< 19 February	21 February >

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

The result was deleted per WP:CSD#G7 by Philippe (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Behrns (Stevens Tech coach)[edit]

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

Delete per G7. I created this page a few days ago and used the College Football DataWarehouse website as my reference, but after a couple back-and-forth emails with that website's maintainer, he realized that he was incorrect in his putting Pat Behrns as a Stevens Tech coach (because he was not). The Pat Behrns article for the North Dakota coach already exists, so this page here is not only incorrect entirely, but it can't even be redirected or merged. Please speedily delete. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcaster.com[edit]

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

This states that the website domain is 'temporarily unavailable'. However, the website has been down since the approximate time of this edit if not before. Therefore, why do we have an article about a nonexistent website? This apparently was not a temporary thing.PoeticVerse (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the rationale behind nominating this article for deletion? Your statement does not cite any policy or notability violation. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Broadcaster.com is well-known as a popup in some spyware [1] [2]. It certainly wouldn't be beyond them to spam Wikipedia as well, but I won't speculate further about that. Do we have a WP:EVIL? Besides their notoriety there doesn't seem to be much evidence of notability: Google News returns nothing and the references in the article have only trivial coverage. A book search comes up with some results, but at least for the first page of results it's only mentioned trivially in lists and examples. The rest seems to be spurious matches of "broadcaster com-" (without the dot - damn google), so they don't pass WP:WEB. I don't see how we could verify their notability or even most of the content of this article without any nontrivial sources or a working website, let alone rewrite it. Smocking (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We shouldn't be basing any decision on deletion either on whether this site still exists, or whether it is suspected of any connection with spam and/or spyware, but on whether it is notable. There seems to be some non-press release coverage of this site amongst the Google News hits: [3][4]. I don't think that these sources are enough for notability, but, if any more coverage can be found in independent reliable sources, including coverage of the allegations mentioned above, I would be willing to reconsider. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 22 February 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. Even when !votes from potential single-purpose accounts are disregarded, still no consensus exists. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Griffin (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/William A. Griffin (Christian Churches/Churches of Christ)

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

Prod declined. No reliable sources to establish notability of a WP:BLP. (assuming 'L'). sample search. One source (Elizabeth City Daily Advance) given, but that's hardly far up the ladder of reliable sources. tedder (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^ekrubrR 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable former university president. Sporadic mentions in news sources, mostly local, but no significant coverage. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Individual is notable and has had considerable influence on Christianity in the eastern United States. Need more time to research details and to add references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.181.106 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a week, and the article can be moved to a user's personal area to work on longer if necessary. tedder (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- It is very difficult to judge the merit of an article when it is a mere stub. He served for 20 years as president of a College with 190 students and 15 staff. Since the college is primarily a seminary, these low numbers are perhpas not unusual. For the moment I should suggest merging with Mid-Atlantic Christian University, leaving a redirect. Userify is presumably not possible for a non-logged in user. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that numbers shouldn't be used to justify someone's notability. Also, it's not very elegant to have the university's article about specific people. There may be a few others like that out there, but I don't think it's very encyclopedic. I think the original user should expand the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.23.79.61 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — 151.23.79.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -- I guess this general issue hasn't been totally hashed out. I think this discussion will be valuable as we’ll likely see a similar situation come up again and again. IMO -- At a MINIMUM, a leader (President, Chancellor, Provost, or whatever they want to call the office) of a regionally accredited institution of higher learning is inherently notable. The one exception to this rule would be if someone was serving only in a short (however that is to be defined) interim position. In this case the individual held the office for 20 years, which I would consider a significant portion of time, and the institution is regionally accredited. The article needs to be expanded to include what he did at the University and what his specific contributions were, both within and outside of the University. I vote to keep. alan1701^alan1701 07:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but there needs to be a serious search for a little more information. heads of colleges are notable, large or small. The first graduating class at Harvard had 9 people in it. ` DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this William A. Griffin is more notable than the one we already have a wikipage for. Shouldn't that count for something User:151.46.181.106 14:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 14:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everyone who has an opinion on this has voted. I would be suspicious of anyone who voted after this point (7 votes within about a day; none in the last two days). The current count is 5 KEEP, 1 Merge, and 1 Delete. It should also be noted that the one delete was by a user who seems to think the notability criteria for this article should be more stringent than it is for other articles. Not quite a consensus, but very strong to KEEP. --alan1701^alan1701 10:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind it's not a vote. You've miscounted your 'delete' !votes, since you didn't include the nominator. Also, the !vote is done on the strength of the arguments. So !votes from single-purpose accounts that amount to "I like it" should simply be discarded from the consensus of this AFD. tedder (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the voting, Tedder. However, while not being the only criterion, voting should be considered. If it didn't matter, why would we bother to do it? The only single purpose account I see is 151.23.79.61. Taking that away and adding your vote would still make it 4-2-1 in favor of keeping. Then again, I don't think single purpose accounts can be dismissed just because of that. They have a voice and if they have a valid point, then they have a valid point. I also haven't seen any arguments that amount to simply "I like it."alan1701 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. All of the IPs are from the same ISP, all have only edited Griffin, MACU, and (sometimes) related orgs. In fact, two of them made their first edit EVER at this AFD; the third has only made four edits total. That's pretty suspicious, and the sort of behavior seen when someone requests other people to vote with them on an AFD. tedder (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the "strength of the arguments" and not who or how many people say it that matters, why do we care who makes the point? While there is agreement between the different "users," they each had a different reason for keeping the article. I also don't know why this article is being held to a higher standard than other biographical articles as one already pointed out (the less notable other William A. Griffin, for example). I find it odd that this one was singled out when there are many other related and less notable people already on wikipedia. User:alan1701|alan1701]] (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we should add information about early life and his influence on this sect of christianity. Page needs more info and should not be deleted. agree, head of a college is notable. as pointed out he was the president for two decades and made significant strides with the university.User:151.23.73.45 11:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)|151.23.73.45[reply]

With time running out, I want to summarize arguments to KEEP. I won't include all, but will try to include most. What makes this situation difficult is that that it's practically impossible to find a truly disinterested party. Even if someone isn't familiar with this specific situation, they will undoubtedly have a bias (in whatever direction that might be) with Christianity and religion in general. What really makes this person notable? The first thing we need to do is identify what criteria makes a University Head (usually President or Chancellor) notable. If we don't have specific guidelines to refer to, it comes down to just "I think he/she is/isn't."

I propose a two-part litmus test for University Heads: 1) The University or College is regionally accredited. 2) The individual is not serving in a short interim position. If those two items are met, the individual is inherently notable. Of course, someone who doesn't meet those two items might still be notable based on other conditions. In this case, the individual not only meets these two conditions, but exceeds them. What else makes him notable?

This individual has been in the position for 20 years -- a long period of time for such a position. His work has had a significant economic and religious impact on two states (North Carolina and Virginia) and a smaller impact on the rest of the region and country. His specific contributions have been significant to the institution itself. It is well documented that he led the University through its first regional accreditation -- a big deal! Even if you don't buy my criteria above, surely the person who led a University through its first regional accreditation would be notable. Additionally, under his direction the University significantly expanded its campus and academic programs. Again, more info making him notable and not just a placeholder. Although it isn't very well documented in this article, he is also instrumental in organizing the churches of the region (encompassing two states) -- and has been for decades. He is mentioned in many news stories (not just the ones from where the University is either).

In short, this individual far exceeds the criteria that would normally make someone notable. I haven't included everything here, but I think it's enough to make the point. Now let's go make the actual article better. alan1701 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan1701, you keep using the term "notability". Per Wikipedia's notability criteria, how does William A. Griffin meet the criteria? A good example is to follow WP:GNG. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? tedder (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think he easily meets that criteria. I’ve found a whole plethora of newspaper articles about him from North Carolina and Virginia (several from further away), going back several years. Not all of them are suitable for the article, of course. A few of the relevant ones have been included. It should also be noted that most of his newspaper coverage was probably from before they started saving them to internet files. I mean, you’re not going to get Natalie Holloway coverage if that’s what you’re asking for. alan1701 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count eight different third party sources… after just beginning work on the article. alan1701 (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I live a few hours away and ive heard of him a few times. he seems important enough to keep.--in_the_forrest^{in_the_forrest} 10:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop's Nightclub & Concert Venue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pop's Nightclub & Concert Venue

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

Unsourced stub, PROD removed saying that more would be added, but nothing for a few months now. Also, I'm not sure why this passes WP:CORP: most of what is Google are event dates, etc. There's a little on Google news, but it's all local coverage (and what I can see of the archived material doesn't make it seem like there is too much significant coverage either). fetchcomms☛ 23:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP -- no coverage in secondary sources. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 01:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7: company with not even an assertion of notability. --Closeapple (talk) 07:01, 25 February 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, no assertion of notability.

Kao johnny[edit]

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

I first prodded this article and the creator removed the template so I am bringing it here for community discussion. I find no mention of the subject in either a nexis or Google search. There appears to be a lack of notability and a lack of verifiability. JodyB_talk 23:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No notability shown. MySpace does not indicate that artist and notable : and recording the album at home... no comments. DB-A7. --Stroppolo^talk 05:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything about him other than MySpace, and the article itself is pretty much saying he's non-notable - "recorded his first album at home" -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:00, 21 February 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 copyvio Jac16888 ^Talk 23:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

芜湖一中[edit]

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

Foreign language article. Seems to be about a Chinese school. Probably lacks notability and content could be gibberish. Needs to be checked by language proficient person and possible deleted or speedily deleted. Duribald (talk) 23:18, 20 February 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) 04:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Blair Kelly[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 23:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam autobiography of non-notable filmmaker. Trivial secondary-source coverage: smattering of web hits; is mentioned in a single inaccessible article from the Peterborough Examiner. Subject fails WP:ARTIST. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 01:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While willing to believe that his career might one day meet notability inclusion criteria, it has not done so yet. I also appreciate how politely Rrburke explained this to the author on his talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (GregJackP (talk) 21:49, 25 February 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Bwilkins. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AV8RS[edit]

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

The prod was contested. I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Db-band. No assertion of notability. No reliable source, not much coverage found after google search, and Facebook and MySpace does not show notability and credibility. --Stroppolo^talk 05:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-band this baby. JBsupreme (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete zero google news or book hits on the title. All web hits appear to be blogs, fan pages or primary sources. While I appreciate the nominator's taking this to AFD when the prod was contested, speedy probably should have come before prod. RadioFan (talk) 16:25, 21 February 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 Gmail. Consensus seems to be that there is no basis for a stand alone article. I think merger is the best solution here. JodyB_talk 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Google Buzz[edit]

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

I'm not convinced we need a separate article for the history of a service that is itself less than 2 weeks old. Google Buzz is not a long article and the history section is definitely not a long section. Creating a separate article just gives us twice as much work to do keeping the history up to date. Npdoty (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as author) I am convinced. I know this statement is a violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but History of Google and History of Gmail are existing articles and it would be good to have a cohesive series of articles. I'd like to foster an article where we can go into more detail about the history and leave a summary at the main article. The actual product is new; it will grow over time. Google Buzz made DYK, and the topic will continue to expand. I am working on an Outline of Google and I believe this is a worthwhile article. It's definitely notable, containing a good, healthy amount of refs. I honestly don't think "Creating a separate article just gives us twice as much work to do keeping the history up to date" is a valid excuse to delete an article. -- ❝iBen❞ 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it stands, the article appears to be just copy+pasted from the Google Buzz article itself. --Oscarthecat (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator said: we don't need history articles for stuff that is barely two weeks old. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, the main article is not long enough to justify a split to a "history of" at this point in time. Creation of this probably should have been discussed on Talk:Google Buzz first. - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge back into the Google Buzz article. Not broad enough a topic to warrant a separate article about its history. fetchcomms☛ 01:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. As nominator, no need to create a new article for something with virtually no history at all. Maybe someday, but not now. A History section in Google Buzz is better in this area. It is not because a new service exist that an article needs to be created... so even more so for a "history" article about it. It is simply too empty to have it's own article. --Stroppolo^talk 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or you can merge it back into the Buzz article. It's such a new service, multiple pages about it are not warramted until it...well...ages with time.226Trident (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Weak Merge. Doesn't look like it deserves an article of it's on. As others have said if google buzz reaches a point where it has a long history it might make sense but not at this time. PaleAqua (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, and update until article worthy. username 1 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. Ofc need to merge. I dunno why it need to create new article for history of this project. iorlas (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge. This article is one paragraph, duh. Pcap ping 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't we just make these kinds of articles when the main article needs to be split up? eg, when google buzz gets super long, we can pull out the "history" or "privacy" sections into new articles and leave behind a small summary. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful content to Google Buzz. This "history" spans barely a week. It's not a history, it's news. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Insufficient content to merit a spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:44, 26 February 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. Seems consensus is to keep. Would reccomend adding more sources and fleshing out the article. JodyB_talk 15:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Wilkins (priest)[edit]

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

Notability. I don't see anything relevant in his work, it doesn't seem he was notable enough to deserve an article. Karljoos (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional information about his life. I believe that anyone who achieves the position of Bishop or Archdeacon in the Anglican church is notable enough for an article. Andrewrabbott (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that being a Bishop is notable enough. There're few references (and some are not easily accesible) and it doesn't seem he "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field".--Karljoos (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I think it meets the basic criteria of "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". His life and contribution to Nottingham is covered in detail in the Thesis "The Anglican Church in the industrialized town: St. Mary's parish, Nottingham, 1770-1884. M. Wendy Bowen. Nottingham M.Phil. 1997". Andrewrabbott (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A focused Google Books search finds 216 books with coverage of this subject. Just looking through the first few of those we can see that an overview of the 19th century Church of England has coverage over seven pages and that a lengthy obituary of the subject was published in The Gentleman's Magazine. Clearly passes the WP:general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Phil Bridger.Edward321 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're a project where the goal is to write articles, based on sources, not impressions, and this should apply to nominating articles for deletion also. BTW, we have always accepted Anglican & RC bishops as notable; I do not recall any general decision about archdeacons, but I wouldn't really support make that a matter of course. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 24 February 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) 04:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dvd player morpher[edit]

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

This article purports to be about a category or type of software called DVD Player Morpher, but this software does not seem to exist outside a single piece of non-notable software called AV DVD Player Morpher. I can't find any sources for this topic, but I don't feel comfortable PRODing it considering its age and maintenance tags - which seem to indicate there have been quite a few people who have declined to PROD it despite the issues. Joshua Scott (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, WP:OR, WP:ARTSPAM. Pcap ping 14:27, 23 February 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 09:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark James Monk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mark James Monk

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

Notability. This organist did not make any impact in the music world, neither as a composer nor as performer. Not every professional musician deserves an article. Karljoos (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having a hymn listed in a major hymnal, such as in Hymns Ancient and Modern, ranks as notable, the classical version of a top 10 hit. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has biographical entries in British Musical Biography: James D Brown, Who was Who: Volumes 3 and 4, Cathedral organists past and present: John Ebenezer West Andrewrabbott (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian, per coverage mentioned by Andrewrabbott and obituary in The Musical Times.--Beloved Freak 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources listed.Edward321 (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the time to look for sources is before nominating for deletion--then you can add them to the article, and simultaneously improve Wikipedia and save other people the work of debating the matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I didn't look for sources? Three of the four sources are not easily accesible. He might be mentioned in some sources, but the question is if he has done something to be on wikipedia.--Karljoos (talk) 09:52, 24 February 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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Stores[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 100% advertising. --Karljoos (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 20 February 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, although a merge discussion is highly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 22 Letters[edit]

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

Book does not appear to meet notability requirements Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think it does meet the notability requirements, but given the publication date, the evidence of notability is probably offline. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sarek. Some sources are provided to show notability, and I do not see how it would improve the encyclopedia to delete the information in this article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to grant that sources may be off-line but I would suggest that the sources provided don't establish notability, especially the source which says that it was Puffin's 250th book. This is an interesting fact and deserves inclusion in the article, but isn't itself notable. As for the first source I can't figure out what it's sourcing to even try and check it off-line. Please realize I have tried to source the article myself on-line, including using the Comprehensive Children's Database and have been unable to find a source suggesting notability. Again agreeing that sources which suggest notability might exist off-line doesn't to me to argue in favor of keeping an article which has been around for more than 2 years.Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first cite is for the illustrator and the year of publication. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it would be better to merge the information into the author article Clive King. His most famous book, Stig of the Dump has its own article, is still in print and is a classic of British children's literature. The 22 Letters was reasonably successful in its time but is now out of print and not well-known. I think the encyclopedia would be better served by the consolidation of the two into a single article.--Plad2 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the author. This is a quite minor work of the notable author, in terms of impact (25 worldcat holdings only) DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hernán Arriaga[edit]

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

BLP that seems to have been written for vanity/advertising reasons. Lacks sources that support any notability. Duribald (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article has no refs that would assert notability and seems advert like.-- ❝iBen❞ 21:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: vanity autobiography of non-notable person. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is a re-created speedied article: [5] --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is - and if it comes back we may have to add some sodium chloride, but I hesitate to suggest that, at least for now. -Duribald (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would not argue that it should be speedied (it claims his portfolio is for some larger design houses), but ... he's not in the big leagues yet. There are a few passing mentions in the press, but not, in my opinion enough for his own article. I don't have time to translate the Spanish articles (my skills are getting rusty). Can anyone else do that? Bearian (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SendSocial[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Of the sources listed about this startup, one MIGHT be non-trivial (although it does read like a press-release), the remainder are youtube, and blog entries, a search on google news doesn't turn up anything related to this company. It just doesn't seem like SendSocial is notable, yet - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.... 2 says you, says two 20:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One article in the Telegraph ≠ WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:CORP. Should be mentioned in Ben Way, but doesn't merit a standalone article. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not yet notable. Haakon (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable aspect of SendSocial is the way it was formed, by using social media to bring together a team. The article will be improved soon. Some other citations have now been included. Derbian85 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — Derbian85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The way a group is formed does not equal notability. Notability comes from coverage in reliable, third party, non-blog sources. 2 says you, says two 05:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added further sources in the way of regional and local publications, which can be considered reliable and they are not blogs. Now has 10 independent references. Derbian85 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough, this just reads as an 'About Us' page. RanJayJay (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — RanJayJay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final fantasy vi-2[edit]

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

Non-notable fan remake of a video game for which I can find no significant coverage in a reliable source. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to http://blogcritics.org/gaming/article/square-to-release-final-fantasy-vi/ or type in Final Fantasy VI remake into google. You will find many reliable sources for the topic Final Fantasy VI Remake Which is called final fantasy VI-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johhnybravo123 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources found with any significant coverage. Best of sources have extremely passing mentions. Article has some extreme formatting issues, but that's besides the point. --Teancum (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, noting that I am the original prodder. There are no reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject-matter. Ironholds (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here is the official home page for the game Final Fantasy VI-2 Home Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.112.35 (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – There are just too many things that raise red flags in my conscience about this. First, there is not a single bit of coverage here via any reliable secondary sources; the Google search I find only gives Internet forums and not really anything else besides false positives (they don't count as reliable secondary sources). Second, the article looks like treating Wikipedia as another web host, which is not what WP is for. Third, there are some serious veriability and original research concerns, but that probably stems from my second reason. –MuZemike 20:32, 22 February 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. JodyB_talk 15:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makravank Monastery[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep By virtue of it being a tenth century monastery alone. Sources are plenty: [6]

