly lines, traeting the material from the most sure and trusted commentaries, hence excluding any from mere uncertain origins, or of popular publications and devotional publications.

I hope this is clear, OIEnglish. If not, indicate and I'll try to put it differently.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still struggling to understand the argument here. The intention of List of names for the Biblical nameless was that it include characters who are unnamed in (some version of) the Bible, but whose names do appear in writings that (from one or other point of view) are extra-Biblical. There are at least 5 different versions of "Bible" that could be used (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox), but I can't see why the article can't reflect a compromise. A major issue at Talk:List of names for the Biblical nameless was one editor's insistence on including Deuterocanonical works in the "Hebrew Bible" section, but that editor now supports a section on List of names for the Biblical nameless#Deuterocanonical books. Also, if any editor feels that the sources in List of names for the Biblical nameless are not sufficiently scholarly, there are ways of improving the article that don't involve creating a POV fork. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want a clear and safe way forward so we can build up a good article page. But the article page I started is just a List of the nameless. If the deleters had antisipated this and made a new category and placed the item in there, in the original article page, there would not be a problem.

The article page could indeed have categories that are agreeable to all, if only everyone were agreeable and are sensitive to others.

When some were objecting to apocryphia being in the article page on the ground that they were not accepted by any Church, then there was no way forward. The created page was just a list of the nameless not their names so not a fork.

MacOfJesus (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. So that we may move forward.. Bernard already said this is acceptable, now does anyone at all object to having a section titled "Catholic books" within the List of names for the Biblical nameless article? If not then we can merge the relevant information into that section and close this as a merge/delete. -- œ ^™ 11:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Where did that name come from? No, that's a particularly bad section title, since there is a section called "New Testament", which has considerable overlap with "Catholic books". StAnselm (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Catholic canon" then? Or "Books of the Catholic canon"? There's got to be a section title that both you and Bernard can agree upon. -- œ ^™ 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox books? Why would we discriminate against them? What's wrong with "Deuterocanonical books," which is the Catholic term for non-Hebrew Old Testament books? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure.. I don't have the answers to those questions, that would be for you subject-matter experts.. I'm just trying to mediate here so we can reach some sort of outcome that all parties can agree upon. -- œ ^™ 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I admire you for attempting it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of names for the Biblical nameless. The latter article includes a section on the Apocrypha. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only way forward is to keep the Article page List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible), for even if we get agreement on catagories then would come the names sourced from apocryphal/tradition/& visionaries/ or the Saints/The Fathers of the Church/etc., these would then be objected to, and this stand would be illogical to the very aim of the article page itself, i.e. the names of the nameless.

The Old Testament contains the Catholic Books not in the Hebrew Bible, and there appears to be no objection to the New Testament, until we get to the Book of Revelation! So I think for now there is no way forward and to allow the article page "List of Biblical nameless" for now, perhaps we can build up the page from there.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as others have said, providing an "Apocrypha" section. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the answer is having a policy regarding deleting, that stipulates that the deleter should try to see a helpful accommodating way where possible.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What categories would be worthy of an Encyclopaedia? From the Commentaries I am familiar with there is a proper way to include all sections.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard, when you refer to "categories", I believe what you are referring to would be the article's "sections". Sections is the commonly used term, Categories in Wikipedia are something different.

I think what the problem is now is that we need to come up with a proper section heading to put your content under, a few section headings have been proposed. Perhaps a way to move forward would be to list all possible section headings and have a poll to reach consensus on which one to use. -- œ ^™ 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a consensus here that List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible) should be merged into List of names for the Biblical nameless, and the obvious section there is List of names for the Biblical nameless#Deuterocanonical books, which already exists. Debating the section heading there is probably necessary, though a little outside the scope of this AfD: I'm not sure of the best mechanism for doing it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the relevant material now exists at List of names for the Biblical nameless#Deuterocanonical books. I'm therefore changing my !vote for this article to delete. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

If you delete the page in favour of the (sorry: section); Deutroconical Books, then a short explanation of what they are are, and where the term comes from, would be necessary. Do remember that many dictionaries do get this wrong. The Orthordox Churches do have some extra books here. But also, about the suggested names of the nameless would come from all questionable sources, if everyone is happy with that? Do keep in mind that the subject is the names of the nameless, and they will come from extra-biblical sources.

I do prefer the term; Catholic Biblical Books and sections of Books and the term Orthordox Biblical Books as they are instantly more undestandable, and avoid further confusion over the term deutroconical as it is now used often in confusing ways.

I can cover what different Commentaries give for their different sections. They do cover things from a scholarly context and tend to sweep away all other sources.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) In Wikipedia we generally use wikilinks for much of the explanation. Distinguishing between Catholic and Orthodox Deuterocanonical books only needs to be done if there are "Biblical nameless" in the Orthodox canon but not the Catholic one. So far we only have 2 Maccabees and Tobit.

(2) In List of names for the Biblical nameless the names have always come from (according to at least someone's point of view) extra-Biblical sources.

(3) I do not understand your comment about Commentaries. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that I included the most obvious, and kept the rest to when we have a clear way forward.

No. The sections have to be clear to allow for additions, not in a patch-work fashion, and properly defined, otherwise there is no clear way forward.

Some have objected to the inclusion of extra-biblical sources, and material.