-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With one exception, these sources appear to refer to the village of the same name, not the monastery. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 23:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a frivolous nomination. Not a whole lot of English-language sources, but it seems reasonable to assume that there are Greek, Armenian and Turkish sources on this old monastic complex. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are actually two articles on Armeniapedia - [7], [8]. The second, spelled "Makaravank", has much more detail (and cites an offline source - "Architectural Ensembles of Armenia", by O. Khalpakhchian, published in Moscow by Iskusstvo Publishers in 1980 - although it has a strange online link). I've added it to the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, Makaravank Monastery and Makravank Monastery are two different places. Bradt Travel Guides mentions both, and gives different locations. But it is impossible to believe that there are no more independent sources for this one, although it may need editors who understand Russian or Armenian to find good ones. The complex has been there for 1,000 years, and is quite conspicuous. People must have noticed it and commented on it. I may dig around a bit more. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Ha, that is confusing - thanks for removing my incorrect ref -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some Russian books that mention Монастырь Макраванк here, but mostly snippets. Wish I understood Russian. Google translate of titles gives "Features fine art of medieval Armenia", "Industry, construction and architecture of Armenia", "Road Mher: Armenian legends", etc. There are no Armenian books that mention Մակրավանք, but a fair number of regular web hits which mostly seem to be pictures, wiki clones, travel guides etc that add no new information. Wish I knew Armenian. But clearly quite few people have noted the monastery. Interesting architecture. I suppose it was built in dangerous times, and doubled up as a fortress. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Eupator. Sardur (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Utmost Super Strong Keep. If it exists in real life, then I don't see why not to have a Wikipedia article on it. Serouj (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Can't believe this has bene nominated when we have thousands of unsourced articles which aren't even verifiable!! ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 15:51, 26 February 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 09:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaskenian Theological Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference from the Christian Science Monitor. University-level institutions are generally notable. More references might be found by searching under its Armenian name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historic theological academy. Needs better sourcing but time should be given for he time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Whatever it was, it's now more than a stub, and on the way to being a solid article. Ezratrumpet (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improved enough to survive. -Quartermaster (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources do exist on this place. Sardur (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stepanavan Dendropark[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I count three different web sources. Besides, as a legitimate place, I consider it to have inherent notability akin to a town or city.--TM 20:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is quite a prominent dendropark and the article has great potential for expansion. Again, sources are abundant. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eupator. - Fedayee (talk) 18:07, 26 February 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 speedily deleted by User:Malik Shabazz, "‎G3: Vandalism - blatant hoax or misinformation." Non-admin closure for housekeeping. — Glenfarclas (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooly the Oologah Lake Monster[edit]

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

Non-notable supposed monster, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A mention at Oologah Lake is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. No sources at all (reliable or otherwise), as far as I can find.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not even verify that this was a notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Why not Db-Hoax? --Stroppolo^talk 05:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it isn't Madeup, then there's still no sources to prove the subject's notability, nor is there any claim to notability. By the way, Stroppolo, both the Speedy and Hoax prods were removed by the article's creator, which why we're here right now, apparently. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I debated whether to put db-hoax back, but even though I don't believe in lake-monsters I thought it wasn't blatantly obvious that the lore or belief in an Oologah Lake Monster was a hoax. Needless to say, I'd raise no objection at all if someone does choose to speedy delete this. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was put up for speedy deletion but the article creator removed it . I will put it up for speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Santaslayer, the article creator, and User:Nuttycracker another contributor to the article, may be sockpuppets. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that went without saying. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:32, 23 February 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 'Deleted G7 - Author request Ϣere SpielChequers 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherpa LLC[edit]

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

The only claim to notability is being on a local Fast 50 list. I can not find substantial reliable sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot find notability. Haakon (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sherpa LLC is also notable because it made the Inc. 5000 list in 2007 as number 952. Here is the link for for the article [9]. Is this considered a more appropriate source and would it allow the article to remain on Wikipedia? I have noticed a few of our competitors such as Kelly Services and Robert Half International have articles on Wikipedia with the same type of sources I referenced. Can you explain why my article was marked for deletion and those pages were not? Thank you for your time.--CShortt09 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)CShortt09 — CShortt09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Considering that reading over the Inc. 5000 inclusion criteria at [10] it suggests that any company can apply to make the list, and that only the top 500 even appear in print, unless this gets significant coverage in reliable secondary sources it still does not appear to be notable. It appears that to appear you just have to be in the top 5000 amount of revenue generated by those private companies that choose to extend their PR by applying. This doesn't appear notable to me unless there is significant reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could you please comment on the question I posed above? What makes the references for Robert Half Robert Half International and Kelly Services Kelly Services any different? Also, Manpower International Manpower Inc.has a listing that has no references at all but is still not flagged for deletion. Our listing does not use any sales language and it seems like we are being discriminated against for being small and regional versus large and public based on the examples given. I'd be grateful for your assistance in doing whatever we need to do to make our listing correct...right now we feel like a "bitten newcomer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by CShortt09 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — CShortt09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete What makes someone else's references better than yours? They mightn't be. I'll look at the articles now and see if they fail to show any particular notability too. Articles can slip through the net.... On the whole, being large and public does tend to indicate more notability, because it usually means more history and references. As it stands, your article merely establishes existence. Top 50 growing companies? Well done. But is it really encyclopaedic notability? Peridon (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just peppered Manpower with citation needed tags. They are claimed to have "over 4,100 offices in 82 countries", which now has 'citation needed' attached to it. Robert Half makes claims to fame. So do Kelly's, even though their referencing is lousy. They both have some, so I can't really use the 'unreferenced' tag Not found an appropriate one yet. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may want to refer to this page: Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS where it states, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article...Plenty of articles exist that probably should not...So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet." So if you would like to take up the notability of those other articles, it would be best to do so directly on those article's talk pages. It appears from rough glance that they could use some additional citations, but that they may in fact be more notable than Sherpa since they have some claims of notability that have appeared in reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made changes and added more reputable sources in an attempt to meet Wikipedia's standards. One concern I have is that I have asked you (ConcernedVancouverite) for help twice and feel as though I've received only critiscm and not help. According to Wikipedia, with your power as an administrator you are supposed to kindly help me by providing suggestions. If you do not agree with my changes, please offer suggestions that will allow me to keep my Wikipedia page. --CShortt09 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)CShortt09[reply]

I am not a Wikipedia Administrator. I am just a user that is concerned when I see Wikipedia editing that seems to go against guidelines. I have provided you with many links to help understand what is acceptable, I would encourage you to read them. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI have heard of this firm and I have to agree with CShortt09. Although there doesn't seem to be a great deal of press about the firm (and much of what was there yesterday was removed by someone) they appear to have local and/or regional notability (if for no other reason than their green initiatives referenced in a linked article yesterday). It doesn't seem to me they are making any claims about their business or trying to gain anything from this article other than to inform - isn't that what wiki is for? --Gregnclt (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Gregnclt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. This is a recruiting, staffing, and consulting services firm that specializes in the fields of Accounting, Finance, Information Technology, and Project Management. Only references in the article are to local press coverage. Inclusion in "top 5000" lists argues against notability: I assume this implies that there are 4999 other businesses on the list. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this if you are a newcomer to this bit of Wikipedia - AfD. Articles for Deletion does not go by head count. It is a discussion where arguments and facts (or lack of facts) are put on the table and examined. We don't want a sudden rush of people saying 'Yeah, they're great, I do business with them' (or 'my grandmother cleans their offices'), and not adding references for anything. When this happens, as it sometimes does, a whole flood of new accounts appear and give nothing to the discussion. And they get disregarded when the closing admin reads through the page. Take note of what the established editors are saying - that's the ones without the 'has made few edits' bit in small print. And here if you are connected with the article There is also a difference between 'informing' and 'being an encyclopaedia entry'. The girl who has opened a florists at the end of your road two days ago wants to inform people she's there - but that's hardly encyclopaedic material. The line is drawn quite a bit away from that very obvious case of non-notability, and Sherpa is a lot closer to it. But on which side? That's what the discussion is for. Get some suitable references and you'll strengthen your case. If it goes, build the business more (aboutus and --LinkedIn are not bad for promotional articles), and come back when you do fit the rules and regs. Peridon (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peridon, can you please clarify what sources are considered reputable? We have added credible sources and material but ConcernedVancouverite keeps deleting it. How can others objectively judge the article if it keeps being deleted? Thanks in advance for your time and suggestions. --CShortt09 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Responsibility section that's gone needed a better ref. Blogs, forums, the company site, press releases and anything self-published (or editable like Wikipedia itself...) are all considered unreliable. They may be used within limits for extra info sources, but not to establish notability. Best is an article in a well-known publication - but not one based on press release stuff. Preferably, this should be something with at least state-wide circulation rather than just local town. Local stuff can be fill-in, but something of wider note is advisable. Whatever it is, it should be independent of your business. Always remember, too, that once an article is up on Wikipedia anyone can edit it. If you're not happy with the edits someone is making, talk to them. If still unhappy, there are procedures for arbitration WP:AP. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I will repost this article at a later time when I gather more credible sources.CShortt09 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 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. Qualified for speedy deletion as a recreation of a preveiously AfD'd article; virtually unchanged from previous version. SALTed without prejudice to recreation via Deletion review, but someone seems determined to re-re-mount this article. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mercer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a deleted page, short bio deleted through AfD for WP:N and WP:BIO. Creator of the first page recreated it this morning. If I'm reading the WP:RPDA ~~policy~~ proposed policy correctly, it has to go through AfD again. Doonhamer (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Three participants in the first nomination discussion reached consensus that the first article didn't pass WP:N and WP:BIO. Although notified, the creator of the article didn't participate in the discussion. The closing admin deleted the first article yesterday. The original author recreated the article earlier today. The current incarnation is also short and provides no assertion of notability; its only link is to the Wikipedia article for the radio station where Ben Mercer hosts his programmes. I've notified the original participants, the closing admin of the first nomination, and the article creator of this discussion, and invited the creator specifically to engage the discussion. My view is to delete the article as it now stands, though am open to keeping if the creator or other interested authors can improve the article to meet notability criteria (though the original participants did some research and thought that that might be difficult). Doonhamer (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That page is not policy.--Rockfang (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thank you for pointing that out, I missed the proposed at the top of the page, just saw the section where it says that previously deleted articles must go through AfD again. I've corrected that above. Doonhamer (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no significant improvement since it was last deleted.Zero references. Fails WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy - I don't remember the exact text of the original but it looks as though it falls under CSD:G4. If not then the subject still fails WP:N and WP:BIO and WP:ENT, nothing has been added which changes this. Delete! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:40, 20 February 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 Rake (poker)#Rakeback. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rakeback[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete - There is nothing in this article that couldn't be neatly written in a couple of lines and included in the [glossary of poker terms]. The article includes a random, meaningless list of poker sites that offer rakeback, as well as an inane piece of PR written by Bodog (literally via PR Newswire). There is not enough substantive material out there to justify a standalone article for rakeback and this article will only exist as a magnet for spammers. Hazir (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article topic isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. Lots of information could probably be added to the article, but none of it would be encyclopedic. It would all be of the "this is how much of a rebate this site offers" type content. Rray (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Rakeback is the online equivalent of comps_(casino), which have their own article and clearly warrant one. There is plenty more content that can be added to this article. I invite anybody reading this to please help out! A simple review of the current listed references will show plenty more facts that can be added. There are many different types of rakeback - VIP programs, rake chases, rake races, valueback, cashback programs etc. Every network has there own stance toward rakeback for a different reason and this can be outlined as well as the chronology of such. Next rakeback has evolved since 2004 in a very notable way - major events have occurred because of it like PartyPoker booting off all of their skins in 2005, PokerStars taking a hard-line stance against it but later having the same thing with their VIP club - then Full Tilt wholly embracing it and becoming the main rakeback site. iPoker whaffling and going back and forth and currently not allowing it - but allowing many equivalents. Lots more RS's can be found I just don't have the time to find them myself right now. It may become a magnet for spammers but I'll be watching the article closely and will take responsibility for ensuring none of them have their spam included in the article. Rakeback is a far more detailed concept than can be conveyed in one or two lines. My main reason for wanting this article is that when you Google 'rakeback' you get nothing but spam. No objective information is available about what it is and how it benefits the players and the rooms - or which networks allow it and which do not. Hopefully this page would rank high and such information would be available to the poker playing public. DegenFarang (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also worth noting the nominating editors contribution history. I couldn't find one article where he has made an actual contribution. He does nothing but go around and remove content and suggest things for deletion and shoot down the hard work of others. I'm not suggesting he should be blocked for this behavior - but it should be noted that he evidently views every article as some type of police officer looking for a reason to remove content or nominate it for deletion - and rarely (if ever) takes the high road and spends the five minutes necessary to actually improve the article. DegenFarang (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing stuff coming from an editor who has been [blocked] at least five times! Hazir (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ad hominem. Me getting blocked five times (mostly for arguing with people like you who I disagree with) has absolutely nothing to do with my 100% valid and relevant observation about your history as an editor. One who routinely recommends articles for deletion and removes the hard work of others should not have their nominations taken as seriously as a 'normal' editor who does the same thing. I don't know if there is a 'boy who cried wolf' WP:POLICY; if not, there should be, to apply to this very situation. DegenFarang (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bite but can see why you've been banned so many times. How about we get back to the topic, which is whether there is enough substance to justify a standalone article for rakeback? I think not. Hazir (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Rake (poker)#Rakeback. Notability sufficient enough to warrant a fork is absent. The rakeback section in Rake (poker) is in need of some references, anyways. —LedgendGamer 06:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic does not merit its own Wikipedia article. There is already a section for this topic in Rake (poker) (see Rake (poker)#Rakeback) so there is no need for a stand alone article. It either belongs there or in the [glossary of poker terms]. Mandermagic (talk) 02:14, 24 February 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. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicsgate[edit]

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

Reasons for recommending deletion:

(1) The article Sonicsgate was created by a user also named Sonicsgate, whose only contributions to Wikipedia are to the same article.
(2) I could find no entry for Sonicsgate on Rotten Tomatoes or BoxOfficeMojo. I suspect all, if not nearly all, notable films in recent years have entries on these websites.
(3) A review of the director, writers, and narrator for this film on IMDb reveals they either have no credits other than this film or only a handful of other non-notable credits.
(4) The film appears to have made a negligible impact on the North American box office.

I feel that it is appropriate to conclude that the article is not much more than free advertising for a film promoting certain political and economic beliefs of a few amateur film-makers. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find a few news outlets who briefly mention the film but nothing which even borders on in-depth coverage. Fails WP:N and film notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with and some comments toward the nominator's reasoning...

The article author should have chosen a different username... but the article belongs to WIkipedia now.
Sports documentaries don't usually receive coverage by Rotten Tomatoes, and those that are going the festival route don't usually pop up at Box Office Mojo.
That producers or directors of an independent sports documentary may have few or no previous credits has nothing to do with the documentary's notability, as notability is not inherited.
That a documentary film makes small impact on North American box office receipts has little to do with notability, unless that national sales somehow become notable. It is the big-budget highly-touted studio-blockbusters that make the moolah. What's more, the filmmakers are allowing that the entire 2-hour film can be seen for free online. So no... it ain't never gonna make a dent to any box office records.

As the article now belongs to Wikipedia, and has a surprising amount of coverage for such a genre-specific independent film that has only been out for 4 months, the article will benefit from cleanup and additional sourcing. But these are surmountable issues and no reason to delete. And because I because I found coverage that is in-depth and by no means a trivial mention, I'm going to head over and begin... Any sports fans wanna help? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Multiple significant and in-depth coverage has been found, and the article expanded and so-sourced since first nominated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering the number of sources which have been found and how in-depth the coverage is it's got to be a keep. Kudos to MichealQSchmidt for the excellent finds. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking on Google news search at the top of the AFD, there are results mentioning this documentary. The first is from the Seattle Times[11]. Clearly notable. And most people register a Wikipedia account because they want to create an article. Having no previous edits before this, doesn't make any difference at all. Dream Focus 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COI issues aside, the topic appears to meet notability guidlines. RadioFan (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Lisa De Propris[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC: senior lecturer and member of academic journals commitee, no evidence cited or available online demonstrating research that's made significant impact. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of impact material in there now including her role at the EU level. MuffledTalks comment on 'academic journals committee' underesetmiates this body's role at the regional studies association; it publishes two highly regarded academic journals including regional Studies and Spatial economic analysis. Look them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pin Factory (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very well known economist with considerable impact - there are lots of references to her work and role now in this peice. Please remove the 'pedning deletion' note. I was surprised by MuffledTalks' move to delete this without properly checking out the vast amount of meterial on this perosn avaialble on the web - poor form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon Pig 66 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) — Moon Pig 66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. MuffledThud (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As mentioned in my reply to you at my talk page, the deletion notice needs to stay up until this discussion has run its course. Its true that the subject of the article has published, but it's not yet clear whether this published work has made "significant impact" per WP:ACADEMIC. "Significant" is of course a subjective term, so consensus is required on this from other editors. It's listed at list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions, and I hope some academic economists can comment here to clarify. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to the extensive research pblished by this academic are now listed at this person's wiki profile, and this person's wider academic role. There are also links to wider impact - e.g. at the European Commission, European Committe of the Regions etc. This is now a well referened and supported profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pin Factory (talk • contribs) 09:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding to a number of academic profiles and profile on learned societies at wikipedia. This is a well known academic. The piece was initially not well referenced hence debating point but has been improved by several contributors and worthy of remaining in place. Suggest retainCocoa Channel (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)— Cocoa Channel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Now well evidenced profile in terms of extensive publications, high level positions held, editing of journals etc. 'above average professor'? yes.Pin Factory (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on improving the article. Note that AFD discussions are debated for at least seven days: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for more info. MuffledThud (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Closing admin will note the activity of several WP:SPAs so far. Given the expected high-emotion, low-substance rebuttals, I'll try to make only a single entry here. The "considerable impact" claim is clearly wrong, at least from the perspective of the peer-reviewed literature. WoS show an h-index of 6 with only around 50 total citations. Much of what is provided as WP:RS are simply links to technical reports, internet videos (the EuroTaxi), press releases, and so forth – not the substance of passing WP:PROF. Book holdings are also not notable: "Industrial Districts" book is < 40 and the EU book is < 20. With no disrespect intended, I think it would be correct to say that this is a very average professor. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

disagree - both are new books and expected cites not likely to be higher than these. The "industrial districts" volume also contains all the seminal contributors in the field on industrial districts, if anyone would like to check. And I'm not a WP:SPA. 50 total citations also clearly wrong - have a look at some academic reference databases. Agricola44, you're simply wrong, respectfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pin Factory (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to point out that any comments made in this discussion that do not address the question of whether Dr De Propris passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines can only reflect badly on her, making it look as if she is more interested in using Wikipedia for publicity than creating a reputation via her academic work. If I was considering someone for an academic position and found this AfD discussion during my background checks I would be asking some very searching questions about integrity at the interview, in the unlikely event that the application would progress to that stage. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted by Agricola44 there is little evidence of sufficient scholarly impact. Senior lecturers are unlikely to be notable. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per Agricola44. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lachelle Marie[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Article has been speedy'd several times before, but I'm putting it up for AFD to try and get a decisive statement on notability at this time. Tabercil (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep AVN nominee [12][13] who meets WP:ENT [14] and common sense intent of WP:PORNBIO and has coverage in genre sources [15][16], reliability is to be considered in context to what is being sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG for me. The premise that context for pornography is an excuse to accept babepedia and foxyreviews as reliable sources is laughable. You would think that the plain meaning of criteria 2 of PORNBIO would be its common sense intent. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might you agree that porn stars rarely get mainstream coverage, and that was one of the reasons that porbio was created... to allow other considerations toward notability? And how about WP:ENT? Is it intended only for mainstream actors always in the press, or was it also designed as a means to consider possible notability for actors who might not meet GNG? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ENT can qualify non-mainstream actors, and frequently does so. Porn has its own criteria because it isn't covered by ENT. The "prolific" additional criterium is ridiculously easy to meet in porn, both by actual performances and recycling of scenes for compilations. There are a few dozen guys whose appearances are in the 700+ range. There are also a lot of women who have over a decade of consistent work, hundreds of films, but no awards or useful coverage. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the singe nomination, and no wins means article fails additional crit 1 of WP:PORNBIO. No evidence or claim for any of the others. Fails WP:GNG, nothing approaching significant coverage found on XBIZ or AVN under either of the subject's major noms de porn.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy As one nomination is suitably sourced, there is some prospect of either another nomination or award being spotted, and a reliable source found to back it up, or some other point of general interest in the press about this person (the sources highlighted above seem too weak to firmly justify these more general interest grounds). The article does fail PORNBIO as it stands but there are no contentious issues that would be a problem for userfication. Ash (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, poorly sourced; just another porn star with fake tits. Wikipedia is not a fan-wank site; we discriminate against content daily. Jack Merridew 17:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your language appears deliberately offensive. The fact this is a pornography related topic is not an excuse to vent yourself in an AfD. Ash (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG without reliable sourcing. As stated above, the idea that "reliability is to be considered in context to what is being sourced" might be considered -- and in this case it's a biography of living person which demands only high quality references. Simply because the subject is a porn star does not mean we should lower our standards of sourcing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:14, 26 February 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) 04:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara Bravo[edit]

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

Unsourced and potentially unsourceable BLP, tagged since November 2009. I PRODded it, and the prod was contested without the addition of sources. I believe this fails our notability criterion, and as an unreferenced BLP it should be removed quickly. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I managed to find one absolutely adorable article in a local newspaper but there's no significant coverage of this person or their work anywhere else. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if/when this yougster's career grows some and gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she does seem like she could have a real future, but as of NOW, i would not say she is well known enough to have an article. i wish her the best though! =) AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 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 withdrawn by nominator. There is clear consensus to create lists with inclusion criteria of 100 appearances or more. This is distinct from "notable", which can be addressed at the article talk page. I42 (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nottingham Forest F.C. players[edit]

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

This article only includes players who are 'notable'. However, what constitutes notable (or not notable) is entirely original research. Therefore the list fails to meet inclusion guidelines. I42 (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Keep all These articles form part of the Category:Lists of footballers by club. The Notts Forest article states that it includes players with more than 100 appearances for the club. I checked the first English club in the cat, List of Arsenal F.C. players, which has the same inclussion criteria, and is also a featured list. Lugnuts (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Interestingly, the article you cite makes no claim that 100 appearances equates to some form of notability, and furthermore there are no players with less than 100 appearances in the list. It is merely a list of players with 100 or more appearances. If these lists conformed to the same criteria my objection to the WP:OR would no longer apply. I42 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Lugnuts. Additionally since almost every entry in these lists have their own WP article, their own individual notability is not in question. These lists have clear inclusion criteria, thus they are not indiscriminate. As for WP:OR concerns, I pose this question to the nominator: What unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas or unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serve to advance a position is the creator of this list guilty of??--Mike Cline (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- (1) The assertion that at least 100 appearances is somehow notable, and more particularly the implication that follows that less than this is not; (2) inclusion of other players with less than 100 appearences which have arbitrarily been deemed notable after all. I42 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list's lead-in does not assert as you suggest that 100 appearances (vice 101 or some other number)is notable. It merely establishes a reasonable inclusion criteria that is easily verifiable. The subject of the list--Nottingham Forest F.C. is notable and the content of the list is limited to notable players with at least 100 appearances. There is no OR here. 100 appearances is a reasonable inclusion criteria. If there are entries for players with less than 100 appearances, they should be removed from the list. Or if there is a more reasonable inclusion criteria, the article should be modified to reflect that. There is nothing in Wikipedia:List#Lead_sections_in_stand-alone_lists or Wikipedia:List#Listed_items that requires inclusion criteria to establish notability. Inclusion criteria in Lists must be discriminate to comply with WP:IINFO but need not establish notability of the subject in and of itself.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It most certainly does make that assertion: "This is a list of notable footballers who have played for Nottingham Forest. Generally, this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club. A number of other players who have played an important role for the club have also been included". However, it is moot: there is clear consensus to create lists of players with 100 appearances or more so I will withdraw the nomination. For these articles, we should certainly still address (a) the assertion that 100 appearances is somehow notable, and (b) the inclusion of players with less than this number. I42 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Lugnuts.--Karljoos (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per the above two comments. Even if the articles do set an arbitrary number of appearances for inclusion that is neither "OR" nor does it give grounds for deletion. This question has been debated several times before and the consensus is that either 50 or 100 is a sensible cut-off point. An all-inclusive list for any of these three clubs would stretch to over 1000 names. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all. The 100-appearance cutoff point is arbitrary, but it restricts the list to manageable proportions. There's no original research involved in setting such a criterion for inclusion. By WP:ATHLETE, all footballers having made a Football League appearance for these clubs are notable. A couple of years ago, we introduced all such lists in a similar manner, and included "extra" players, club record-holders and the like: see the originally-featured version of List of Arsenal F.C. players, which had pretty much identical wording to this list. We do things differently these days, but that's something that could and should be sorted out with a quick word on the article talk page, not by deleting the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keshab Raj Seadie[edit]

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

This is the managing partner of a New York law firm, whose page I'm nominating separately. I don't see any recent news hits on the firm (or the individual, being that they share the same name). The only google news hits at all were listings in 2006 asking for a paralegal. Shadowjams (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any reliable, secondary sources. Lots of advertising, but no reporting. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of endangered animal species[edit]

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

Content forking with IUCN Red List endangered species Galmicmi (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Galmicmi (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to IUCN Red List endangered anamalia species and continue to break up a list that is currently over 1100 kB, far beyond the size for a WP:SPLIT. If this one is not kept, some kind of breakdown should be found to get this into multiple lists of reasonable page lengths. The anamalia list is over 600kB by itself, so there may be a better method than splitting by kingdom. IUCN Red List endangered species is far too large to remain a single list. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed typo in proposed name. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per JMJ, the other list is very large, and should be split 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the splitting of IUCN Red List endangered species, but I do not think common names should be kept. You only need one reference to a species in the list, not two or more. If you don't include common names, List of endangered animal species doesn't bring more information than IUCN Red List endangered species. - Galmicmi (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless a verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list can be found, for without which this list is without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such a list is useful. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simplelinux[edit]

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

Non notable per WP:GNG, one of a thousand Linux distributions that does not assert notability, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator [17]. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, and there are no sources that I can find. This almost falls under WP:CSD#A7 as web content with no assertion of notability. I'm also bothered by the WP:COI here, considering that the official site has a link to the wikipedia article only 2 weeks after the WP article was created. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Joshua Scott (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage. Nothing in google books or news archive. Pcap ping 16:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this complies with Wikipedia's notability requirements. It isn't even listed on DistroWatch - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 21 February 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, with major and speedy clean-up highly encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of American foreign policy[edit]

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

This article is a pile of original research produced by massive amounts of synthesis from sources that do not directly make the points in this article. Just to give an example: the UN budgets are cited as evidence the US foreign policy is "good". Obviously, those budgets don't draw such a conclusion. Another major issue is that it treats the foreign policies of various US administrations as a single immutable topic, so criticism (or praise) of the policies of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush administration is all jumbled into one article; surely there are many areas of continuity in the foreign policies of various US administrations, but there are also sharp differences. A more detailed discussion is at the NOR board. I don't think this article is salvageable. Pcap ping 15:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SYNT, coatracked facts, arguments and conclusions not actually supported by the cited sources. My initial response was that the "Topic is notable, but the execution is flawed", and recommend stubifying... however, the POV nature of the topic title does need to be considered. I doubt that this article could ever be anything but a POV magnet. I strongly suspect that it was created as a POV fork, to allow mention of criticisms that were rejected from other articles. Certainly there are lots of people who criticize US foreign policy, and much of that criticism deserves to be discussed in wikipedia... but it has to be discussed in context. Criticism of US foreign policy needs to be disussed in articles about US foreign policy, (and criticism of specific polices should be discussed in the article about that policy). Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply too many problems to list - some good ideas in there, but too open to problems with original research, synthesis, and undue weight. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope of the article is too wide and the current content seems contrary to WP:SOAP, starting with a bizarre apologia. I recently learnt that the early USA spent much of its Federal budget paying tribute to the Barbary pirates. This seems remarkably supine and so I suppose there's criticism of this to be found. Balancing such material in a giant omnibus article is beyond us. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Keep, clean up. At least three editors on No original research/Noticeboard seem to share the view that the article might be improved through regular editing. Foreign policy of the United States now only contains a brief summary of the subject and is already almost 80kb long. It used to be 140kb long before the split ([18]). According WP:SIZERULE and WP:CFORK#Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles, the existence of this sub-article is completely justified. I agree that the article has some major issues, but it covers a highly notable subject and it certainly doesn't look like a blatant POV fork that needs to be deleted right away. It's probably the first time I saw a "Criticism of ..." article that tries to maintain a neutral perspective. See: Talk:Criticism of American foreign policy, Talk:Foreign policy of the United States#Split this article. — Rankiri (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are false analogies. I did not nominate it because it's a "Criticism of ..." article. Please read the nomination, and the article carefully. FWIW, I've worked on Criticism of Wikipedia myself in the past, so I know how a valid article of that kind looks like. Talk:Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Split_this_article suggested splitting it by topic and/or history; it did not suggest creating this pro/con beast, which is just as entangled as the original. Pcap ping 14:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did. My point is that the subject is notable, the existence of the sub-article is justified, and at least some of the views expressed by the article are extremely widespread and supported by a number of WP:RS publications. Any individual problematic passages can be removed, and even the entire article can be stripped of any improper content and turned into a stub. Therefore, according to WP:ATD, if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the article does contain a number of synthesized views and conclusions. I won't argue with that.— Rankiri (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're talking theory here, "Criticism of X" is generally justified if X is relatively well defined and rather immutable (over time). Under the title "Criticism of American foreign policy" one can discuss way too many topics; was the intervention in Vietnam subject to criticism, sure; was the withdrawal (change in policy) subject of criticism, sure, was the isolationism during the first part of WWI subject of criticism, sure, was the decision to go to war criticized, I'm sure it was by some, etc. Based on this, it should be clear that the division between "is good"/"is bad" is silly because the policy aspects discussed are hardly the same in the two sections. It's like having an article saying "Alice is a pretty girl, but Bob is an ugly boy" and title it Criticism of children. History of U.S. foreign policy can certainly contain (sourced, of course) critical material about the various aspects of US foreign policy in context. If you'd like to have this article userfied to you for such purposes, that's fine, but leaving this around as an encyclopedia article in the hope that someone will eventually fix the massive problems in it is not a reasonable proposition. Even History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily (another spin-off like this article) is problematic because it contains little history a lot of opinion, but at least there the topic is narrow enough. Pcap ping 15:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the article History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily was creating and crap-ified by the same author that crap-ified this article. History of U.S. exporting democracy militarily should absolutely be deleted. But I think that this article should be kept, completely wiped clean, and improved (see my comments below). Thanks for pointing out the other article. Putting it up for AfD now. Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I completely agree that the article's format is absolutely horrendous. But, again, that is probably why it was tagged with ((prose)) and ((essay)) in the first place. It seems unreasonable to require a two-month-old article to meet the expectations of WP:TPA, don't you think? — Rankiri (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- this article could easily be improved, but it's going to take some time. I don't think it should be deleted. Just blanked, and then stub-ified. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate and split/merge - The whole premise of having a neutral article with arguments in list form is flawed, especially if there are so many different arguments. Some of the more well-sourced parts of this page concern topics that already have articles where the text would be more appropriate. I don't see how an article that fits the title could be written that is not WP:SOAP. Besides, at 189 KB it's almost twice as long as the limit for almost certainly requiring a split according WP:SIZERULE. Smocking (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation sounds like a good idea. As for the size, note that a good half of it comes from its needlessly detailed References section and another half needs some serious trimming. — Rankiri (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yeah, it's bad, but the article will be ridiculously imbalanced without it. -Sensemaker

Sorry, could you clarify the above?

Keep BUT...
- The article needs to be completely wiped out and we need to start over from scratch. It is currently a blatant violation of POV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR
- Instead of simplistic and subjective categories like "good vs. bad" or "effective vs. ineffective", we need to start with categories either like (1) "criticism of military activities", "criticism of human rights abuses", "criticism of foreign aid", etc. or (2) geographical categories: "Latin America", "Asia", etc
- I do think that the article has potential, if we start over and do it totally differently.
- The scope of the topic is not at all "too large" as some have stated above. If it gets "too large", then we can spinoff more sub-articles from it.
- As far as being a "POV magnet" -- this is not a justification for deletion of this article, any more than it would be for Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no reason that this article couldn't be prevented from being POV if enough people took it seriously and worked to improve it, just like any other highly contentious political topic.
- --Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The article needs to be completely wiped out and we need to start over from scratch". That's an argument to delete it, and start over from scratch. Or at least move it out of the mainspace to the incubator or someone's user space. Pcap ping 08:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that criticism cannot just be good/bad omnibus, it needs to address various aspects separately (like those you enumerated), and in their historical context because policy is not immutable. I don't see how this can be done in a single giant article. Pcap ping 08:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup, but is suppose to be used as a last resort. Use the talk page to discuss changes. Tag anything you believe needs a reference ^{[citation needed]}, and remove things as necessary after giving people time to find a reference confirming anything that you sincerely doubt is accurate. Dream Focus 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that when you're at the point of saying "everything in the article is worthless, but it's possible we might be able to write something on this topic," you might as well delete and start over. Furthermore, it's not clear to me that it *is* possible to write a neutral article with this title. It gets perilously close to "Why American foreign policy is evil or misguided" in practice as a title - "criticism of" articles have this problem most strongly. So, definitely delete for this article, and reserve judgment for any future articles on this theme. Ray^Talk 04:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that only some parts of the article are worthless, not all of it. — Rankiri (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is always been criticism of US foreign policy for centuries. This is valid concerns and discussion. Because of its superpower nature, the criticism is important. Almost every country in the world has some negative view of US foreign policy. Deleting this is pretty much ignorance and POV. 174.16.243.59 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an appropriate article topic. A little of this could go in Foreign policy of the United States but most should be covered in regards to the specific policy area or concern (e.g. Vietnam War). 99% of this is SYNTH since the vast majority of critics (and boosters) are criticizing a specific U.S. policy rather than U.S. foreign policy in the abstract. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In short Bolshevik propaganda. To elaborate, the article is a POV propaganda article with irrepairable SYNTH issue. Wikipedia is not soapbox. Defender of torch (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is pretty terrible, just some guy's essay, and especially poor at linking to other relevant political articles. But the subject is undeniably hugely notable and encyclopedic, & it's surprising we didn't have an umbrella article on the subject already. If deleted there should be no prejudice to a better recreation, but brutal revision & improvemt of this one, and adding loads of the right links, is the best option. Generally, claims of SYNTHESIS are unimpressive in this context. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 27 February 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) 04:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raining Money Outside[edit]

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

"Raining Money Outside" and "Little Miss Diva" are a pair of rumored Raven-Symone albums. No sources supporting either title that I can find (aside from some YouTube stuff on "Raining Money Outside" that seems to be sourced to Wikipedia). —Kww(talk) 15:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per g3 (hoax) judging from the track names (and that they're largely duplicated on the other "album"). If that's not obvious enough then just WP:HAMMER as completely unverifiable. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:55, 25 February 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. Opening a merge discussion on the article's talk page would be encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Davis[edit]