Most Commentaries have encountered this problem and catered for it.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would follow standard indentation conventions on these pages. And I'm not aware of anyone who has objected to extra-Biblical books as a source of names for List of names for the Biblical nameless. However, I think we have now achieved consensus on the topic of this AfD. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the talk page of the original page you will see it.

All I want is the sections to reflect the standard fitting an Encyclopaedia and to follow Scripture study and standards.

"Why have Apocryphal at all as no Church has ever considered them part af their Canon", I remember destinctly the comment.

If you use the term "deutroconical", you need to define it and its use, and indicate its books and part of books.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) On apocryphal books, I suspect you misunderstood something somebody said.

(2) As I said before, the definition of Deuterocanonical books need not be duplicated from the main article on the topic: all we need is a short explanatory sentence (such as already exists) and a wikilink to express the fact that the definition of Deuterocanonical books used is the one in that article.

(3) As to your implication that List of names for the Biblical nameless does not "follow Scripture study and standards," you should address the issue there, not here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say that. I did not say or imply that the article page does not follow correct lines. What I said was that the sections planned for should be correct and follow Scripture study lines. A completely different thought. "All I want is the sections to..." "to", here implies the future.

No, I did not misunderstand, the person was objecting to the use of and inclusion of Apocryphal literature in the article page. I do not and have not objected to this, in fact I have advocated for this.

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you opt to delete, will there be new sections created in the original article page, or are you going to prevent development of the page? If so how can that be a way forward? You have already deleted an item in Biblical nameless(Catholic Bible), that is clearly sourced and correct in the New Testament, without including it in the original page, on the pretext of tidying-up. How can that be a way forward? The New Testament, The Acts of the Apostles, is in the Catholic Bible. Hence, it would appear that there is no way forward, that good faith is missing?

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was anything specifically Catholic about the New Testament, since every Christian denomination accepts it. List of names for the Biblical nameless#New Testament was already available. And what new sections do you mean? -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the entry of the Letter to the Hebrews, the entry on the Acts of the Apostles, these were correctled cited and an intrical part of The Catholic Bible. You work on an economy system that appears to be your own. No matter what I say no heed is taken.

MacOfJesus (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a separate article of its own. The Ethiopian eunuch can go into List of names for the Biblical nameless#New Testament as soon as we have a name for him. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nameless is the subject. They belong here. How are you going to find his name? This sort of economy of paging is not correct. I cannot assume your good faith. You are pre-empting the decision on the article page before any decision has been made.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:33, 14 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) 00:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Thomas Clint[edit]

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

Not a notable person, plus likely a case of WP:AUTO. bender235 (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not much available in English on him, but seems notable - his work has been exhibited, there was a bit in Reader's Digest India, and they were holding a street festival in his home town to raise money to digitize his work. Brianyoumans (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How come this is WP:AUTO? Clint died in 1983. Plus there are enough neutral references provided to prove notability. Vipin Hari || talk 17:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's rather amazing that someone who is twenty years dead could write a Wikipedia article on themselves, especially when Wikipedia was created more than ten years after their death. But, hey, if anyone can do it, a child prodigy can, I suppose. Silver seren^C 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JFYI: WP:AUTO "applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." So it does not have to be the subject of an article writing about himself. --bender235 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke, lighten up. :P Silver seren^C 20:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is available on this boy is scarce. This article needs improvement. Improve it if you can. How can you say he is not famous enough for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavkvp (talk • contribs) 06:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in The Hindu, "the second-largest circulated daily English newspaper in India" (according to wikipedia). Ty 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ty. I have added more sources. continuing coverage two decades after subject's death and continuous exhibition of his works, proves he is notable.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found. When nom'ing as "non notable" is helpful to note what was done to determine if sources existed, especially when dealing with a subject that may have non-english sources.--Milowent (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources...Modernist (talk) 11:43, 10 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) 00:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FLOXCOM[edit]

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

FLOXCOM is a commercial software product. A Google search indicates it is lacking notability. Dolphin51 (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't satisfy WP:N. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notabillity guidelines. Google doesn't bring anything up either. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 07:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 7 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 as copyright violation. Jafeluv (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noral White[edit]

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

Duplication of existing page, which name is spelled correctly as "NorVal White", unoriginal text apparantly copied from linked NYTimes article Gordito666 (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G12 (copyright infringement) - Copyright violation of this article from the NYTimes. No need to keep the article as a copyvio, it would then come up as speedy deletion criterion R3 as a uncommon typo. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 07:26, 7 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good looking[edit]

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

Delete. Not required as a dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't vote again since you nominated the page for deletion... —Eekerz ^(t) 06:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the nominator can !vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the entries on this page are appropriate disambiguations per WP:DISAMBIG (and particularly WP:DABNOT). - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an approriate disambig page. Could be better served with a seealso template. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like Retain (disambiguation), this dab is not just for "good looking" but also "looking good". Unlike the retain dab, there are not as many articles but there are still 3 which, according to WP:DAB, is enough to create a dab for. —Eekerz ^(t) 10:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I just found there's an Australian TV series on the Nine Network called Looking Good Deborah Hutton used to host and be a consultant on, so now that's 4 articles/links that need dabbing... —Eekerz ^(t) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Looking[38] is also a movie slated for 2012, and there are several other TV series named Good Looking, according to IMDB; plus a book by Barbara Maria Stafford and 5 others with "Good Looking" as the main name of the book, according to Google Books (and many more with "Looking Good" as the main name)--and I bet even more with "Good Lookin'" and "Lookin' Good"--and that's just books! So there is clearly lots of potential for a "Good Looking" et al dab page here on Wikipedia... —Eekerz ^(t) 13:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eekerz. If this also covers Looking Good as well as Good Looking, then that changes things a bit. I think we should do some cleanup, though - why have two lists? But the page meets our criteria for a proper disambiguation page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no ambiguous articles. At some future time if there is a need for the disambiguation page (that is, until after the ambiguous articles possibly spurred by the Google searches above are created), then a disambiguation page could be created, but future Wikipedia is allowed and expected to take care of itself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no ambiguous articles. &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:42, 15 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. Shimeru (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Camillus Foundation[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [39]. those wanting to keep must provide evidence of actual indepth coverage not say it's notable. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable independent sources at the Seattle Times, the Herald Malaysia, Agenzia Fides, buckets of sources that are less than significant but sufficient to expand the article, and a WP:BIAS presumption that as the majority of its work is in Thailand there may be foreign-language sources not readily accessible due to (a) them not being in English and (b) low internet access rates in Thailand meaning that hardcopy sources are less likely to be made avaailable online. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

being from a non English speaking country does not make articles exempt from being nominated for deletion. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but per WP:N it means the article shouldn't be deleted until a serious attempt has been made to determine the existence or otherwise of such sources, which must rise higher than simply a Google search. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References added.Ans-mo (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the Keep, but none of those references you've added are "independent" within the meaning of the word at WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources establish notability for the article. Silver seren^C 08:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 7 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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heather stowe[edit]

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

PROD removed by author, non-notable author. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 - This article about a real person does not credibly assert the importance or significance of its subject. She is described as "an unpublished American writer", with her sole work being unpublished, un-notable, and as far as I can tell not even shopped to a publisher yet. There's nothing there capable of meeting WP:N even if sources were found for it. Failing the speedy, delete per WP:N as I am unable to find any coverage (let alone significant coverage) of the author or her book. Note that Ms Stowe's married name is Heather Anne Baker and the article was created by User:Habaker68005. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - No indication of importance (A7) - unpublished author, G-Hits do not meet WP:N. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 07:29, 7 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 Artwork (album). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empty with You[edit]