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

I don't believe this person is notable enough for inclusion; his notability hinges entirely on reaching the final of Britain's Got Talent and subsequently touring with the finalists, has not done anything unrelated to BGT, his final performance(s) weren't notable enough to warrant inclusion (hell, Hollie Steel got a second chance to perform in the final and she was barely notable enough at the time), and he didn't get a high enough placing in Britain's Got Talent that allows us to confer a sense of automatic notability (which is generally third place) Sceptre ^(talk) 14:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, as he is a minor in the jurisdiction he resides, I'd lean to deleting it just per 1E; however, it's not a universally held opinion, thus why I've listed several reasons why he's not really notable. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable performer per WP:ENTERTAINER. It is common for finalists in such major shows to have articles as they receive much press coverage and follow-up gigs, as in this case. No purpose is served by deletion as, at the very least, we would want to direct our readers to some relevant article. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A purpose is served: he's a minor. For ethical purposes, I don't believe that marginally notable minors should have articles (people like Miley Cyrus or Dakota Fanning should; children who are reality show contestants that have their fifteen minutes shouldn't). And I don't see what part of ENTERTAINER is met; he's only had one significant role in one production; his fanbase is extremely local (as seen by most of the sources being a local paper), and his contributions to entertaining are neither "unique, prolific, or innovative". Sceptre ^(talk) 15:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are counterfactual and personal opinion, rather than policy. The relevant part of WP:ENTERTAINER is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.". The recent press coverage testifies to his continuing notability as a headline act appearing in multiple shows on stage and screen at multiple venues and times. They report that he starts another tour this spring which will continue to add to his history as a professional entertainer. There is not the slightest case for deleting this article. And for the bogus ethical argument, please see Think of the children. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any "significant roles" are all related to Britain's Got Talent, and thus I personally treat them as one, or not notable; for example, he's on the show's live tour which all finalists automatically perform. It's not like, say, Callum Francis, who is notable for being in productions unrelated to BGT (hell, all of Francis' television appearances are on a rival network!) And you alleging my argument is a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy; we have an ethical commitment to protect living people, marginally notable people, and minors; Davis is all three, and I can personally attest to the effect of unwanted attention on a minor. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as per all Col. Wardens explanations. This article shouldn't even be in AfD and should be closed now. Sceptre is just using it as a platform for a personal belief or opinion and when his user page is taken into consideration, this AfD and his argument could be regarded as possibly bordering on WP:GAME. --Kudpung (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, yes, it should be in AfD, because I don't think this person is notable enough for inclusion. And I wasn't aware that the nominator being in ownership of a brain and a good set of morals is a criterion for speedily keeping an article. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator has now clearly confirmed that his AfD action is based purely on personal conviction and not on the guidelines for notability of Wikipedia articles. The AfD nomination is therefore invalid. For the children...
...you're fucking joking, right? Isn't every AfD brought about by the nominator thinking an article should be deleted? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and when, as an admin, you write (links available) utter pornographic filth and totally explicit depravity on the encyclopedia, do you expect your motivations for ethical commitment to protect living people, marginally notable people, and minors by posting this AfD to be taken seriously?--Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...yeah, retract that. Now. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Davis's career since BGT may not be as high profile as Hollie Steel's, but that can't be used as a rationale to delete. Even with the modest success he's had since BGT, he has, in fact been active as a performer independent of BGT, and that is verifiable (by investigating the refs in the article, no less). Radiopathy •talk• 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - On my articles for people who appeared on X Factor and BGT, most of them have not survived AfD's, while one has. Davis' career is still rising however since the show ended, appearing at major dance events as included in the article with a reliable source. Agree with Radiopathy above. Hassaan19 (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge/Redirect with Britain's Got Talent. Doesn't meet WP:ENT by the very terms of the article itself. THF (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, zero coverage outside BGT. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (without prejudice) per nom, THF and Guy. The subject doesn't appear to be notable as an entertainer in his own right. From the article, at the moment it seems he's got a certain novelty value as "that kid off BGT", but appearing in a notable programme doesn't confer notability. If he pursues the career perhaps one day he'll cross the notability bar, but not yet. EyeSerene^talk 12:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Stifler[edit]

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

A non-notable fictional character. Alex Douglas (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not even borderline non-notable. One of the main characters in three major cinema films and dozens and dozens of sources in google news/books about the character. Polargeo (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a whopping 346+ Google News sources alone that mention the character in passing, however there hasn't been any analysis or significant coverage of the character's creation, development, and to an extent critical reception, at least none in reliable sources, so far as I've looked. Alex Douglas (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are seeing those google news hits differently to me. I am seeing the steve stifler character as being prominant in the majority of comments, far more prominant than the actor Sean William Scott who played him. Notability can be established by this this, this. I have spent less than 5 minutes on this, please lets not waste more of our time going over this certain keep. Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Alex Douglas (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first Google news results mention the actor turned his character into something he performs in stand up comedy routines. Plus the character has been in many major films. Dream Focus 01:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find reliable third person sources for this article then Keep otherwise Delete Dwanyewest (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePoor article without evidence. 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A main character in a series of American Pie films. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashara guest house[edit]

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

I don't think that being mentioned in some legal documents and having been occupied by two Guantanamo detainees is enough to make this place notable. Prezbo (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference here are some AfDs for similar articles:

Prezbo (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Eight Guantanamo captives (not two) had their continued detention justified based on allegations they had stayed at the Ashara guest house. [19]. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The nomination characterizes the house as having been "being mentioned in some legal documents". Actually, the camp was allegedly:
1. Run by Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi -- number three in al Qaida.
2. Abdul Hadi ran his financial payment network out of the house.
3. The house was frequented by senior members of al Qaida.
4. The house was located in the Karte Parwan region of Kabul, the high-rent area now often called the diplomatic district.
5. The house housed graduates of al Qaida's training camps, while they were on their way to their assignments.
6. The house could accommodate 25-50 occupants.
I suggest this is a meaningful, substantive level of detail -- which I suggest it is inaccurate to describe as merely "being mentioned". Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- FWIW, with the exception of Abdul Zahir's charge sheet, none of the documents are "legal documents". The DoD was very insistent that the captives' 2004 Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the captives' subsequent annual reviews were not "legal proceedings" -- that they were "administrative proceedings". The DoD's position was that the captives weren't entitled to legal advice because these were "administrative proceedings". Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- for the reasons stated above. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PAPER -- it seems, given the 10 references, to have actually existed. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Geo Swan makes quite a convincing argument. Prezbo, why list four old AFDs? Two were deleted, two more ended in keep. I don't see the point of doing that. Dream Focus 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, they're AfDs for articles on similar topics so I thought people might find them useful in making their decisions.Prezbo (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the analysis above, this is notable enough to be kept. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are the tangential instrumentalities of notable people, but they are not notable on their own. There only seems to be mention of these housed in government documents. --Pink Bull 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Paris[edit]

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

I was lead to this article from the COIN, and there are a ton of issues not least of which is the COI of the singer's wife maintaining this page and doing nothing else on Wikipedia. There is a lot of text to wade through but very little substance. Each claim is followed by a run of parentheses and wikilinks of actual famous people (Moka Only, Kreesha Turner, Snoop Dogg) and (State of Shock, Kelly Rowland, Daniel Powter, Marcy Playground) in the lede, for example. Also the creator has created Brandon Paris Band, Pocket Full of Holes, Say Goodbye (Brandon Paris Band song), Rewind and Start Again, Somebody to Hold and On My Own (Brandon Paris Band album) to form a small walled garden. I would expect that if the main article is deleted that the other parts of the garden will be trimmed but I'm sure a case could be made for the band and the related singles/albums but Bradon by himself does not meet the guidelines. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If his songs charted, he's notable. This reliable source confirms a performance in New Brunswick, which would seem to imply passing the national tour criterion. This is a review of the second album in a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be a reason to keep the band articles, this individual bio is written like a hagiography. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is a charted and widely-toured musician, who has been in the news for his many misadventures, and it is not so badly written as a hagiography to be harmful. Please fix any problems yourself. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs some brutal clean up but the subject is clearly notable enough for their own article. Smartse (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Delete - Low on peacock words, relatively neutral, notable artist (lead of a widely toured band that's had a song in the Canadian Top 20). The COI and SPA problem are biggies, but in the whole constellation of issues none is individually bad enough to warrant a deletion. I think the bio is viable with some "brutal cleanup", like Smartse said. The rest of Reneelavigueur's walled garden could still use some hedge trimming though, as some of the songs with separate articles do not seem notable. Smocking (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat is right. The footnote in WP:MUSIC clearly applies. Even without all the other problems that would warrant deletion. Smocking (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While he is reasonably notable, he isn't so notable as to require a separate article from the one on Brandon Paris Band, and WP:MUSICIAN explicitly spells out that proper Wikipedia practice is for musicians to have their own articles only if they can be demonstrated to be notable beyond their involvement in the band — otherwise the band gets the article and the individual members just get redirected to that. Redirect to Brandon Paris Band. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Amateur Radio Club[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [20]. those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of third party coverage, not just say it exists. and I doubt there is foreign language coverage for this one. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. And also pointing out that AFD is not Cleanup, in every case. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Exit2Dos2000. Establishment of individual notability for each member association may be moot, an overall decision should be made, either editorially at the international organization article, or in a mass AfD. The argument that each member association is a separate case is a red herring. It's true: if individual national members are to be treated differently, each one would be separate. But if they are all to have minimal stubs, for overall coherence, then debating whether or not there is enough source for each stub is to multiply discussion without adding sufficient value. Consensus should be negotiated on the overall issue, before proceeding through a forest of AfDs, each one requiring substantial work and administrator time to review. --Abd (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Membership of IARU should be adequate for notability purposes. Dsergeant (talk) 16:44, 25 February 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 Close. Article already deleted per WP:SPEEDY#G3. --Oakshade (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish cheese triangle[edit]

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

I prodded this yesterday saying "there is no "Irish cheese triangle" (zero google-hits except this page). This is nonsense or a weak joke." Removed by main editor without explanation. Apart from being nonsense, there are allegations of doping, terrorism and racism against identifiable cheese-makers (no really). Grafen (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax and the only source is a recipe. Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 20 February 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, article kept. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kambiz Norouzi[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, which has been unref'd for four years. Google hits point to Facebook and blogs, with no WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Undecided. Little evidence of notability. In the only GS cite that I can find for him it states "Kambiz Norouzi, acknowledges that there are inequalities in both civil and criminal laws, but he argues that, in actuality, many Iranian laws are based on equality." Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I have added some sourced information to the article. The Deutsche Welle source is completely focused on Norouzi. In looking for further sources please remember that there may be many possible ways of transcribing the subject's name into the Latin alphabet. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Phil. Happy to withdraw the nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salyut UFO sighting[edit]

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

Hoax which kinda lacks reliable sources. Google news turns up nothing although this suggests a corrupted source for the whole thing ©Geni 11:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although Weekly World News offers extensive empirical evidence of the encounter ("One cosmonaut signaled thumbs-up. Without expression, the alien repeated the gesture." [21]), I'm going to have to go with no coverage by reliable secondary sources after all. — Rankiri (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't call it a hoax, but if the sources provided aren't enough, then there is nothing I can do to avoid deletion. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 17:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably should have been simply prodded as an obvious case for deletion. ScienceApologist (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to National Chess Federation of the Philippines. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Chess[edit]

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

subject too vaguely defined, not suitable for an article, and no notability demonstrated SyG (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(comments) Hi, SyG, it's a pleasure to see you again. Some comments:
- At present the article has no content that would be not better in the articles about the various players, and that would no content in this articles. For an article called "Philippine Chess" I'd expected e.g. training and development programmes, international team tourments, a national federation to which a good number of strong clubs, etc. --Philcha (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I not think the article violate policies such as WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO, so I not think it's a candidate for speedy deletion. --Philcha (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article had the right type of content, WP:DELETE says an article should not be deleted if these is reason to expect that WP:RS can be found - not that they must be cited immediately. In fact WP:BEFORE (e.g. what potential deleters must do before) says potential deleters must show that they've made a conscientious research to find if sources exist - i.e. deleting isn't easy. --Philcha (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting isn't easy? Articles can be and are redirected, to say Philippine Chess Championship in this example without any deletion process being involved. SunCreator (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment subject may be notable, see here. Establishing much content may prove difficult however. SunCreator (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the governing body National Chess Federation of the Philippines, as per Chess in Hong Kong which redirects to Hong Kong Chess Federation and Chess in Scotland which redirects to Chess Scotland.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the governing body National Chess Federation of the Philippines would make the dubious assumption that all significant chess in the country was controlled by National Chess Federation of the Philippines. We know that world-level chess was split because in 1993 to 2005. --Philcha (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply following precedent. Philippine chess is a plausible search term, so it would be useful to keep it, but there's little there that cannot be detailed in an article on the national federation. I don't see anything "dubious" about it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand Chess in China is an appropriate article. SunCreator (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It appears to me that both National Chess Federation of the Philippines and Philippine Chess articles are going to struggle for content. At this point I'm happy combine them in the hope they may grow. They can always be divided up at a later stage if content becomes available. SunCreator (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SunCreator. Grand Mattster 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Cards[edit]

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

Article for a card shop which claims notability due to an award - but that award is non-notable, being given by a non-notable card retailer trade magazine. This aside, the article is written in an overly promotional style making it a candidate for speedy deletion (not nominated as such to allow the claim of notability to be discussed). I42 (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is justified because the company is a well renowned, well established, award winning business - the awards were held in London, and the award body sells copies across the UK; its a large news source. The shop was voted for by hundreds of customers, and is therefore a well known, renowned business. Also, the article is not "overly promotional" at all! It simply states what it stocks. I therefore oppose the deletion on the grounds that I believe that the article is fully justified and a notable business; selling items across the world. Blaze42 (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence it is a well-renowned etc business? None is provided apart from the award (which I assert is non-notable) and all I can find is directory listings. The article is entirely promotional: "The company also sell a wide range of other useful items", "The continually expanding official Absolute Cards Website" and "allowing the company to stock a wider range of cards and other items", for example. Even if written in a more neutral manner, this detail of what it provides would still be promotional. What an encyclopedic article should be concerned with would be the company history, its impact on the local community etc. I42 (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong there. I have stated "The company also sell a range of other associated items" because they sell many other items related to cards; "The continually expanding official Absolute Cards Website" because more cards are added each day; "allowing anyone to order from the range of cards from anywhere in the world" because you can order cards from anywhere in the world.

Also, as stated in WP:ORG, the company has had secondary sources: Press releases written about them in in local newspapers; The shop can also be seen in the 2007 film Hot Fuzz - both these interviews are "reliable, and independent of the subject". Blaze42 (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I am wrong, why did another editor clean it all up? And if it's not promotional, why did you restore the fact that the website delivers worldwide? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Local newspaper coverage is unlikely to establish notability even if you provided some evidence of it - local newspapers generally feature local shops and businesses; some local newspapers features incorporate advertising in this manner. Notability requires something more than the norm. "Press releases" are primary sources, though the context suggests you did not necessarily mean press release in this sense. Being "seen" in a film filmed in the area asserts no notabilty at all. I42 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note also that you created the company logo. A WP:COI further suggests that this article is being used for advertising. I42 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were wrong because the quotes you used were from an older revision, and I explained why they were there. Just because someone else edited it, does not automatically make you correct - the editor changed a few things around, not "cleaned it all". I uploaded the logo I found from the site - that in no way whatsoever suggests that it is for advertising - its a logo..... How many people do you think would read about it to make it worth doing so for advertising? Not a lot. Also, the award which was held in London is out of the norm; this included with the interview of the shop owner shows that it was more than just an "advertising slot". I said "with worldwide shipping" because that is a fact - no advertisement there.Blaze42 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text I quoted was what you wrote, and was from the article as it was at the time I quoted it. True or not, your choice of things to say and the way you said them are promotional. That the website offers international shipping is of no encyclopedic interest, but if you want to promote the shop then that's clearly a point you want to make. According to the text you attached to the logo, you "created this work entirely by myself". If you created the logo you have a connection with the company and, as noted, a WP:COI is an indicator that you may be using Wikipedia for advertising. You have provided no evidence of this interview; perhaps if you did we could assess it (but I reiterate - local news articles are not of high significance), nor is the trade magazine which made the award, or the award itself, shown to be notable. I42 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the logo - I chose that so I could upload it, and then change it later; it is rather annoying that other options are not present when uploading logos, etc. I shall state once again, I do not wish to promote the shop! I have already stated this fact. If you feel that the worldwide shipping is advertising - which I do not - then feel free to remove it. What I wrote before, was not promotional - granted, it was not completely of encyclopaedic standards, but then again, you decided to come along and jump at the article when I had just finished writing it; not really allowing for any changes, which - as you can clearly see - I made later. Also, I will try and find the newspaper interview. Any help with this matter, and improving the article would be appreciated. Blaze42 (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per WP:COMPANY, sole reference is specialist industry award of unspecified notability, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. I'll try to re-write it a bit to remove WP:PROMO tone. MuffledThud (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is better now, because of how you have re-written it. As I said before, as stated in WP:ORG, the company has had secondary sources: Press releases written about them in in local newspapers - this, in conjunction with the Retas awards in London, both these interviews are "reliable, and independent of the subject". Blaze42 (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, blatant COI, and utterly pointless addition to wikipedia. Perhaps Blaze 42 would like to say what his/her actual name is, if he isn't Nigel Thomas, the shop owner's brother?? Happy to meet up for a coffee in London to help resolve this issue. Franciselliott (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't live anywhere near London - would be many hours worth of driving! Like I said before, I'm not actually related to that family - they probably don't even know me! Blaze42 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Cummings (software entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Seem to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. None of the sources cited are independent, as they blurbs on the sites of his publishers. Pcap ping 09:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His company, Hannon Hill, has been prodded. Pcap ping 09:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot find notability for this person, and the article was written by a close colleague of his. Haakon (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable independent secondary sources. If every 30 year old head of a firm with only 25 employees were covered by a separate article, Wikipedia would grow dramatically in size. There are also apparent COI issues. Racepacket (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he has an author bio on o'reilly, I don't see anything else that was not self-generated. No independent sources means not notable. Hannon Hill actually seems like it has more notability than he does. Joshua Scott (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no participants arguing for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ConocoPhillips Alaska[edit]

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

~~As an regional branch of ConocoPhilips, it is hard to see its notability without its parent company. If necessary, all information in this article may be covered by the parent company article.~~ Beagel (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are actually proposing a merger, not a deletion? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging could be an alternative for deletion, of course. However, I am skeptical if the current content of this article is worth to merge into the parent article.Beagel (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is pretty sad, no doubt. However, it would be a mistake to dismiss this as "just a subdivision." Oil companies loom large in the economic and political fortunes of Alaska, as can be seen by these searches of Alaskan news sources [22] [23], the Anchorage Daily News search alone yielded 643 results. They are a major employer in the oil and gas research and development that goes on up here, and they (along with other oil and gas companies) also sponsor a lot of local events and organizations in order to remind us all of how much the state depends on the revenue they generate through oil and gas leases on public land, for example they donated 15 million dollars to the University of Alaska in 2008 [24]. It looks like this was created as a direct response to the president of the company and a co-worker being killed in an avalanche last week, but there is plenty more to say about them and plenty of good sources to base it on. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more sources specifically about ConocoPhillips Alaska, then it would be wonderful to expand the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of doing just that, I just don't like doing it "under the gun" as it were. I was actually quite surprised to find that this was such a new article and contained so little substantive information, as they are in the news all the time in Alaska, including a story just this week [25]. I've been doing admin work almost exclusively for about six months now though, my content skills may be a bit rusty but I'll see what I can do. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly expanded the article and added multiple new refs, although there is a lot more to be said and the article is not sectioned and so forth, I think it's over the bar of WP:N at this point. If it's kept I'll clean it up and expand it some more. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw my nomination. The article has improved significantly. Beagel (talk) 04:55, 25 February 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 Kanchi matha. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati VII[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria and no sources to support any notability cited in the artcile from it's creation Wikid ^as© 08:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arguably, being a Shankaracharya of Kanchi Matha is by itself sufficient to establish notability, but we need sources to at least establish that basic fact. Will try and find some. Abecedare (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete and redirect to ~~Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham~~ Shankaracharya of Kanchi per WP:ONEEVENT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That would be an incorrect redirect. This is a Chandresekharendra Saraswati. He is of the monastery at Kanchi, not Sringeri. rudra (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanchi matha, which already has a list. per WP:ONEEVENT. rudra (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanchi matha The subject is possibly notable, but I could not locate any reliable sources online. At present we can only write a 1 line sourced stub ("... was a Shankaracharya at the Kanchi Math from 1897-94"), based on the Kanchi Math website, which has glaring redflag issues (see discussion here). Abecedare (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Hell/Above Heaven[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Beyond Hell/Above Heaven