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

Per WP:SONG. The song isn't even a single, and doesn't seem notable in the least. The fact that it has a video doesn't make it notable. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Artwork (album) per WP:MUSIC. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this song. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been redirected twice already to Artwork (album), once by me and once by Tide Rolls. The same user keeps undirecting. Redirecting and protecting the redirect would be necessary.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Elen of the Roads. There is nothing here that could not be mentioned at Artwork (album). A music video alone does not establish notability. The user that keeps recreating the article seems hell bent on keeping this article alive, so protection would probably be necessary. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:55, 8 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. I would however suggest that Amerique's idea may be the best way forward here. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Border (California)[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline, no significant coverage found. Only one source provided in the article actually mentions the name "Southern Border". TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:N. The area of land in question certainly has an almost infinite amount of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and a Google search for Southern Border, California reveals that Southern Border is certainly a term in use for describing the relevant area. The alternate name, San Diego-Imperial (or San Diego/Imperial) also seems to be widely used as a distinct term. The nomination isn't actually suggesting the content is non-notable, it's suggesting it's misnamed, so let's can the AfD and discuss a rename at the article's talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Optigan13 (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a somewhat ridiculous article. The subject is clearly notable and is suitably referenced. This shouldn't be here. Silver seren^C 06:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously notable topic. Change the article title if needed. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as WP:SNOW. Places are inherently notable. Is this up for deletion to prove some sort of point, because the nominator is up to no good, or because they want someone else to reference the article? Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why put the articles on two counties together? It seems like a duplication of information. The expression "Southern Border" could be mentioned in both county articles and articles on the state. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instance I live in the East Bay, which consists of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and is part of the San Francisco Bay Area and Northern California. Should the same detailed information from the articles on each county be duplicated in the other three articles on larger areas? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in the case of Southern California why not divide them the other way with San Diego and Orange Counties being the Southern Coast? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is mostly a copy-paste of material from the constituent primary articles. The single original source that the whole pastiche hangs on acknowledges that "Imperial County is vastly different from San Diego County, except that the two counties border Mexico. However, that similarity is important for state strategic planning and therefore, necessitates putting both counties in the same region."[40] As no other media links the two counties outside of this limited utilitarian sense, and as the article itself does nothing to inform us as to what these planning purposes are, I would say that this "region" only exists as an administrative abstraction and not as a "region" that residents of either area identify with. Therefore, as per this essay: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Conurbation guidelines, I would move that the article be reduced to stub length with just bulleted links to the constituent county articles until more references can be brought to bear that discuss how these two counties function as a single economic unit. Amerique^dialectics 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google Book search shows that "Southern Border is rarely used as a collective name for these two counties, and the information is better presented in the individual county areas. In the references in this article "Southern Border" is only used as a section heading in two California state government publications listed as references one and two, and does not appear in any of the other references, so far as I could find. It is not a well defined political or geographical entity besides the two counties it comprises, so the name should not be promoted to a defined geopolitical entity like the "Bay Area," which is universally understood to refer to the San Francisco area, and shows up as an understood geopolitical entity in Google Book Search: [41].Since it is not a common name for the subject of the article, the universal inclusion of geographic entities does not apply. Edison (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like Amerique said, mainly copy & paste. OR Do what Amerique says, that sounds like a good plan. House1090 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - as per nom and as Amerique's observation. The PDF used as the first reference to introduce and/or cite the article's name fails WP:NNC. While there might be significant coverage alluding to this southern border, it is a convenient manner of referring to two counties. --Morenooso (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have had this discussion before; see Talk:Southern Border (California). We mostly concluded that there was no need for this article, since the name is not a recognized term and all of the content is duplicated elsewhere. Bottom line: this is simply not a term that is commonly used to mean the counties of San Diego and Imperial, either in popular usage or by the government. (Someone in the previous discussion mocked the idea by claiming facetiously that San Diegans often refer to themselves as "Southern Borderers".) The only citation for the term in the sense used here is in a 2006 state economic report document, which divided the state into regions for purposes of discussion; one of the regions was "southern border". The term finds no other use. To claim, as this article does, that "Southern Border, also known as San Diego-Imperial, is defined by the State of California as the region that consists of California's border counties with the country of Mexico, San Diego County and Imperial County" is way overstating the case; the fact is that the state of California does NOT use the term that way in any consistent or notable fashion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge The "keep" votes above all contain a logical fallacy. For instance, let's look at the statement, "The area of land in question certainly has an almost infinite amount of significant coverage in reliable independent sources". To draw a parallel, Michael Jordan and Scotty Pippin are clearly notable sports figures. Does that mean we should have an article on the two of them together? Maybe we could call it "Jordanzo the Piptasticus"! (I'm pretty sure I once heard a sportscaster refer to the two of them that way... check Google!) Now, do we need the article on Jordanzo the Piptasticus? The arguments used above (in favor of the "Southern Border" article) would say "yes"; however, to me, the obvious common sense answer is "no". So let it be for Caesar. There is nothing I can find in the combined "Southern Border" article about the two counties together that isn't already covered on the seperate articles about them individually. If there is some unique content I overlooked, it should be merged into the relevant individual article about the appropriate county. The combined article adds nothing, even if the term were notable, which it isn't. Rnickel (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. The Boy Scouts have a "San Diego/Imperial Council". Worth noting that even though it does refer to the area described by this article, it does NOT use the non-notable term claimed by this article. And again, as noted above by Amerique, even in this case of an actual reference, the so-called "region" is nothing but an administrative abstraction. If we want a stub article like the one Amerique proposes, it should be called "San Diego/Imperial, California", and the bogus-name "Southern Border, California" article should still be deleted. Rnickel (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thought: an alternate name that IS in actual use is the conurbation known as the "California-Mexico border region", "California Border Region" or simply "Border region", being a conurbation of San Diego and Tijuana, together with their associated inland areas (Imperial County in the case of San Diego). For instance, see San Francisco Chronicle, L.A. Times and AP articles on the recent earthquake affecting the region. Here is a use of the term by the San Diego Historical Society. I would feel much more comfortable with a "Border region, California" article, because:

1. The term is in real use
2. The two municipalities do have a real collective identity
3. There are real area-wide economic and social forces

However, even in that case, I would imagine an article very different from the existing "Southern Border" article. Rnickel (talk) 17:56, 14 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) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raghu Dhara[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, anyone? Ironholds (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not credibly assert the notability of the subject, plus I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual in reliable independent sources. It's really more of a BLP-zero-event article than BLP1E - I'm not sure winning the National Science Bowl is notable even for the team, let alone a single member of that team. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP zero E is right. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were media coverage of the win, or of the national science bowl, then some mention at the event's article might be appropriate. But that's not the case, as far as I can tell. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:39, 8 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 Stuckism in America#herndon. Tone 21:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Sea Herndon[edit]

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

After a few days nothing has come to this article and, it must be said, expectedly so: this is the Google search. We are dealing with a non-notable author who has generated no press but has written two books--both of which published by an on-demand press, CreateSpace. Delete. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual (or, for that matter, his book). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable and independent sources. The subject fails the notability criteria for authors. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 10:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Stuckist artists [see below for better redirect]. WP:N requires coverage by multiple secondary sources (see WP:RS) to justify a stand-alone article. These have not been shown to exist, and others as above have been unable to find them; nor have I. The main validation by an outside source seems to be his place in the Stuckism movement.[42] Ty 10:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note that this "main validation" was added after the Wikipedia article was created, and is partially in response to it. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The article was started four days ago, but the link I gave is to a post in December 2006, so it can't be a response to the article. Ty 19:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, sorry. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link in the web archive from the Stuckism International site for March 2007 which shows him as a member of the movement.[43] Ty 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He remains on the current site.[44] A google search for "Tulsa Stuckists" only reveals that page, and Wikipedia.[45] -Frazzydee|✍ 21:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: His name has been added to a number of pages after the article was created. If it is decided that the author is non-notable and the page should be deleted, some other edits should be re-considered for similar reasons. I will continue to update this list as the need arises. -Frazzydee|✍ 05:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Tulsa (diff)
Art manifesto (diff)
Stuckism (diff)
Stuckism in the United States (diff) (prior to the paragraphs being added, redlinks were added and later reverted, see diff. It appears that Herndon's name has been there for some time, and I see no reason against keeping it there (but not as a redlink), unless perhaps the Tulsa Stuckists is now defunct (the website doesn't appear to be accessible))

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzydee (talk • contribs)

I've trimmed the content in those articles (apart from the University). Article content per WP:NNC has a different standard to a stand-alone article. Best to take any further issues to the relevant article talk page. Ty 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above, a better redirect would be to Stuckism in America#herndon. Ty 13:54, 14 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) 00:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Baworowsky[edit]

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

Doesn't fulfill WP:AUTHOR. Non-notable author with no significant output. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of how this person might meet WP:BIO lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. [File:Baworowsky2008.JPG this] suggests that the article is autobiographical though the userid attempts to hide that. RadioFan (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author keeps trying to add an Amazon referral link as a "reference". Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RadioFan's reasoning. feydey (talk) 09:51, 8 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 13 Engines. Originally closed by User:Fishhead2100 on 9 April 2010. Reclosing to fix formatting. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Critchley (musician)[edit]

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

lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, fails WP:BIO. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and redirect his name to 13 Engines, since he has not done very much outside of that band, and what he has done is mentioned in that band's article anyway. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Just redirect and merge the information to the appropriate article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:13, 9 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) 00:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Canyon (Metrolink station)[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. I found no significant coverage of the station. TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the reason for the request but almost if not every railway staion in the UK has an article about it even if only a stub. I would suggest keeping this would aid consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consistency does not overrule WP:GNG. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True but then a large amount of articles like: Whitchurch railway station (Hampshire), Sway railway station, Combe railway station, Dean railway station, to name a few would fail on the same bases. Is there no history that could be added? --Wintonian (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is normal in most major cities to have articles on every railway and rapid transit station. Those stations that don't have article lack them not because they aren't notable but simply because no one has written them yet. Dew Kane (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because there are other similar articles does not mean this one should be kept. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 04:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:OSE - 'Precedent in usage' --Wintonian (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a number of sources that discuss the station itself and also an event, a train collision, that occurred there. Silverseren^C 04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All but one of the sources added are trivial mentions of the station. There is no significant coverage. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 08:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG's example of "trivial" is a "one sentence mention" of a topic in a source about another topic. In this case, the sources are primarily about this topic and far beyond the scope of "one sentence mention."--Oakshade (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the precedent in usage around Wikipedia has been that railroad stations are inherently notable. oknazevad (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Precedent does not supersede the notability guideline. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 08:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As Wintonian noted above, precedent is recognized as part of WP:OSE. And WP:GNG is a guideline, not policy. It's following isn't a steadfast requirement, and when consensus exists to expand beyond it, that consensus rules. After all, WP:Consensus is a policy. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heavy-rail stations meet notability guidelines and are kept in deletion debates. It's called consensus. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per oknazevad and Mackensen. ----DanTD (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is consensus that heavy-rail stations are considered notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, an example of a minor station at WP:GA is Upminster Bridge tube station. (Keep). Simply south (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus has always found rail stations inherently notable. Never has one been deleted (I recall a tram stop one time, but that's it). It is much better for this project when consensus decides that major categories like this should have articles than to flesh out the notability merits of the thousands that exist resulting in a colossal waste of editors' time. --Oakshade (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep its over.--Milowent (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news and Google book search at the top of the AFD, show one hit each. But that doesn't matter since common sense indicates projects like this are notable, and you don't need some reporter or anyone else telling you that. Dream Focus 23:46, 13 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 obvious keep per long-standing precedent of keeping all settlements. Renata (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wisłok Górny[edit]

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

Other than the fact that that this village is very old (over 700), I see no reason for it to have it's own page. No sources, no notability, no credibility. Renaissancee (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep per long established consensus that all places of human habitation are inherently notable and should have articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously keep, but probably best to merge with Wisłok Dolny and Wisłok Wielki.--Kotniski (talk) 13:40, 7 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 SNOW delete see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 California earthquake. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Las Vegas earthquake[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL that uses a science-fiction movie as its academic referencing. Warrah (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article is supposed to deal with a movie scene from the movie 2012. If it cannot be a standalone article, it should be merged with the main movie title. The same goes with 2012 California earthquake. GVnayR (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We don't have articles about individual film scenes, not matter how earthshaking (and this one doesn't come close to qualifying).Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then I suggest that you either merge or redirect this individual film scene into the main film article. GVnayR (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. There's nothing worth merging IMO, and it makes an unlikely search string. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If by some chance the movie plot element is notable enough to have an article- and I don't think it is- it shouldn't be at this title, which is of the format used for real events. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable element of a boring film. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:45, 7 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 subject already exists at a more plausible title and the misspelling makes this unsuitable as a redirect

Who are the Greek Gods and Godesses[edit]

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

Contested prod. An incomplete and unnecessary list of some Greek deities. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleting. There is already an article at List of Greek mythological figures. I was going to redirect this until I saw the misspelling of "Godesses." --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:01, 7 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 SNOW delete Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 California earthquake[edit]