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS CTJF83 GoUSA 08:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not be deleted and should be kept because it meets all Wikipedia requirements for an article of this type. For example the article is sourced with the band's official website stating the announcement of the new album's title and projected 2010 release. This shows us that the article is contains information on an album that is going to be made. I believe that the most viable source you can have for an article of this type would be the band themselves announcing this and that is exactly what we have here. I will attach the same reference used in the article here for easy access and viewing, thank you. ^[1] Volbeatfan (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete After reading your responses I change my mind and merged this article to Volbeat and vote to delete the album's article until the album is released. --Volbeatfan (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- per WP:NALBUMS "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." 2 of the sources come from the band site, so not independent and one is a video from the band. CTJF83 GoUSA 18:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand what you are saying however but I believe that this article doesn't warrants the course of action you have taken. I understand you have taken this rule strictly but I hope you will allow for further opinions to be weighed in on this issue. I believe this article deserves to remain on Wikipedia, especially when compared with other articles marked for deletion. Volbeatfan (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This album will likely become notable when it gets closer to release, but at this time there is no confirmed track listing and a "tentative" September 2010 release date. Very little significant coverage in independent reliable sources; too much crystalballing to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. The band's main article contains a sentence on this upcoming album; that seems appropriate enough for now. Gongshow ^Talk 17:31, 21 February 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 Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati II[edit]

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

No sources to support inclusion requirements or notability established according to the criteria for Bio. Wikid ^as© 08:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy deletion criteria does not apply, since the subject is supposed to have held a notable religious position. Sourcing may prove difficult due to the language barrier. Edward321 (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete and redirect to Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham per WP:ONEEVENT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per Armbrust. The target page already has a list, so this is easy. rudra (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and other one line stubs in the Sringeri Sharada Peetham category to the main article, Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham, since the stubs contain no additional information. If and when someone finds detailed biographical sources for an individual Shankaracharya, a proper article can be created (c.f. Chandrasekhara Bharati III). I don't think AFDs is even needed for these cases since such mergers can be discussed and implemented by interested editors themselves. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 23 February 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 Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati I[edit]

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

No sources to support notability since June 09. Delete Wikid ^as© 08:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy deletion criteria does not apply, since the subject is supposed to have held a notable religious position. Sourcing may prove difficult due to the language barrier. Edward321 (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete and redirect to Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham per WP:ONEEVENT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect, per Armbrust. Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham already has a list, so this is easy. rudra (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and other one line stubs in the Sringeri Sharada Peetham category to the main article, Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham, since the stubs contain no additional information. If and when someone finds detailed biographical sources for an individual Shankaracharya, a proper article can be created (c.f. Chandrasekhara Bharati III). I don't think AFDs is even needed for these cases since such mergers can be discussed and implemented by interested editors themselves. Abecedare (talk) 22:26, 23 February 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) 04:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taser Hassan[edit]

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

Disputed PROD, without explanation. Young footballer who has to date only played in amateur/semi-professional leagues, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Never played in a fully professional league so clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. -- Big Dom 09:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Train[edit]

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

Complete nonsense Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: How the heck is this nonsense? This is a popular urban legend that is covered by Snopes and many books. Joe Chill (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I looked at the book source on the main page, it sites many local media stories about the urban legend during several different points in time. Hence this looks notable to me. While it could be better sourced it seems to meat WP:N from what I see. Also a quick google search, "The Baby Train urban legend", gets a ton of hits, but not necessarily from reliable sourcesMATThematical (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep: Brunvand is the premire authority on urban folklore and he named a book after this legend. I can't believe this was even nominated. Czolgolz (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be contrary, but I feel like I should note why I nominated this. It's a stubby article on a folk lore story (how many of those have articles?) which lists one solitary source. And it's written in very much the wrong tone for an encyclopedia. What defines notability for a story like this? Is every legend in that book notable enough for coverage? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many folklore stories have their own article? At least 166: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Urban_legends I could suggest a lot of those other urban legend articles be deleted before baby train, which is quite well known in UL circles. I could reference a dozen books that mention the baby train, but I'm moving and my collection of urban legend books is in storage. Let's continue discussin this. Czolgolz (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norsk Kontantservice[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP. This article is mostly about the robbery, which also has a separate article. WP:UNDUE concerns as well. Pcap ping 06:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets the criteria at WP:CORP. See for instance media coverage [26] [27] [28] and [29] which all cover non-trivial corporate issues unrelated to the robbery. For instance, there are two articles related to the sale of the company, one related to downsizing and one related to closing a regional office, all in national newspapers. If the nominator is concerned about POV, they can instead fix up the article (for instance by removing "solution", otherwise the article reads fine in my eyes). Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the nomination, the POV concern is that the article is 90% about the robbery, which has it's own article anyway. I cannot fix it myself, because I can't read Norwegian, and would rather not write something elaborate just from google translate. You, on the other hand, could fix it based on those sources you found. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Pcap ping 17:29, 21 February 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 Speedied as G4 and salted. Deleted as G4, salted for a year (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McKay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I had my finger on speedy-A7, but I might be completely out of line with that, hence this AfD. I don't think a police-officer becomes notable simply by being "shot and killed in the line of duty during a traffic stop". If that was the case, we would (sadly) have thousands of these articles. In addition it seems to reek of WP:COAT... Thoughts? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I now see it has been AfDed before. Sorry. Make it G4. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't tell how close this is to the prior deleted version, but, at any rate, delete; a sad, classic BLP1E case. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:08, 20 February 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.

Colt Tallent[edit]

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

per WP:SNOW. The main author tagged this page as g7, but there was one other content contributor, so I'm not closing this as a speedy delete. —SpacemanSpiff 08:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palo Alto Plane Crash[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTNEWS E Wing (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning towards delete per WP:EVENT It's certainly not routine, and it's had a duration that is likely to be long (although WP:CRYSTAL...) However, a fairly high ranking official at Tesla Motors was involved, and their are certain theories regarding the crash that if true could cause it to be notable. Certainly if it turns out as such, no bias against restoring it, and would actually recommend userfication. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, no high-ranking official was involved per its first reference. E Wing (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, private company persons are frequently referred to as "officials." You don't have to work for the government to be an "official."--Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete before any conspiracy theory from oil companies arises. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fatal crash envolving a light aircraft is not inherently notable. There is nothing to signify any other kind of notability. Martin451 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it did receive a lot of news coverage, probably because it was in the Silicon Valley area, there doesn't seem to be lasting significance of this event. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tesla Motors per WP:PRESERVE. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wishes to mention it on Tesla Motors, that's fine, but no merge, no redirect, no keep. I agree that there would be no historical notability to this event. As with any other fatal accident that happened on February 17, 2010, it is tragic. My sympathies to the families of the three persons who died in the small plane crash and to the families of anyone else who lost a loved one this past Wednesday. Mandsford (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to the lack of longterm notability. Another example of where people would have been better off contributing to Wikinews where the coverage was welcome. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO ADMIN: This article duplicates the content of 2010 California Cessna 310 crash. SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, and as such lacks long term notability, and may have use only as a present or future source for some other Wikipedia "encyclopedia" article. This would work as a contribution to Wikinews. As a side note - this is written like a news report. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Fairly OddParents DVD and VHS[edit]

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

WP:SPAM WP:NOT This is product catalog information. Wikipedia isn't a shopping site. John Nagle (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information could use some sourcing and better information, but it isn't advertising, and it isn't really a catalog. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 08:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (by nominator, so only one vote) We already have The Fairly OddParents, so this is a spinoff article. The products themselves are not notable. This is the sort of info that belongs on a shopping site, which Wikipedia is not. --John Nagle (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps it isn't advertising and perhaps it isn't really a catalog, but it's also fair to say that it isn't adding anything to the wealth of human knowledge. I'm sure that this would be welcome over here. Mandsford (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm voting for deletion, though I do have a comment to make, part of the page, but not too much could be moved into the Fairly OddParents under a new section as 'DVD Releases' or something like that. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Hawthorne[edit]

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

Hawthorne does not pass the notability guideline for actors. According to the article, beyond a few community theater and high school productions she's been seen in some television series- though, judging by the article's ad-like beginnings, she was likely an extra. I don't see her meeting "significant" roles" in "'notable" productions. Liquidluck✽talk 04:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither does she meet WP:GNG. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourcable. No sources exist to show that she was in the claimed projects. Not even IMDB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown.Edward321 (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 04:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryggve Fossum[edit]

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

Industry researcher at Intel. Seems to have some lead position there, but the only ref is from Intel. Appears to fail WP:BIO. I've removed some info that was not verified from that sole source. You may want to check the article's history. Pcap ping 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provisionally. Appears to be highly distinguished computer hardware engineer working in industry. Intel Fellow. Is he IEEE fellow? GS cites give h index = 16 from patents so could pass WP:Prof #1. Some books. Input from IT people would be useful. I do not understand why nominator removed sourced material from article before nominating. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The material I removed wasn't sourced. The reference had been added on top of existing material apparently without checking what it actually supported. Further, some IP user added more details that were also not found in the reference cited. I realize there may be a systemic bias against industry researchers, but as long as his NDAs keeps the info vague, there's not much we can do. Also, a h-index of 16 was deletable in the case of Setrag Khoshafian. Pcap ping 05:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says clearly on the Intel site that he worked on the VAX. You removed that statement. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No, I did not. The Intel page says only "he was a consulting engineer and helped design several VAX processors", which I've added " now. The material I removed said "VAX 9000 and the VAX 8600", which is more precise, but unsourced for now. Pcap ping 06:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are actually references to VAX models he worked on out there (I found them earlier when searching for info but didn't make a note, sorry), so I think that bit should have been tagged ((cn)) rather than removed - I'll be happy to search for refs again myself if the consensus is to keep -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provisionally. Is an Intel fellow [30] (though apparently not an IEEE fellow [31]), has patents [32], [33], [34], has papers published [35], [36], [37]. If he was a key designer of DEC's VAX range of computers, than that's a significant contribution to the industry. I think it's worth doing a bit more investigation into notability rather than deleting, and if established, perhaps expand with his areas of expertise based on those patents/papers etc? And maybe another AfD later if notability is still doubtful?</nowiki> -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His role is rather vaguely defined in that source: "helped design" is not "key designer". Pcap ping 06:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, which is why I suggested further investigation rather than deletion -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fossum's exact role in the design of VAX computers can be determined from the papers on the VAX computers (which usually have a short section acknowledging the major contributors) and from his biographies published in the Digital Technical Journal. The relevant issues should be from 1986 and 1990. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact dates. It should be noted that the DTJ sometimes republishes papers from IEEE publications, so its worth looking in those too. Rilak (talk) 17:38, 20 February 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. Feel free to continue merge discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sterling Currency in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic[edit]

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

Belongs as a section under sterling Orange Mike | Talk 04:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as simple as that. The purpose of the article was to serve as a linked article for another article which hasn't yet been written. In the not too distant future, I intend to write a summary article entitled something along the lines of 'The History of Currency in the British Empire'. Sterling was never the unique currency in the British Empire. There were large dollar and rupee areas within the British Empire as well. If the picture is to be accurately completed in the summary article, it is important that there will be a link to the remote South Atlantic and Antarctic regions. It just so happens that in the those regions, the sterling currency is used. The purpose of the link will be to clarify this fact. The article which you want to delete was never intended to be an article about the sterling currency as such, and so it would be inappropriate to put the material into the already existing article entitled the pound sterling. However, if you like, you can put a link to this article into the pound sterling article. David Tombe (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - then why not start with an overarching article on Currency in the British Empire? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it belongs as a section under sterling, preferably with links from articles on the relevant territories. With its current title, not many people are likely to find it anyway. While David Tombe is developing another article, the place for that is in his sandbox.

Ehrenkater (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis would it fit into an article on sterling? It would have to be in some section about the extent of the usage of sterling beyond the British Isles. So then when an article does eventually come about regarding 'currency in the British Empire', which will be divided into regions, what are we to do about the South Atlantic and Antarctic regions? I don't intend to hurry up about the intended article, because I first of all have to tidy up alot of issues about the rupee zone. Meanwhile, this article is harmless. If you put it into the sterling article, is there also going to be material on sterling in Australia, New Zealand, the British West Indies, British West Africa, and Southern Africa etc.? If you do decide to delete it, please let me know in advance so that I can copy and paste the material and if necessary put it in in its entirety when the full British Empire article finally appears. David Tombe (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'd like to see more detail in the article but a cliffnote summary can be included with Sterling and this could be a standalone article. Currencies are notable, can't see why this one wouldn't be. 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, There's been alot of links already put into other articles about this article. Eventually, the intention is to have articles for,

(1)British North America (including the USA)

(2)British West Indies

(2)Europe (Heligoland, Gibraltar, and Malta)

(3)The Middle East (including Cyprus)

(4)The Rupee Zone

(5)South-East Asia (Malay States, Borneo etc)

(6)Hong Kong and China coast

(7)British East Africa

(8)British West Africa

(9)British Southern Africa

(10)Australia, New Zealand, and Oceania

(11)South Atlantic and Antarctica

and finally a summary article for all of these regions. David Tombe (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pound sterling. If this information ever grows out of proportion to that article then it could be split out again, but it doesn't seem that way at the moment. 86.134.72.95 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Allow the article to naturally expand, it's a notable topic and the article already has sources. No need to delete at this time. Outback the koala (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close AfD is not the forum for merge discussions, WP:PM is. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is of interest and should remain. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 21:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Jingle[edit]

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

Non-notable Dickens character; mergeback into appropriate list Orange Mike | Talk 03:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to The Pickwick Papers; I don't see enough notability for a stand-alone article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Keep; per DGG, I'm convinced. Though I'd be happier if Samuel Pickwick, as the titular character, wasn't a redirect. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jingle, along with Sam Weller (fictional character) and Mr Pickwick himself is one of the most notable characters in the Pickwick Papers. His distinctive speech habits and mannerisms have made him an archetypal and memorable figure in British culture outside the frame of the story. Also the information given in the article is not duplicated in the Pickwick Papers article and would unbalance it if it was translated there. Also the information on Mr Jingle in the article is referenced to a notable Dickens scholar. Also Mr Jingle is given a seperate entry in many encyclopedias, therefore the subject is encyclopediac and not trivial. See e.g. entry on Mr Jingle in The Reader's Encyclopedia, a standard work on world literature, edited by William Rose Benet.Colin4C (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with The Pickwick Papers. It fails WP:N for a stand-alone article, but part of the article could be incorporated in The Pickwick Papers.--MaxEspinho (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced to an independant reliable source (a Dickens scholar) according to the wikipedia guidelines. The source says that Jingle is an important character in terms of the Pickwick Papers and in his own right in British culture as appearing in theatrical productions etc. And as I have mentioned above, stand-alone articles about Mr Jingle have appeared in other encyclopedias, therefore the subject and article, as encyclopediac, is worthy of appearing in the wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. The Readers Encyclopedia, which I mention above covers world literature from 2000 BC to 1960, from all continents - North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia and Africa - and still includes an article on Mr Jingle. According to such reliable outside sources, the character is notable in his own right. He is one of the three main characters in the Pickwick Papers, which is a very famous book, certainly in England, where there is a lot of Pickwick memorabilia. If you google "Mr Jingle" you will see that he is mentioned over and over again in lots of books as a kind of archetypal character. He has escaped from the frame of the original novel and is important in his own right. The Dickensian scholar Mark Wormald says "Alfred Jingle and Samuel Weller, had in the course of a few months achieved a celebrity we now tend to associate with the cinema; they had become components of a popular culture which they were already significantly changing...in one early stage adaptation Jingle was the main character..." etc etc Colin4C (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on the Google book search and Google scholar search at the top of the AFD, and there is notable mention of this character. Dream Focus 01:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LETSNOTOPENOURSELVESTOPUBLICRIDICULE. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many background characters in dickens that are mentioned once or twice, and have no role in the action. But this is a a character who does have significant role; the story could not be explained properly without him. There is an intermediate zone between protagonist and background, where the characters will be notable for very important books and major authors, but not otherwise. This is one of them/ . DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chase(rapper)[edit]

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

Deleted PROD. Non-notable artist; shows no form of notability. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because you could not find significant material on this artist does not mean it does not exist, further I have personally seen numerous artist articles on this site who I have never heard of!!!. Does that mean its not significant?...I went to look this individual up and found him in an issue of a hip hop magazine that has become pretty popular. It is called tap-wire magazine heres the link http://www.tapwiremagazine.com/archives.html google it. They have featured artist such as Mack Maine of Young Money Entertainment, Corey Gunz, Maino, Tay Dizm of Konvict Muzik etc. If this guy is in this mag with these people and you got artists on here who have done not one thing with one notable artist how can you delete this guys article? --600block (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ One hammer....Funny but thank goodness I have enough sense to actually look up and back up what I say...Oh and atleast 70% of the ones that have articles only have maybe 2 more sources than this article. Not to mention you ask anyone you probably know, they wont even know who these people are. Not trying to hate but there go the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Northwest_Hip_Hop_artists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 600block (talk • contribs) 06:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a list that needs a major clean-up. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 06:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, not enough sources foun. Also, 600block, WP:OSE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based upon the severe lack of non-trivial coverage by third party publications. Merely existing is not enough to substantiate a Wikipedia article, sorry! JBsupreme (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy might be a friend of The Game, but he definitely doesn't seem notable enough for an article. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Floreani[edit]

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

Notability is unclear on this. The best claim here for meeting WP:MUSIC is the theme tune for a television program, but a google search is not turning up independent evidence of this; instead, most mentions are that the song was used in an advert. Is this enough for WP:MUSIC?