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

A shiny example of WP:CRYSTAL that speculates on the possibility of an earthquake in two years. The references cited here do not meet WP:RS requirements. Warrah (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article is supposed to deal with a movie scene from the movie 2012. If it cannot be a standalone article, it should be merged with the main movie title. The same goes with 2012 Las Vegas earthquake. GVnayR (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An earthquake could also occur in 2010, 2011, 2013, ... So? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In Demolition Man, they said that a big earthquake occured in 2010. Since you never see the earthquake in that film, you could say it was just a quirky element in the film. The California earthquake in the 2012 film is neither quirky nor non-notable. GVnayR (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No one knows the next earthquake to occur in California, so this might be a hoax. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 03:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If by some chance the movie plot element is enough to have an article- and I don't think it is- it shouldn't be at the title, of the format used for real events. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable element of a boring film. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. By yawn, I mean delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Bring down the ~~house~~ article Miserably fails WP:CRYSTAL. Or possibly merge to 2012 (film). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:47, 7 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. Since this is an AfD debate, we decide whether to delete or not. A consensus is not to delete. Whether to merge or not, this can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 21:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Chmagh[edit]

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

fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ONEVENT. While the event may be notable, there is no evidence that Chmagh is notable outside this, or that there is enough coverage of him as an individual to justify an article. Ironholds (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Did a cursory search for sources; could not find notability elsewhere. Per nom. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is what I meant. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Important part of July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike [[Theclerkswell]] ''[[User_talk:TheClerksWell|TALK PAGE!]]' (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:ONEEVENT. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy Vipin Hari || talk 03:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:ONEEVENT. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read People notable only for one event: "If an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles." Vipin Hari || talk 17:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not such an event. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the moment. Significant international news media coverage ([46]); per WP:ONEVENT this content could be merged later on into the main July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike article if it fits better there. Total deletion would seem to not be appropriate. —Sladen (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and merge are totally different things. Content can still be merged even if the article is deleted.--Crossmr (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The news media coverage is of the event, not of him. Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the news coverage extended beyond the event to end up giving background on the person. To get a sense of the man, read: [47] Racepacket (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The end of his life is controversial. IMO, that makes it notable. Fighting for Justice (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:ONEEVENT, which highlights exactly why you're wrong.
Weak keep - In this case though, the individual and the event are extremely different - the event is much more about the American military involvement than about the individual.
Keep- At least for now. Significant media coverage is beginning to include the background of the journalists in the shooting, making this noteworthy and possibly allowing for expansion. --Chris Goodson (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per CGoodson - the coverage of the person was significant beyond the way that he died. Allow for expansion. Racepacket (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was an Iraqi war journalist and he was murdered in an airstrike by US soldiers. This voids the opinion of WP:ONEEVENT. 92.24.157.127 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..how? Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - No disrespect, but this is little better than a stub and his information could be included alongside his cameraman. So many people are murdered by our military, we can't have separate articles for them all (sick joke). Magmagoblin2 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Important part of July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike --Yogi de (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how he passes WP:ONEEVENT. Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be kept, because of the circumstances under which he was killed. I do think though that the article should be expanded because it's currently too short in my opinion. --Jesant13 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you try citing policy with your argument? Explain how this article's subject passes WP:ONEEVENT? We are not a source of news. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike per WP:ONEEVENT for now. That notability guideline states: "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified". I don't think Chmagh has reached that point. Given some time maybe he will, but at this point it's too early to have a separate article about him. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jujutacular. Though to be fair, we shouldn't discount keep votes above if they reflect If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. (from WP:ONEEVENT). I don't happen to believe that applies here, but I accept that others may differ. So should the closer. --John (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ - I would favor keeping this article if more information could be found about his life, backed by reliable sources, and the article could be expanded to resemble more of a biography than a recap of his part in the airstrike. Obviously, his death (and should) still be a major part of the article, if not making up most of it. But if the article can be expanded with info about his early life, his pre-airstrike employment with Reuters, etc. etc., I'd favor keeping it. Otherwise, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge/redirect. (I'll try to look for sources myself in the next couple days...) — Hun ter Ka hn 19:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think it's been sufficiently expanded to be focused more as a biography now, not a stub recounting their role in the airstrike. It could still use some expansion, but now I feel it's not in violation of WP:ONEEVENT because it is focused on both Chmagh's career and the airstrike. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike per WP:ONEEVENT. Not notable outside of being an unfortunate victim of "wrong place, wrong time." when a U.S. helicopter fired at what were thought to be armed insurgents. No evidence they assassinated him because they wanted Saeed Chmagh, in particular, dead. His work did not apparently lead to his death, other than perhaps in having a camera with a long lens mistaken for a weapon, and standing around with men, who some of whom appeared to carry AK-47s. Edison (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standard WP:ONEEVENT case; redirect per Jujutacular, Edison, and others. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike per WP:ONEEVENT—Chris!_c/t 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia would be better served by an urge to improve than an urge to delete. If we can get a bit more information about his early life and career this will be a perfectly serviceable article. - 24.6.1.26 (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. - DevOhm ^Talk 08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important part of quite an important event. Would rather it be expanded than deleted. Merge would be a comprimised if totally necessary. Cls14 (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Chris Goodson's explanation. Warrah (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of subject (profiles like this) has sufficient depth now to warrant a separate article. --Sodabottle (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual was clearly a noted and valued contributor toward a global news agency - his contribution toward scores if not hundreds of global or regional news stories can be assumed or proven by Reuters - it is, unlikely, therefore, that only this one event has begotten his entry. He is not simply a witness, nor a reporter, he is rather the entire fulcrum upon which the event stands. After all, the majority of individuals killed here do not have a wiki page. This would seem to undermine any reasons for WP:OneEvent guideline removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodpaul (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He was an Iraqi journalist killed while standing around armed insurgents without wearing a PRESS identifier. It's a prime example of how the war's critics don't care at all about the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While he may not be notable enough to warrent a unique article, he is a major and very significant part of the event. Therefor the information in the article would be appropriate to merge into the event article. Furthermore the event is a significant if (sadly) not uncommon occurrence. --Achris51 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event is notable enhough to fulfill the exception clauses is WP:ONEEVENT. BrickBreak (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage of the individual in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete - The event is only borderline notable (civilians often get killed by accident in warzones, its terrible but it happens). But this individual is only notable because he was killed in this event. He was not notable as a journalist, and his tragic demise is the definition of WP:ONEVENT. Cathardic (talk) 16:07, 14 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 deleted as previously speedied vandalism