Zero gnews hits for Luc, which casts doubt on the chartible work conferring notability. Previous prod contested without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think it has potential, I'm going to add some cleanup tags to the article. It definitely needs to be wikified, and personally I believe the article wizard would have been more appropriate for creating the article. At first I considered CSD since it seems unremarkable, however upon further reading I'm giving it a weak keep. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 04:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: there're millions of musicians like him. He is not notable.--Karljoos (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The theme to Today Tonight might pass WP:MUSIC, but as nom said it's used in an advert which has no notability itself (unlike, say, the Girl Scouts singing True Colors for a Dove Superbowl ad which got mentioned in USA Today). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:30, 25 February 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 Deleted per db-self. - Philippe 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAMOS BC (Northern Amphibian Monitoring Outpost Society)[edit]

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

This society does not appear to meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:GROUP. I cannot find any coverage in google news and there are less than 1000 google hits for "namos bc". 2 of the current references are written by the president who also appears to be the author of the article. Smartse (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the original author has tagged the page with ((db-self)) Smartse (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Drexel[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements Eeekster (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Violates WP:NOTNEWS and he has never done anything. The person who edited it no longer has a user page. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything notable. The three references given are non-notable - one just mentions him as a customer of a packaged-cabin company, one is the minutes of a meeting that thanks him for something, and one is thanking him for his part in some memorial service. I can't find any mention of the two films he is claimed to have appeared in. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above nn. feydey (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - interesting bio, but I don't see how he passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF specifically. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a source for him finding a body [38] but doesn't appear to have actually been at the olympics [39] which would have passed WP:ATHLETE. Judging from my searches it appears most of the article is either a hoax or completely unverifiable. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girls With Slingshots[edit]

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

Non-notable web comic. I found only one Google news hit for local coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [40]. Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any significant coverage on the comic itself, although it seems the comic's creator may pass WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this article/webcomic passes WP:GNG, will it still be deleted? Dano42 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC) 14:34, 25 February 2010[reply]

Comment You should probably disclose here any WP:COI issues, if there are any. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Kiley[edit]

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

Non-notable actress that fails WP:ENT. She appeared in 2 episodes of the Sopranos, then had other memorable roles like "Neville's entourage", a part in a 24min short film nobody saw and a supporting role in a TV series that was cancelled after 7 episodes. Most sources I saw were just mentioning her as having her role in the Sopranos.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Had a significant role in one of the most famous television shows of all time in which her character's death created a lot of controversy (The New York Post, while decrying her character's death, said Kiley "acted remarkably" [41]) and was a star in an Emmy-winnig PBS series. It doesn't matter if the show was only 7 episodes (it wasn't canceled, it was only made for 7 episodes; House of Cards was made for only 4), it was still a series on a major national network.--Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Update: I'm not sure if it was shown nationally, but it did win a Regional Emmy [42]--Oakshade (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Sopranos was a very popular show. And she was in 2 of the 86 episodes, as a minor plot device, a stripper with no last name. Her character very briefly got attention, but there isn't significant coverage about Kiley. Maybe you should consider an article about the stripper character. What major network was Windy Acres shown on? Is Wisconsin PBS now a "major network"? Please, that's a stretch even for you. And so what if the show won a regional emmy? This is about her notability. BTW, I can't even confirm she was in all 7 episodes. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Didn't know it was shown on Wisconsin PBS, as it won a New England Regional Emmy. I guess it was national. Thanks. --Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't a national emmy. It was regional. For the SHOW, not for Kiley. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which conclusion in itself reinforces her having the project itself being notable, even if seen as only so to New England. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sound guy was involved in the "notable project" too. Are we to extrapolate that he is now notable? Sounds almost like saying notability can be inherited. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article on the sound guy. It is about a person who had a significant role in more than one notable production. That's per WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the debate. I don't view a 2 episode appearence in a supporting role (as a stripper with no last name) as being that significant. Apparently I'm not completely alone in that view. If the role were that significant, I bet the Sopranos fans would do an article on the character. They haven't. Instead you find here here: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_from_The_Sopranos#T], on the list of minor characters. Nor am I ready to accept 6 episodes of Windy Acres as being inherently notable since we can't find a reliable source that indicates how significant her role was. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Windy Acres has not been shown to have aired beyond Vermont and upstate New York. I don't think starring in that show can convey notability, nor can appearing in just two episodes of The Sopranos. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has indicated the PBS show Windy Acres has been shown on Wisconsin Public Television and one independent source indicates it's been shown in 10 states [43] (New England states(6)+NY=7). Just New England and Wisconsin alone are combined markets of over 20 million population. --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the nom is going to point out that PBS normally gets poor ratings and that just because 20 million people could have watched it is a strawman because it tells us nothing about how many actually did watch it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems also strawman to assert that because PBS does not get the ratings of its commercial brethren that a PBS series must therefore be non notable. Are you saying that non-notability is inherited? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that the claim of "X number of people are in this market" is bogus and that when claiming who notable her appearence is alleged to be, you have to factor in the size and importance of her role and just how notable the show was. Among the factors that affect notability are things like how many people watched it. Yes, a regional emmy might get the show past notability standards, but that doesn't make everyone who appeared in it notable by default. A front page article about you in the NY Times would be much more notable than 2 articles on page 5 of section B in the weekly edition of the Farmville Shopper. 6 episodes of CSI, seen nationally by millions of people (and we can prove that) would be a stronger argument for notability than 6 episodes of Windy Acres, which we can't prove was watched by many people at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sopranos is hugely culturally important. 7 episodes on PBS not to shabby either. Rebel1916 (talk)Rebel1916 —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC). — User:Rebel1916 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Sopranos is culturally significant. But we're not establishing the notability of the show. Appearing (not starring, appearing) in 2 episodes out of 86? Not so much. PBS? Whatever my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, her TV career began with 2 episodes of The Sopranos, for which she received and continues receiving coverage for that significant role [44][45], and coverage for he wrork in Windy Acres. The she returned to school before continuing her career does not remove that notability per WP:NTEMP. The article serves the project and reader's understanding of the subject by remaining and being allowed to grow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, those are by and large episode recaps that mention her, usually in parenthesis. Saying "Tracee (played by Ariel Kiley) gets killed..." isn't significant coverage. That is the very definition of a trivial mention. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not all are. And the aditional coverage of her work in Windy Acres counts too, even without considering that there seems to be systemic bias simply because it is notable to New England and not the world. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please be responsible and post specifics, not google search results. Demonstrate the actual significant coverage. The systematic bias argument is weak. A small series that got few viewers isn't that notable, regardless of where it was shown. Nor can you call it "notable to New England", because you haven't showed anyone watched it. (Just winning a regional emmy doesn't mean it was widely watched, it means critics liked something about it). Nobody has shown any evidence that it was widely watched, only that it was shown. The potential audience is a strawman. If I put a video on Youtube, the potential audience is billions, is it now notable? Nor has anyone shown what her role was. Was it another supporting role? Even IMDB is ambiguous about how many of the actual episodes she was in. They simple pasted the entire cast list to each episode with a note that they aren't sure who was in which episode. Can you provide evidence of how many she was in and in what capacity? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, per WP:HEY I will not be jumping through your hoops. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been prudent for you to have looked and seen that I added sources to the article before asking that I please be responsible and post specifics". The article has the potential for further WP:IMPROVEment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I looked. But you didn't bother to talk specifics here. You simply asserted that google results demonstrated significant coverage. I saw the sources that you posted. Sad that 1 of the three requires us to pay 2.95 to see it and the second is an excerpt that doesn't even give her name (let alone show the significant coverage) and wants us to pay 2.95 to see the article. Spare me the lecture about "it doesn't have to be free". I know that. Just pointing out that it's odd that the only sources of her alleged notability require payment. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already know "it doesn't have to be free", I won't even go into the other problems guideline describes about depending entirely upon online sources. 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A television show, which this person was a star in, that won a New England Regional Emmy is notable. The "It probably got lousy ratings because it was on PBS" opinion doesn't make it non-notable. The show would be notable even if it did get lousy ratings.--Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did she STAR in it? Nobody has shown evidence about how many episode she even appeared in, let alone that she was the star and not just a supporting role. The SHOW might be notable. That doesn't make her notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Vermont Public Television website [46], her character Titania is part of the primary story in all but one of the episodes. [47]. And she was one of the stars, not the star. WP:ENT doesn't negate co-stars or even "supporting roles." It states "significant roles." --Oakshade (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those said she STARRED? Exactly neither of them is the answer. Both say she "appeared". In fact the first one only lists one person as a star and it's a man. Saying she "starred" is your opinion and your sources don't support that. A supporting role in 6 episodes doesn't mean "starred". Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please... Neither WP:ENT nor WP:N demand that any actor be the STAR in a project, as guideline recognizes that a role need only be significant. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please yourself. The claim being made was that she "starred". We haven't seen that shown to be the case. Nor have we seen evidence that her appearences were significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it's "systemic bias simply because it is notable to New England and not the world" doesn't make sense to me. New England is part of the United States, and there is no shortage of Internet connections, English-speakers, or editors of the English Wikipedia there. Systemic bias would be much more of a concern if we were talking about a Chinese or Indian or African actress. I think it's just plain notability issues to say that being a regular in a television series that aired in only part of the U.S. is less notable than being a regular in a television series that aired in the entire U.S. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone claims that because her achievement was in New Englnd then it could not be notable seems like a tell. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who made that claim? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... she actually does "appear" to pass WP:ENT and WP:GNG. And until WP:NTEMP is rewritten by those wishing Wkipedia to be an archive only for recent events, notability is not temporay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not really. What you are asserting is "significant coverage" is what is being disputed. Just because you find mere mentions to be significant doesn't mean everyone holds that view. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention = mention. Significant = significant. Up -= up. Down = down. I never once asserted the "mere mentions" = significant coverage". Please either correct your strange math, or strike it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Post ref you added is a mention. It talks about the episode and mentions that Kiley played the role. That is one example. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor Sopranos role as a two-dimensional character (with the dimensions being "alive"-"dead" and topless"-"not topless") doesn't come close to meeting WP:ENT, and I'm not yet willing to extend WP:GNG to every college newspaper's coverage of a junior's aspiring career (which, five years later, seems to have voluntarily come to naught). No objection to merge/redirect with Minor characters in The Sopranos. THF (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly unnotable and fails WP:ENT and WP:N. Her role was minor and the minor bit of coverage on the episode as a whole does not make her notable. The other roles are also all minor. News randomly mentioning that she appeared in X role does not count as significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One minor role in a notable show and one possibly significant role in one possibly significant show != "significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows". Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:57, 25 February 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 withdrawn by nominator [48]. (non-admin closure) Intelligentsium 18:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isildur1[edit]

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

Notability? iBen 00:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Hi, I am here to voice my opinion that the article be kept.

I reviewed the "General Notability Guidelines" and here are some facts I'd like to offer to address the various notability requirements. Please let me know if I can explain any of these in greater detail or if I'm unclear about something:

- "Significant Coverage" - Isildur1 has been the subject of articles at nearly every online source of poker news, including, but not limited to: BluffMagazine.com, Cardplayer.com, PokerNews.com, PokerNewsDaily.com, Pokerlistings.com, and Pokertableratings.com. Many sites listed his story as one of the most compelling stories of 2009. Additionally, he is by far the most searched for player in databases which compile stats of different players, such as Pokertableratings.com.

- "Reliable" / "Sources" - The above sources (Bluff Magazine, Cardplayer, etc.) are, as far as I know (as a poker fan), among the most trusted names in poker news, and are also the first sites that come up if you google "poker news."

- "Independent of Subject" - Isildur1 didn't produce any of the sources

- "Presumed" - I think the fact that Isildur1 is of such great interest to a large number of people presumes that the subject is suitable for inclusion.

-- Also, in terms of general notability: given that he was involved in all 10 of the largest online poker pots ever, he's arguably one of the more "important" online poker players ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoWhoWhoIsMrBlue (talk • contribs) 02:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If any of my above points are unclear, please let me know. I'm no expert on Wikipedia so I apologize in advance if I've failed to properly address the issue of notability.

Thanks,

WhoWhoWhoIsMrBlue (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This user has, IMO, worked hard to establish notability and worked equally hard on a user subpage to bring it up to standards. It's well-researched, interesting and worthy of inclusion. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see that Isildur1 is actually mentioned in other poker players' articles already so I think having an article is appropriate. –xeno^talk 02:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The nominator of this AfD should refrain from nominating articles for deletion without more than 3 seconds of thought. Loads of non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Hazir (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable. Plenty of sources. 2005 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, per sources provided, etc. Arguably the most talked about online poker player in the past year, both in official poker publications as well as on forums, etc. Gary King (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was announced on WP:POKER.

Speedy Keep If I wasn't as active in WP:POKER as I am, I would close this right now, but I don't want there to be any hint of COI... but this is one of the most talked about online poker players in the past few years. Various magazines were running articles wondering who he was and whether or not he was an established name.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing-- iBen 18:48, 20 February 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 Ghost Adventures. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Groff[edit]

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

Merge and redirect to Ghost Adventures due to notability issues, along with Zak Bagans and Aaron Goodwin (cameraman). Twinsday 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Basic Google searches reveal him to be a major element of the Ghost Adventures TV series (see here and here). Interviews such as this and this establish him as notable independent of the TV show. (Plus a number of "Is Nick Groff married?" questions on Yahoo answers and Wikianswers suggest he might be a crush magnet among his viewers.) Also he's an International Paranormal Acknowledgement award winner (here). As a side note, this AfD nomination could have used a better explanation by the nominator. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ghost Adventures. I'm not seeing enough notability independent of the show. I don't see him passing WP:ENT (significant role in only one notable production). Jujutacular ^T · C 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ghost Adventures. His notability seems to be solely from the show. The section Investigations and notable experiences is mostly about the show anyway, and without that there really isn't much left. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Also I'm not sure what criteria was used to determine his notable experiences are notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ghost Adventures. Seems already done. foxyma (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 February 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 09:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zwick Roell Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. Nothing new of any substance has materialized since last AFD discussion to indicate notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Last AFD closed as keep four months ago. Any reason consensus should have changed?--Milowent (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Whpq's 2 example sources in the last AfD ([49] and [50]), it appears that it does meet WP:CORP. Just because it isn't sourced doesn't mean it can't be reliably sourced. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no need for anything new of any substance to have materialized since the last AFD discussion, because enough of substance alreadyt materialised there. If the nominator objects to the sources not being in the article then WP:SOFIXIT applies. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 25 February 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) 18:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German dj's[edit]

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

Page is an exact copy of the contents of Category:German DJs Dr Gangrene (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of German DJs. Is there any particular reason to delete? Glenfarclas (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Directory listing which is actually less useful than the categories it was ripped from (how ironic) JBsupreme (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's Daniel-kk2's first article, and it's possible that he's planning to make this more than simply a cut and paste. The reasons for delete are obvious-- unsourced, no discriminating information (such as where in Germany they hail from or ply their trade), no context, no evidence of notability on the face of the article. The fact that someone has put a category tag on an article is not, in and of itself, proof that that aspect of their personality is notable. I'll wait to see whether this will become more than it is, but keeping for the sake of keeping is not a good idea. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep needs to be renamed and badly needs sourcing. It has problems but doesn't need a rewrite. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, just a copy and paste from a category. I agree with User:Mandsford's comment in that because it's Daniel-kk2's first article he might not have realised just a copy and paste is not a good idea for an article, but it's also his only edit ever, and that was 18 days ago now. JIP | Talk 12:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Boardman[edit]

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Brief mention in newspaper blog is only secondary reference cited. Prod contested by anonymous editor. MuffledThud (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially agree with nom. Unless more can be found in secondary RS then this person is not notable. Polargeo (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to verify this show even exists on T4. Should the text be verified, I still don't see this warranting any more than a redirect to T4 (Channel 4). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and by all means cleanup and source. In a quck search, I found an in-depth article in Essex Echo speaking about the man and his hobbies, and in Wymondham and Attleborough Mercury I found another decent article on the man with confirmation of the Channel 4 show Homemade. Let's find more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm now convinced that this TV show does exist, but I see little sign of notability independently of the TV show, and the notability of the TV show itself is a bit iffy. If this show can be considered notable, then I suggest we move this to something like Homemade (UK television programme), write a quick stub about the programme itself and keep the few relevant encyclopaedic bits in this article. Otherwise, I'll stick with a redirect to T4, and any mention of Mark Boardman can go there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homemade ran for a series on T4 from 2006-2007 and followed Big Brother with an audience of 1.3 million. Notable TV performances also include BBC Inside out and This Morning (I found the evidence online)with audio from BBC radio stations. I see his website has nearly 400,000 hits last year too (thats notable) Links on mark Boardman listed as a minor celebrity 'blogger' with over 2500 followers [51] Guardian website : [52] Other indepth articles include [53] [54] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.0.2 (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, notability is not inheritied. Homemade may or may not pass notability, but it certainly won't count as notable just because it immediately followed a more notable TV programme. And if Homemade does pass notability, it does not follow that all people associated with the programme become notable. In order to attain notability, he would either need to meet the specific notablity guidelines for entertainers, or the more general notability criteria for people. I am not convinced he meets either. The entertainer criteria requires significant roles in multiple productions (in this case television shows), and as far as I can tell, he has a significant role in only one. The more general notability guideline for people requires significant coverage in secondary sources, and, for me, two articles in local papers, a trivial mention in a national paper and a mention in a section of Twitter that appears to be a semi-open wiki isn't enough. (And the number of hits on your own website has never been counted towards notability.) The additional coverage from TV and radio might count towards notability, but I'd have to see what it was - and if it's simply about appearances on Homemade, that would merely reinforce including him in a Homemade article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Neville-Smith (talk • contribs)

Just found this on him. Regarded as a celebrity online and is well know in many circles [55]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.0.2 (talk)

Please don't edit other editors' comments, thank you. "beingpc.com" is a blog, and as a self-published source is not considered reliable. ~~Are there any WP:Reliable sources to be found backing his notability: interviews, that sort of thing? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)~~. There are two interviews listed above in the local press, but one is a freesheet. Not sure if this qualifies as substantial media coverage: can other editors comment? MuffledThud (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. ArticlesForRedemption 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What I can't spot right now are Wikipedia guidelines in how wide a region a publication is delivered to vs. notability. The subject of this AFD has received in-depth coverage in two news articles that get distributed to residents in half a dozen towns. In my mind, that does not satisfay "notable coverage" for the English Wikipedia.
- Claire Borley of www.echo-news.co.uk appears to be a paid news reporter. She appears to have around 170 articles^[56] and the organization appears to pay their people.^[57] Thus this is not one of those blogging platforms and appears to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. The troublesome aspect is that this newspaper is covering a small region that covers six towns and the reporter (Claire Borley) covers people of local interest.
- Stories in www.wymondhamandattleboroughmercury.co.uk do not have author bylines. I see they have a submit a story form. They don't list any submission guidelines but a quick scan finds that they only cover events of local interest. For example.^[58][59]. Their "About Us" reports once a week distribution to 15,300 homes in three towns plus nearby villages and another edition (it does not say what the publication frequency is) that goes to two towns plus nearby villages.^[60] Given the lack of verifiable bylines and the self-submissions I'm not comfortable calling this a "reputable media organization." --Marc Kupper|talk 01:08, 27 February 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, sole delete !vote was "per nom". For all intents and purposes, this is unanimous. (Non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 09:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dutton[edit]

Withdraw - now verifiably notable, though the sources found by gidonb need to be placed into the article along with other sources and info found recently. Also, the article needs to be deorphaned and the redirect need to be deleted. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Originally PRODed by me: "No RSs to be found anywhere. Only minor local newspaper and minor review. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC because it fails WP:V". However it has come to light that there may be reason to feel that he is indeed notable: this blog appears to be a reproduction of a column in Bay Area Reporter by George Heymont of the opera staged by Kentucky Opera in 1990. Dutton also had a 3-month long exhibition at a small museum which may just scrape the notability standards itself (link added). However, the article appears to be self-authored and there are a lot of IP edits adding his website to other articles only vaguely connected with Dutton or his work. (Eg [61] There are several others.) Very hard to decide either way, hence AfD. Jubilee♫clipman 18:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there is also a redirect that needs to be dealt with after this AfD closes: Daniel dutton --Jubilee♫clipman 01:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am the person who has been in discussion with Jc about this and who unearthed the Heymont article, the 21c Museum Hotel exhibition and the suspicious IP edits. I'm just teetering towards keep but did suggest that here was the place to discuss things.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Now definitely a keep after subject's description of Kentucky Opera as no 16 in a big country.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not notable as an artist on this showing, but might be as a composer - I leave that for others to decide. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Opera.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Daniel Dutton seems to be a local multimedia artist on the borderline of notability, however, it is possible to verify a major part of the article using independent sources: 21c Museum Hotel, Kentucky Educational Television. I've added citations. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good finds! Maybe the article was intended as selfpromo but the fact remains that he may well be borderline-notable. Still a tough call, though, even from those RSs. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" My first opera, "The Stone Man" was reviewed in both Opera News, and Opera in America. I have to wonder how many of the composers whose status is unquestioned have had an opera fully staged by a major opera company (Kentucky Opera was rated 16th in the nation in 1990). The Kentucky Opera production of The Stone Man was funded, in part, by the National Endowment for the Arts "Opera for the 80s and Beyond" program, and reviewed by their committee as an example of the one of the best examples of works supported by that funding. It was the first opera by a Kentucky composer to be staged, 7 performances in Louisville, KY., and subsequently toured the state, playing to audiences who had never seen an opera before. The Stoneman was followed by a cycle of four fully staged dance operas, "The Secret Commonwealth," documented by Kentucky Educational Television, with a viewing audience over a million, and with teachers guides still in use after nearly 20 years. If this group of investigators can cite a composer anywhere in the US who is better known in their home state, or in other words, where the community knows their work best, I will defer to non-status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.174.234 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Dutton, could you please supply details (authors, issue and page numbers) of the reviews of The Stone Man. You're unfortunate in that the performances happened before the big surge in the internet. I was able to find the Bay Area Reporter review because Heymont had decided to put his archive online in a from that Google recognises. If you provide the details of these reviews that will help confoirm that you meet out WP:Notability requirement and better source the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's my understanding that there are no reviews in reliable, independent media. Notability is not conferred by local museums and television stations (however rich they may be, and however glitsy their websites), because these are essentially promoters. I'd be happy to reconsider if anyone can come up with a bona fide review. --Klein zach 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep: there's little of real notability here. Verif. of an Emmy nom. would help, but nothing comes up on their website.Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist and composer is often covered by the Lexington Herald-Leader and occasionally by other dailies. The Lexington Herald is the second-largest daily newspaper in Kentucky. References need to be improved, but I see no case for deleting. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a small selection of the relevant references:

NEVER FEAR, THERE'S ALWAYS MORE TO SEE
Work: Lexington Herald
Author: David Minton
Date: 2000-04-23
Page: J6
Quote: Dutton is a musician, performer, writer of folk-rock operas, amateur filmmaker and the force behind a group of dancers, actors and musicians called The Secret Commonwealth. His first "opera" was The Changeling and the Bear, and the soundtrack was nominated for a Grammy, according to Riverstone co-owner Ken Wesley. Dutton has written two other operas since then, which have been staged in Somerset, Richmond and Northern Kentucky.

MUSICAL AMBASSADOR - MAKER OF RARE JAPANESE LUTE WILL PLAY IN SOMERSET
Work: Lexington Herald
Autor: Ty Tagami
Date: 1999-02-20
Page: A1
Quote: Ohashi came to Somerset to visit friends and to perform with local artist Daniel Dutton, whom he met in Japan two years ago. Dutton traveled to Japan in 1997 with a Japanese couple living in Somerset, playing old Appalachian ballads on dulcimer and guitar for a Japanese audience. Dutton, who is the artistic director and musical composer for the opera, invited Ohashi to come to Kentucky and open the show.

'SECRET' GETTING EASIER TO FIGURE OUT
Work: Lexington Herald
Date: 1999-02-14
Page: J3
Quote: Daniel Dutton hopes people will leave the world premiere of Love & Time - the third in his series of four opera-modern dance productions called The Secret Commonwealth -saying: "I kind of understand what was happening there." The Somerset-based director/composer knows he has tested audiences with the first two chapters: The Changeling and the Bear and The Road.

SOMERSET MAN TRIES ANOTHER AMBITIOUS WORK; DANIEL DUTTON NOW WRITING 4-PART OPERA
Work: Lexington Herald-Leader
Date: 1994-12-11
Author: Kevin Nance
Page: H1
Quote: Daniel Dutton is back. The self-taught composer-writer-painter from Somerset is best known for The Stone Man, an uncategorizeable musical stage work produced by the Kentucky Opera in Louisville that toured throughout the state five years ago. Now, Dutton, 35, is in the midst of a project that is even harder to pigeonhole and far more ambitious: a four-part, eight-hour, pop-folk opera called The Secret Commonwealth.

Wow! Quite a list from a daily with 100,000+ circulation. Would you be able to deorphan the article, also? The would be the clincher... Thanks, gidonb! --Jubilee♫clipman 04:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please check the archives before proposing a deletion. gidonb (talk) 13:53, 21 February 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) 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Scone[edit]

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

Notability for this musician is not reliably and independently shown. No sources provided other than the artist's own web page, which is not considered a reliable source. Can't find anything else aside from simple album/track listings in online stores, plus a brief blurb in an organ manufacturer's ad. This has been tagged for having no refs for two years now. I'm open to reconsideration if some sources can be found, but I'm coming up short, so I think it's time to delete this article since notability cannot be independently shown. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adam Scone is a respected jazz session musician who, along with his personal projects, has worked with big names in the music world such as Bernard Purdie cool lesson and Sharon Jones (singer). He is also a member of the The Sugarman 3, a project started out by Neal Sugarman who is another session musician who played and recorded with people such as Robin Williams, Amy Winehouse and Lilly Allen. Whoever submitted this article for deletion clearly doesn't have a grasp on wikipedia's notability criteria for both bands and musicians.-- Mecanismo | Talk 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above editor and myself are currently involved in a very contentious debate over whether The Sugarman 3 should be speedy deleted. He is citing the existence of the Adam Scone article as a reference to prove the group's notability, but of course, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. Adam Scone is simply an article being linked from Sugarman Three, an article which user Realkyhick has marked for speedy deletion although it meets at least 3 notability criteria. In fact, I suspect the user Realkyhick has marked this article for deletion as an attempt to retaliate the cancelation of his speedy deletion attempt. -- Mecanismo | Talk 23:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, it hasn't been canceled, and you specifically cited the link to this article as support for the notability of the band on that article's talk page - otherwise I might not have ever found this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. I didn't used this article as any support fro the notability. That wouldn't make any sense, as no one nor anything is more notable for having a wikipedia article. Yet, it appears you are desperately trying to attack sugarman three's notability (personal attacks and threads didn't cut it?) by trying to attack any article which is remotely related to it, such as Adam Scone, even if you have to ignore or even violate wikipedia's policy on notability assertion. -- Mecanismo | Talk 23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote your words directly from the Sugarman 3 talk page: "Didn't you noticed the link to an article on a band's member?" Since Scone is the only band member linked, he is the only one you could possibly be talking about. For the rest of you, see Talk:The Sugarman 3. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it verifiable is a working Jazz musician who has played in various groups or venues, I have been unable to find any significant coverage of him, or any other evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. If anyone demonstrates that, happy to change my views. ^Bongo_matic 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't think this qualifies as a speedy. Verifiability does exist, but I could not find any significant sources for this musician, no evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO.—Sandahl (♀) 00:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not finding any reliable sources that provide significant coverage for this person, though if it can be verified that he's been a member of JJ Grey & MOFRO (he is credited on at least two of their albums [62][63], and some of these pages--along with the band's website--appear to suggest he was a member), then he would satisfy criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO as he is also a member of The Sugarman 3. Gongshow ^Talk 19:00, 20 February 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 Roan Plateau. merge, as suggested.; will one of the people who suggested it please merge the appropriate part. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign to Save Roan Plateau[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria of a non-commercial organization as set out in WP:CLUB. A non-commercial organization, according to the policy, must pass two criteria - it must be of national or international scale and information must be verifiable with independent third-party sources. This group fails the first part of that test, given its local focus. WP:CLUB allows for the notability of local groups if "there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area..." In this case, the local organization has very few (14) archived G-news articles in the last 10 years - all from local news sources. Finally the criteria allows for consideration of "longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization" in determining notability. Although this makes the criteria much less rigid, I can't find anything that would help support an argument on this last limb of the notability criteria. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Roan Plateau. There's already a short sentence about "those opposed to development", where this could be included. _noisy jinx ^huh? 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable organization, nothing here to merge as it's all unreferenced RadioFan (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Roan Plateau. I don't think it's sufficiently notable for an article of its own, but if it forms a local opposition to gas drilling on the plateau, and we can find citations, I think that's notable enough for inclusion in the Roan Plateau article - but it does need citations in order to be merged. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are reliable but local secondary sources, e.g., the few news articles. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:18, 26 February 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) 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Santana[edit]

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

This radio personality lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news searches under stage name and real name bring up only primary sources. Only ref #3 in the article mentions him and only in a single sentence from an article where neither he nor the show is the subject of the article. Other refs are primary sources such as radio stations where he was employeed at some point. RadioFan (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this guy is not notable, as there are virtually no way to find any sources on him, but a murder victim with the same name might be notable. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Bones, Tracer of Missing Pets[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability for two years. It's a book from an author on which we do not have an article (link is to a dab page, and the only entry on the author is to this book).

The links on google, other than the author site (I think), are as far as I can see just listings to purchase the book. I don't see any independent reviews. Shadowjams (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be a reference here (which may be a review or recommendation), but no preview is provided. This WorldCat search says that 566 libraries have a copy of the book. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Elementary school library collection: a guide to books and other media..." Looks like a directory, but it's hard to know without the preview. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nope,its a selected list, not a directory liker Books in Print. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources as required by the general notability criteria or anything to verify that the book meets any of the specific criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). The book mentioned is over 1000 pages long and a new edition came out every year it was published, without evidence of what it contains, a review, a plot summary or a simple listing the article cannot be expanded beyond a simple plot summary. Guest9999 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are two LA Times articles about the book (one during it's writing and one after, I believe), but they're behind a paywall so I can't tell for sure if they meet the "non-trivial" requirement of WP:BK. It appears he's local to that area and there's no review by any other major source, so I'm calling it a lack of significant coverage per Joe Chill. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:35, 25 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for non-notable company; given sources are non-significant and I have been unable to find any coverage that would pass GNG. Article was deleted by AfD a month ago, and this iteration was written by a manager at the company. Haakon (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron is a leader in the content management space as identified by numerous 3rd party sources including Gartner, Forrester, CMS Watch, and 451 Group. This article provides the same factual information as other content management companies including Sitecore and Fatwire. Is this not a significant source? http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article91/article91.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based mostly on reliable sources. CMS Wire was debated to death at the Umbraco AfD. There is no consenus if that is a reliable source. But, for this article many other sources are easy to find besides those alredy in the article (Gartner, etc.) A quick search of google news archive also turned out a Infoworld comparison review (in print too) with the competing Macromedia product, a PC Magazine review, another review. Also book coverage: [64] [65] [66]. Pcap ping 16:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Gartner is an investment research business. Their editors are the customers who hire them to prepare reports. Being included in their "magic quadrants" is insufficient for notability, that's just their version of a directory or "top 100" style listing. This has been deleted several times before, and should have been protected against re-creation. Book mentions all look trivial and incidental to me. The bottom line is that this is just another behind the scenes tech business that the general public does not interact with directly. A very persistent spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement on Gartner is ridiculous, not even worth arguing. If Ektron is "just another behind the scenes tech business", how do you explain the entries for other content management companies of similar size and stature like Sitecore and Fatwire? If Ektron is to be removed, why not other content management vendors? Who gets to pick and choose which of a pool of very similar content management vendors should be included?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC). [reply]
  - Thanks for calling my attention to Sitecore and Fatwire. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sitecore. Pcap ping 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Drupal, Squiz and the open source CMS's? This seems unfairly focused against enterprise level solutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.199.32 (talk • contribs)

No, it's focused against companies and products who lack notability and therefore should not be covered in an encyclopedia. Haakon (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm referring to the COI issue that was raised. The Drupal page was actually written by their founder. That seems like a conflict, no?--213.123.199.32 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds unfortunate, but I haven't looked at it, and this is not the place to discuss it. Haakon (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I should note that far less covered software gets kept here by fanboys posting irrelevant links as "coverage". See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FluxBB. Pcap ping 19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, how notable is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentico? Why keep them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.32.120.10 (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentico CMS. But this is not the topic of this page. Wikipedia is not consistent; other stuff exists. Haakon (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How does a business to business software company prove notoriety? In the real world, executives use sources like Gartner, Forrester, CMS Watch, 451 Group, etc. to come up with lists of companies to evaluate. It seems wrong to discount those sources since its those sources that executives use to determine where they are going to spend money on content management. CEOs and CIOs don't search Google News or look for book mentions; they use trusted evaluation sources like those I've described. Futhermore, if you delete the article about Ektron, you'd have to delete every article about every commercial CMS company since our notoriety is defined by the same set of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk 18:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some additional notability sources in addition to the ones I've provided. CMS Watch covers Ektron http://cmswatch.com/Research/Channel/CMS and has been identified as a more credible source for notability than Gartner and Forrester in the Sitecore AfD. Ektron provided one of the first web based HTML editors called eWebEditPro, reviewed here way back in 2000 http://www.fusionauthority.com/reviews/2733-a-review-of-ektrons-ewebeditpro.htm. Here's a recent video from a TV station in NH on Ektron http://www.wmur.com/video/21479305/index.html. Finally, Ektron is covered in the Content Management Bible, one of the first and most important books on content management http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ektron&x=0&y=0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the article author, a Vice President at Ektron, is advertising this AfD at Twitter. [67] Haakon (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I never hid the fact that I was a VP at Ektron and my Twitter post was just a link to this AfD (I didn't know that was against the rules). I didn't ask anyone on Twitter to come defend my position, just a simple link so that interested parties could follow along. I simply feel that Ektron, like other commercial CMS vendors, belongs on Wikipedia and I created a factual article with no bias or marketing spin. I believe that I've demonstrated that Ektron is indeed a notable company and belongs on Wikipedia. If I haven't, I'll keep digging up additional sources.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ektron is being used by some of the most notable companies in the world. I'm hoping that will further demonstrate the notability of Ektron. Go to http://instoresnow.walmart.com http://amcentertainment.com http://dolby.com http://jacksonhewitt.com http://gearsofwar.xbox.com http://www.komen.org. For proof, when on the homepage of each site view the HTML source. You'll notice references in the HTML source to Ektron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentworth12 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here, but I don't think the fact that notable companies use the product makes the product notable--Walmart uses all sorts of things, from software to toilet paper. Also, it seems to me that you're arguing two diverging points; one that the software ektron (which is the article topic) is notable, and the other that the company (which is not the topic of the article) is notable. Establishing notability of the company would likely be easier, FWIW, but you still have a problem in that you have a conflict of interest. Seems to me also that you would be well served to incorporate some of the suggestions of additional sources suggested above. Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I've changed the article to be about Ektron the company not Ektron the product. True, I work at Ektron but no one has claimed that the article is biased in any way. I'd argue that Walmart or Microsoft using Ektron for their customer-facing websites is indeed an indication that Ektron is notable. Given all the content management options in the market, would either company use Ektron if they didn't believe that Ektron was a notable company? --Twentworth12 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make--the mere fact that a notable company uses some product does not make that product notable in its own right. And the fact that you work for ektron does suggest you might have a problem with both WP:COI and WP:POV. But I'll assume you're acting in good faith and take a look at your revisions to see what changes you've made. Nuujinn (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. No claim to notability is asserted, nor is significant coverage from any reliable, third party sources cited to support such a claim in accordance with WP:CORP. Press releases and routine coverage are specifically disallowed as evidence of notability by WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've updated the article to reflect Ektron the company, not Ektron's product- called CMS400.NET. I believe I have provided more than enough examples of coverage on Ektron (the company) from reliable, third party sources including: http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/macromedia-ektron-balance-functionality-affordability-327?page=0,0 http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,478862,00.asp http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ektron&x=0&y=0 http://www.wmur.com/video/21479305/index.html http://cmswatch.com/Research/Channel/CMS. http://www.cmswatch.com/Blog/1584-Our-latest-Web-CMS-evaluations. Note, do not confuse CMS Watch with CMSWire as CMS Watch is a vendor-neutral analyst firm that works on behalf of CMS buyers, not vendors.--Twentworth12 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Pcap. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:20, 21 February 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 Ekal Vidyalaya . obvious solution, per Aymatth2; since its's been copied the redirect is needed, DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation[edit]

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

This article was marked to be speedily deleted. The subject is a charity, but while it doesn't have good referencing in the article I did a Google book search and found a number of publications that noted the organization. I then did a Google Scholar search and I noticed a few publications that talked about the organization. As I'm a bit uncertain as to the actual notability of this organization, I'm taking to AFD. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ekal Vidyalaya which isn't any better, but the organization easily passes WP:ORG, and a couple of refs could have just as easily been slapped in. —SpacemanSpiff 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanSpiff caught the duplication. I have copied most of Ekal Vidyalaya into this one, then expanded. A lot more could be added - fairly controversial. Let's close this AfD and then decide the best title and way to distribute the content. Not sure the single-teacher school movement and the charity are exactly the same thing, and the political connections are still confused. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is clearly notable - see new content and sources. There is a USA foundation, and India foundation and the movement run by the FTS/VHP, so potentially there could be three articles. I would be inclined to just have one, because they are so interlinked, making this one a redirect to an expanded Ekal Vidyalaya holding the new content. I don't feel strongly, and that discussion should not muddy up the AfD discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US and India foundations are the same in the sense that transnational companies are (e.g. Coca-Cola India Limited is not a separate article). Although the full name of the org is Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation, it appears to be referred to as just "Ekal Vidyalaya", which is why I suggested that as the target title, I'm open to either. —SpacemanSpiff 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are violently agreeing. Put all the content in one article, and "Ekal Vidyalaya" seems the best name. Make this title a redirect, mainly to preserve history. I can do that after close. Is there any point keeping this discussion open? I don't see any controversy. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid possible loss of content, I have copied this one into Ekal Vidyalaya. The two articles are now identical. The topic is clearly notable, with many independent sources. The question is which is the best title. Technically, "foundation" is probably correct. Common usage often omits "foundation". Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain that rationale, why is a redirect from the full name not necessary? —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob.stp[edit]

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

Google News archive searches on "Rob.stp" (with or without a space after the period) are not turning up anything, and I'm not even really finding anything significant on a search of blogs. If Rob.stp was in fact a driving force behind the Austrian drum and bass scene, that fact does not seem to have been covered in reliable secondary sources. As such subject does not seem notable enough for an article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete': I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are plenty of references to his remixes out there, eg [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], but I couldn't really claim they're sufficient to confer notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried going through Google, news archives, etc. I don't see enough reliable secondary sources. --Joe Decker (talk) 21:14, 26 February 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. Google searches are not reliable sources in and of themselves; if there are any; they should have been added to the article or brought up in the discussion. Sandstein 06:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentric individualism[edit]