Dorble.com[edit]

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

Not notable a quick google didn't seem to come up with anything reliable as a source. Wintonian (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already speedy deleted a few times as vandalism/hoax. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:42, 7 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 The Runaways#Laurie McAllister. Shimeru (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie McAllister[edit]

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

Individual does not appear to be notable outside of a band. Ghits do not produce sources that establish notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Runaways#Laurie McAllister, as a member of a notable band. There's no material to merge as the section in the article in The Runaways has all the same information. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 12 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) 00:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Bypass[edit]

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

Article is purely speculative at this point. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a considerable amount of coverage for the bypass. Even if it is just proposed, there is enough coverage that I believe it is notable. Silver seren^C 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though this is a crystal ball article, seems like there is plenty of sourcing available. Dew Kane (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with dew kane crystal but plenty of sourcing out there Mikyt90 (talk) 15:29, 7 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 Merge and redirect per previous consensus. I added an entry for Servicelive.com at Sears Holdings Corporation, using a more recent source. This article will then be redirected to preserve the history. If consensus emerges at Talk:Sears Holdings Corporation that this site doesn't merit inclusion, that works too - but it is operated by Sears and should still redirect there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceLive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for merge BACK IN MARCH FREAKING 2009 and nobody could be arsed. Use it or lose it. Sources seem too thin to even warrant a merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete this seems to be a mildly insignificant subsidiary for an independent article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 2 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) 00:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No need to discuss this any further, the old verdict of "merge" still stands. --Pgallert (talk) 11:19, 7 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 The Brittas Empire. Merge can be performed if desired. Shimeru (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Porter (actor)[edit]

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

Known for starring in The Brittas Empire, but that's about it, so fails WP:ENT No.1 : significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Appears to have left acting altogether after this one role. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to The Brittas Empire. The series is popular, this seems like a fair solution to me.Evalpor (talk) 17:31, 4 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) 00:06, 7 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 Tír na nÓg (band). Redirecting as a personal editorial decision. consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Morning (Tír na nÓg album)[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and this one was only released by a (two?) redlink labels. Only four sources, two of which are Amazon links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

label that released this album is well known for having remastered and released on cd many albums from underground English and Irish folk bands of the 70s that were lost or non-re-released on cd, see there [48], [49]. This album countains demos that are notable in the band story as they got a deal with Chrysalis Records due to this recording (see link I added in my last edits on the article). Album has been covered by Belgian radio show Psyche Van Het Folk on Radio Centraal--Vegetable man38 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with these sources is that the first (Rate Your Music) is unreliable, the second is a primary source, and the third is also unreliable (Homestead is a free hosting service.) Cf. with WP:SOURCE. I am entirely convinced that this album exists and it was made by a notable band, but according to WP:MUSIC, you need to prove that this release is notable and that involves finding reliable third-party sources. So far, you haven't really provided them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although this site is hosted by homestead, this is the official site from the radio show producer Gerald Van Waes (look at his profile in the bottom of this page. His website is actually moving on a .com address but some parts are always hosted on homestead.com. If I refer to the WP:SELFPUBLISH, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". If it is not sufficient, let me some time to find reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetable man38 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 1 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) 00:05, 7 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 Zoophilia. Tone 21:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avisodomy[edit]

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

Dicdef, no reliable sources found. Best I could find was this, but even then I doubt it could be more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 31 March 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, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Zoophilia. -- œ ^™ 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zoophilia. Basically a dictionary definition. Edison (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without reliable sources, there is nothing to merge. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Without reliable sources there is unsourced content to be merged. To be clear, just because something is unsourced does not make it "nothing". Unsourced is not the same thing as unverifiable. -- œ ^™ 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JBsupreme. Anna Lincoln 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JBsupreme ----Nuujinn (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, into Zoophilia. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, into Zoophilia. Per Edison. Atom (talk) 20:28, 14 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) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Speedy[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable subject. City council member who does not meet the notability requirements of the WP:GNG. Also see WP:BIO#Politicians, which states, "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."[50] This is not the case here. PROD contested, so comes here for deletion. — Satori Son 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. no assertion of notability, no significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 25 March 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, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^T · C 00:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indianapolis is a large metropolitan area, so it's not inconceivable that one of its councillors might meet WP:POLITICIAN, but I'm not seeing the requisite significant press coverage here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:05, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egil Jacobsen[edit]

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

I'm not a chess expert but I'd say that a sportsperson of this type would at least have to compete internationally to be notable, for instance in the Chess Olympiad which started during his career. I don't see that this person has. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the WikiProject Chess, I have written hundreds of pages (articles or stubs) on chess players, who are notable, for example as national chess champions (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_national_championships, please). By the way, Egil Jacobsen won twice the Danish Chess Championship. So, I do not understand an objection presented by Geschichte. I hope, it is only a misunderstanding. -- Mibelz (talk) 17:11, 1 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, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning the Danish championship twice seems notable enough to me -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy was national champion twice. I'd say that's notable! Cls14 (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played for Denmark in the 1928 Chess Olympiad held in the Netherlands. [51] Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SunCreator's comment proves Geschichte wrong on at least one account, and I believe the subject of the article notable enough to keep in any case, regardless of Olympiad participation. Grand Mattster 19:34, 8 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) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Bernstein[edit]

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

Unfinished AFD started by someone else. Simply working with another notable musician != notability. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As yet, he's not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 5 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, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not inherit notability from those photographed. No substantial coverage has been shown to exist, and my search could not establish notability per WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of his scholarly endeavors in Joni Mitchelliana. -- Hoary (talk) 16:27, 8 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. Tone 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contract (animated short film)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No sources found to establish the notability of this film, fails WP:NOTFILM and WP:GNG. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 02:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apparently this film is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database yet. It is possible that the film may be notable, but with no relevant sources provided, there is no evidence of notability yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, very few Russian films are listed at IMDB, specially from back in '85. Hopefully a Russian-reading Wikipedian will be able to sort through these. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A film by a notable director and produced by a notable studio. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 31 March 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, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't know anything about Russian animation, but if this is the work of a notable filmmaker, then the article has merit. Better referencing would help, of course. Warrah (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and encourage further input from Russian-reading Wikipedians toward sourcing. Article might always be revisited in six months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:25, 13 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. Ged UK 07:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mats Åkerlund[edit]

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

A street busker and church composer that fails WP:MUSIC and general notability guidelines. According to his own self published biography, his highest honors are winning church composition contests, which drew no secondary source coverage that I can find.

Note: Prominent obstetrician with the same name, don't confuse them. Gigs (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to meeting the WP:MUSIC bar. B.Wind (talk) 06:16, 31 March 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, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one article is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Google News archives and found this article from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying: Even with that additional source, I don't see this as sufficient for our notability guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:01, 14 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 List_of_The_Brittas_Empire_Characters#Linda_Perkin. This appears to be what she is mainly known for; redirect keeps the history so the article can be resurrected if notability is asserted Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Greenacre[edit]

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

Known for starring in The Brittas Empire, but that's about it, so fails WP:ENT No.1 : significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Other stage and television appearances appear to be minor. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also her 6 episodes of Andy Robson back in 1983, before the 50 episodes of The Brittas Empire she did from 1991-1997. And her bio at 'Dance and Theatre Cornwall' does seem to indicate (yes, needs better sourcing) that she has also been involved in theater as well as radio production. So she is perhaps pushing at ENT a bit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her Andy Robson character does not look like a significant role to me (6 out of 20 episodes in a kids TV show?), and merely being involved in theatre is also not demonstration of a significant role. MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... The Brittas Empire built quite a fan following during its reign on the tube. So did the Andy Robson series have a fan base among its young viewers? And since ENT is not only about film and TV, has any research been done into her stage and radio productions? To actually determine the depth of her involvement? To see if her if her roles were significant, or whether or not she was positively reviewed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Not that I could find out, no. Which is why it is now at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to The Brittas Empire. The series is popular, this seems like a fair solution to me.Evalpor (talk) 18:01, 4 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, 7 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 merge to List_of_The_Mummy_characters#Alexander_'Alex'_O'Connell (effectively redirect as information is already in target article). I have also moved the redirect and dabbed. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex O'Connell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alex O'Connell

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

This The Mummy character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge to List_of_characters in The Mummy series where this character is already described and has whatever notability he might as part of the series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 2 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, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_characters in The Mummy series. I am a little concerned that a real person, an Olympic fencer by the same name, has to play second fiddle to a fictional character. Abductive (reasoning) 23:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the article can be moved to Alex O'Connell (fictional character) before then setting as a redirect? No need for a real Alex to play second fiddle to a fictional one. Or how about a dab page? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dab is cleaner. Abductive (reasoning) 18:45, 10 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 List_of_Fair_City_characters. As nothing is sourced, a merge isn't indicated. Any material merged would need to be referenced Black Kite (t) (c) 22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orla Kirwan[edit]

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

No references, no real world info. I can't confirm that the plot is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is this appropriate list? And merge what? can you verifz what is written or we will end up merging inaccurate things and original research? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:01, 6 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, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to List of Fair City characters. Topic has no secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 23:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Una_Norris for a similar discussion that concluded with deletion of the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a touch more (trivial) coverage of this character than the other one, hence the difference in my notvote. Abductive (reasoning) 13:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as usual. An afd for a similar character that ended in deletion only shows the high error rate; it's always worth at least a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 12 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) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Una Norris[edit]

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

No references, no real world info. I can't confirm that the plot is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 March 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, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this fictional character. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources. Also, a real playwright shares the name. Abductive (reasoning) 23:34, 7 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.