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

Sloppy, unsourced, etc. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Clean/Source Scholar search returns a huge number of references to the phrase, which is pretty idiosyncratic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to add an additional caveat/thought: the phrase seems to be used in reference to a broad topic. The article is about something one man wrote. A News search reveals the one man's article (which is in a verifiable source, but is obviously primary material). Article likely requires a fundamental rewrite. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not just include the theory in the article about the author, if he is notable enough to warrant an article? The theory doesn't seem that significant, and could probably be summarized in a few sentences on his bio article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says it is about one person's theories. That person does not have his own article and this article has no secondary sources. If "biocentric individualism" is something more than this (I am not saying it isn't) then a totally new article needs to be written on it. So either way delete this one as non-notable (or else provide sources that it is notable.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't really find any good sources; this doesn't seem notable. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Varner's resume, here (pdf) mentions Biocentric Individualism twice, showing he's contributed to the topic, but it doesn't make it sound like he was the originator of it. And here, it says "Varner defends a form of biocentric individualism", suggesting he might have his own version of it, but again not supporting the claim that he originated the concept itself. There are other papers on the same topic too, by a number of authors, but I can find nothing that supports the claim that Biocentric Individualism originated with Varner. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I googled it, and it is a real topic, but this article needs a LOT of work. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please share your findings - I would like to see some wp:rs? ErikHaugen (talk) 00:07, 27 February 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 entirety of the one-sentence unsourced content is already in the article Babozai. If there is any substantial sourced content that makes this subtribe notable, the article can be recreated. Sandstein 06:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nangir Khel[edit]

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

The only information I can find about the location is regarding the Nangar Khel incident. This in itself does not make the city notable. I cannot find any more sources, seems to fail WP:NTEMP NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whe whole point of this deletion is is this a tribe or a city/town. If it is a city/town I vote keep, but it is hard to determine which one it is. Looking back, you might keep it per WP:DEFACTONativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a stub. What is the point of having stubs available as a prompt for expansion if they are going to be deleted? The nominator's reference to "the city" suggests a lack of acquaintance with the text which refers to the subject as a "tribe". Wikipedia editors often seem determined to reinforce Wikipedia's already excessive ethnocentricity. Opbeith (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nangir Khel is a very small branch of the clan Babozai. This branch exists only in Aloch, Puran and the total population of the tribe may be a few hundreds. It is proposed that the author may include this in the main article on Babozai tribe.--Seraj-ul-Haq 17:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serajulhaque (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —CordeliaNaismith (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article deals with a tribe, not a city or location. Or am I wrong? I can't find any informations about the subject, unrelated to Wikipedia. However, the problem could be caused by misspelling or simply by lack of references in English language. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's already included in Babozai, and this article adds nothing to that - if some notable information should be found about the various sub-sub-tribes, it can easily go in the main article. (It's arguable that Babozai should be split into two, one for the Pakistani town and one for the tribe, but that's for another time and place) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:44, 25 February 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 Ultra Q monsters. Black Kite 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juran (Ultra monster)[edit]

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

Non-notable monsters of the week from the Ultra man series, all the articles are totally unreferenced.

Gomess
Garamon
Kanegon
Kemur
Ragon
Bemular
Neronga

Ok that should be enough for now, there are still dozens to go through. Ridernyc (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge all into a list. If there is already a list, redirect to it. Should be the default treatment for material of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is a list somewhere, not sure which one would be the right one though. Once you start exploring you find lists, of lists, of sublists.....

Delete- as unsourced fancruft. A merge is not appropriate for the following reasons: a) the material to be merged is unsourced fancruft, b) the lists into which this junk is to be merged are already choc-a-block full of unsourced fancruft, don't need any more and are probably good candidates for deletion themselves, and c) most of these articles were already spun out of the lists against the good advice here, which suggests that articles about fiction should not degenerate into a mass of excessive in-universe coverage about trivia. Reyk _YO! 05:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just so people have an idea of how big this problem is take look here Ultra_Monsters, when you first look at you think not bad most of them don't have articles. Then you start scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. I'm sorry but I don't think merging is a realistic option. First there is no way anyone is going to do the work to straighten out the mess and perform the merges. Second even if we do merge we end up with this List_of_Ultra_Q_monsters and I'm sorry but I don't see that as any sort of improvement. Ridernyc (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of the mentioned articles already have some skin on them and can be improved. Most are definitely not "non-notable" (just look at the japanese pages for them, for example Kanegon which is very notable) and interesting source for people not familiar with them. Shocklord (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate list. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I just edited and referenced the Kanegon article, and will do so shortly for the other Monsters as well. The Ultra Q monsters from the 60s are an important element of japanese culture and deserve an entry. After all, there are articles for King Kong and Gill-man and nobody's questioning them. Rather than deletion, the improvement of these articles should be encouraged. Shocklord (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through your second keep !vote, we only get one go each. Someone another 18:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ultra Q monsters so as not to lose the content. Like all character articles, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in order to establish notability for these. Shocklord has located two good sources, Kaiju Fan and Sci Fi Japan, both of which are episode guides, one for Ultra Q and the other for Ultra Q: Dark Fantasy. They don't cover the monsters in enough detail to warrant individual articles, but they point to what we should have here, episode lists like this. A decent, verified episode list would knock these individual articles and the list of Ultra Q Monsters into a cocked hat in terms of reader usability and compliance with misc. policies and guidelines. Someone another 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all If there is enough to fill an article on its own, it deserves its own article. If not, a redirect to a list article can be done. Probably find more sources in Japanese news and book sources. Dream Focus 01:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Delete all~~ As Someoneanother said, what little objective material there is should be saved but even after Shocklord's treatment of Kanegon I see no secondary sources establishing notability for the monster, just for the episodes. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check [73] or type "カネゴン"(Kanegon) into google and you'll very easily see it's notable. Just because you never heard of something doesn't mean it should not be mentioned in wikipedia. Every child in Japan knows the story of Kanegon. Shocklord (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Japenese -> English machine translations are terrible, but if there actually are sources that can back up what I think that article is saying, then it seems plenty notable enough for an article so I retract my previous opinion. I think the focus needs to be on why it's notable, but that's a problem with many fiction articles, so not a particular issue with this, but please provide sources regarding the real-world notability for articles like this that are harder for english-speakers to search for. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now added references, including few available english-language books, to all monster articles mentioned. Shocklord (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah directories of every character in a series are great for referencing lists of characters not for referencing individual articles. Are you planning on on add 3rd party sources and real world context and character development. Ridernyc (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to delete this as well: Gena_the_Crocodile ?? I really don't understand why people put so much effort into deleting information rather than providing it ... Shocklord (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to List of Ultra Q monsters The articles do contain references, so interested editors can use such sources to aid a merge:

List of sources in Garamon
The Q-Files, Complete Ultra Q Episode Guide by Jim Cirronella & Kevin Grays, Originally published in KAIJU-FAN Issue # 4 November 1996 [74]. Ultra Q Episode Guide [75]. Eiji Tsuburaya: Master of Monsters: Defending the Earth with Ultraman and Godzilla, by August Ragone, Chronicle Books (2007), ISBN 978-0811860789 Ultraman Monster Ultra Large Collection　(orig.: ウルトラ怪獣大全集), Domdom (1995), ISBN 978-4091014115 So Crazy Japanese Toys!, by Jimbo Matison, Chronicle Books (2003), ISBN 978-0811835299

List of sources in Garamon

The Q-Files, Complete Ultra Q Episode Guide by Jim Cirronella & Kevin Grays, Originally published in KAIJU-FAN Issue # 4 November 1996 [74].
Ultra Q Episode Guide [75].
Eiji Tsuburaya: Master of Monsters: Defending the Earth with Ultraman and Godzilla, by August Ragone, Chronicle Books (2007), ISBN 978-0811860789
Ultraman Monster Ultra Large Collection　(orig.: ウルトラ怪獣大全集), Domdom (1995), ISBN 978-4091014115
So Crazy Japanese Toys!, by Jimbo Matison, Chronicle Books (2003), ISBN 978-0811835299

Cunard (talk) 03:46, 28 February 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) 18:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Mascarenhas[edit]

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

Notability. Claudio Mascarenhas hasn't made any impact in the classical music world and also is not notable as an actor. No sources (I googled it and didn't get much). All active musicians perform in concerts (with orchestras, in concert halls etc), but not all deserve an article: this Brazilian singer hasn't sung a principal role with a major opera company. He's won some scholarships but no a major music award. Karljoos (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not come close to WP:MUSICBIO. The groups he has performed with (Regina Opera, One World Symphony) are not notable ensembles. They generally have conservatory students as their soloists, or musicians who never made the big leagues (full disclosure: I played in both of these ensembles when I was a conservatory student in NYC). Wine Guy~Talk 09:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srilankan papare[edit]

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

Very vague and unsourced; almost qualifies for CSD A1 (no context). If notable enough to be recreated, it can be done by proper spacing. SS✞^(Kay) 00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, it is indeed vague, short and unsourced, but a Google search returned a few relevant links. Considering the current situation of the article, however, deletion is the best option here, unless someone more familiarized with the subject do some major editing there. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article is kept, the name will have to change. Which is better Sri Lankan papare, or simply Papare? There's already an article at the latter, which is a one-line stub about a New Guinean deity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename to Papara Music or Papara band. Salveable, There are some reliable sources.--Chanaka L (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. There are plenty of reliable sources found by this search. "Papara", "papare" and "papara papara" all seem to be potential names for the article, with a disambiguator if necessary. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. There do seem to be enough references on the web to support notability, so a little fleshing out and a citation or two should at least make it a stub article worth keeping -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 20 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Blackman[edit]

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

The article is about a Lib Dem PPC in the upcoming general election, and by the looks of things is no more notable than any other PPC who may be standing. The article also seems to be biased towards the LibDems. I propose that the article be deleted and only recreated if Mr. Blackman gains any further notability. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The focus of the article appears to be on his LibDem PPC status. He is nevertheless a leading UK human rights lawyer and as the article states, tucked away at the bottom, Chairman of Solicitors International Human Rights Group. His "leading UK human rights lawyer" status is endorsed by Doughty Street Chambers who should be considered a reasonable authority on the subject [76] Opbeith (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that "by the looks of things is no more notable than" is a poor basis for proposing deletions. If the proposer is unable to do the very little research that reveals something more significant they might consider their time would be better spent on contructive rather than destructive effort. There's absolutely nothing to stop the proposer from revising the article to focus its content on the more notable aspects of the subject's career. Opbeith (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that at his User page the proposer describes himself as living in Surrey and a supporter of the Conservative Party. Heigh-ho. Opbeith (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the article myself. It was probably pointless suggesting that a local Tory might consider doing it (to be clear I'm not a LibDem and I don't live anywhere near the constituency and nor do I have any connection with Lionel Blackman). Opbeith (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency). Blackman seems far less notable than is being suggested above. A search of Google News archives shows that almost all of the references to "Lionel Blackman" are about a Florida psychiatrist. Most of the few stories I come up with about the British solicitor are passing references to him as the lawyer defending a former soldier in a case that became a minor cause celebre [77] [78] [79]. The sources provided in the article right now are little more than press releases, and overall I'm just not seeing "significant coverage" of Blackman. Per a recent consensus we've revised the guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN to say "in the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." I don't think Blackman has attained sufficient notability for an article, and since he is only a candidate a redirect to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency) (or to a specific article on that local election if we ever get it) seems the appropriate choice right now. As a side note, and not to be all crystal ballish, given the recent voting trends in this constituency it seems almost impossible that Blackman will win this election. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. Opbeith (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I'm being quite serious, and there's nothing fatuous in my comment above as you suggest in your edit summary. You're welcome to disagree with my rationale, of course, but there's no reason to belittle it, particularly since it's clearly a strong argument per our existing guidelines. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that was my immediate response, I was in the middle of keying some more as you replied. What have Florida psychiatrists and the gun case to do with the substance of his HR work with SIHRG and Justice for Colombia campaign? That's more significant than the so-far non-event of him being a PPC. The range of Google references is in itself meaningless, it's the relevant content that's significant. I give up.Opbeith (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that was my reply I was describing as pointless, not your. Opbeith (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are getting so frustrated here, it's pretty normal for people to disagree at AfD. Clearly I mentioned the Florida psychiatrist because it shows that while a lot of Gnews hits come up for "Lionel Blackman," 95% of them are not the person we are talking about. What I did find (cited above) are only brief mentions of him relating to one particular case. These are exactly the kind of points we routinely bring up in AfDs, there's nothing odd about it. I understand he has done some human rights work, but that does not automatically make him notable (he's mentioned as one of a number of lawyers who were involved with Columbia, and there are literally tens of thousands of lawyers who have received brief mentions online in similar situations). The general guideline is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (i.e. the "range of Google references" can actually be quite important). Do you see "significant coverage" anywhere? Without that Blackman is not notable enough for an article, and we should redirect per WP:POLITICIAN. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get frustrated by the environment of unwillingness to allow information to be available and in its most usable form. I understand the purpose of Wikipedia rules as supporting a non-exploitative and adequately verifiable structure of information provision. But the fact that the Florida psychiatrist either warrants his own article or is a smart self-publicist is irrelevant. Unless I'm local, it's Blackman's international human rights activities that are the more likely reason I'm going to be interested in finding out about him, and specifically as Chair of SIHRG. If I'm interested in UK lawyers' involvement in human rights work in Pakistan or Colombia or Philippines or Bangladesh or Mexico or Zimbabwe the history of the Esher and Walton constituency or the candidates for an election which hasn't even been called yet are actually going to get in my way in finding out what I want to know.

SIHRG was set up by Geoffrey Bindman and Michael Ellman (previous Chair when LB was Vice-Chair), it has Bindman, Clive Stafford Smith and Phil Shiner as patrons, who I presume as patrons might be considered as more than mere agents of notability contagion. SIHRG works closely with Amnesty International, Justice for Colombia (which is the NGO set up to deal with its Colombia concerns by the British Trades Union Congress), Commonwealth Lawyers Association, Public Interest Lawyers, Garden Court Chambers, etc. Look at the SIHRG activities in the Bulletins downloadable at http://sites.google.com/a/sihrg.org/solicitors-international-human-rights-group/october-2008-bulletin. - they have speakers at meetings from the top of the humanitarian law profession including Shami Chakrabarti, Richard Gifford, Prof. Bill Bowring, Gugulethu Moyo, Geraldine van Buren, evidence of professional respect rather than contagion.

Does notability boil down to Google hits? If so, so be it, that's the way it is, but it's frustrating. Blackman is hardly notable as an untested PPC so if his HR activities are irrelevant then might as well go for Delete rather than Esher and Walton. (Incidentally with the previous LibDem candidate getting 30 per cent of the vote last time and the current political climate it's hardly "impossible" that he may get elected, but that's another matter). Opbeith (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your points above suggest to me that what we need is an article on Solicitors International Human Rights Group, and if anything Blackman should be discussed/redirected to there. If the group is notable as you say, it makes more sense to have an article about it rather than the person who happens to be the chairman at the moment and who is otherwise not especially notable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if a groups (excuse the absence of apostrophes, Wikipedia is going to and fro between allowing me to use them and doing odd things when I try) notable - and Im not pre-empting that issue - then the person responsible for it conducting its notable activities is only notable if he or she gets enough publicity for doing so? This seems to be imposing a rather skewed notion of notability, that might be better expressed as "noticeability". I dont see any reason for not doing an article on SIHRG but Im certainly not going to start one and have someone jumping on me to delete it because I havent got it perfect. Opbeith (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is basically yes, though it might depend somewhat on the group. Our general notability guideline is here, and that's the overarching rule for just about any topic. If a person is not getting significant coverage in reliable source, we do not generally have an article about them. It's pretty simple, and is not so much about "publicity" or "noticeability" but simply about whether secondary sources have talked about the person or topic in question or not. There are thousands upon thousands of notable organizations and businesses, and their leaders (CEO, Director, chairman, president, etc.) usually change quite frequently. It would be horribly ill-advised to have articles about all of these folks, many of which would simply say "she was the president of ______, until she resigned" assuming the person was not discussed to some significant degree in reliable sources, as seems to be the case here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's (apostrophes working again) not an unreasonable argument/explanation, though I can't say I'm convinced when the outcome is the loss of information that's useful and made accessible by Wikipedia - sum of human knowledge in one place. The rules are essentially there to prevent abuse and inaccuracy. If an organisation is notable, it's not unreasonable to assume the notability of someone deemed suitable or with the authority to become the head of it, however often the leader may change, in the absence of a quota for the absolute number of articles or volume of content. So in the end, more Pikachu and notable porn stars - notability does seem to boil down to noticeability, which is why it's not worth trying to create serious articles that have to be defended beyond the amount of time they're worth. But anyhow, we're on to arguments of principle. Opbeith (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references establish his notability under our rules. He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plenty of references, but all but one either fail to qualify as reliable sources, or relate to his council seat and candidacy as an MP, which doesn't count. That leaves a mention of him representing a case that got the attention of Channel 4 news. I found a few other news stories where he was mentioned as a representative in a legal case, but nothing about the person himself. Falls a long way short of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how Legal Action Group, the most prominent UK human rights law practices, Commonwealth Lawyers Association, an NGO representing 40 UK trades unions, etc., are all assumed to be unreliable sources, assumed to be willing to associate themselves with and report / describe someone passing himself off as more important than he is? The Clarke case was widely reported - it got rather more than just "the attention of Channel 4 News", though that's hardly insignificant in itself, but how many references are necessary? That got the widely reported publicity but it was the Morgans case that makes Jackman more significant - http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000217/morgan-3.htm But that only describes his intervention in a significant role in a significant case, of course it says "nothing about the person himself". Clearly moderate notability is not imputable on the basis of a body of evidence - it has to be as explicit as a Playboy centrefold (explicit, that is, in the sense that as I understand it a Playboy Playmate qualifies as notable ipso facto). Opbeith (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, on second glance Legal Action Group probably could qualify as a reliable source (assuming this publication is editorially independent of Mr. Blackman), but this is still a minor mention in a much larger article. All of the other mentions are either incidental to cases or events that Mr. Blackman was involved in, or letters or press releases that he put his name to. The bottom line is that you don't get notability by association, and that means simply representing a client in a notable case doesn't get you a Wikipedia article. Might be able to make an exception if it was a major landmark case, but this isn't it. Do you have any articles in independent reliable sources about Lionel Blackman himself? That might change things. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Being a councillor is NN, but I still consider that PPCs for major parties should be kept until the election is over, and if necessary culled afterwards. I suspect that his advocacy roles and being the first solicitor to address the House of Lords provide slight notability, but we need associated articles such as Solicitors' International Human Rights Group before that is clear. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If people aren't notable now they won't be after the election and Blackman has zero chance of winning Esher. The best solution to this would be short referenced bios of major candidates in the relevant constituency article though this in itself requires making a judgement call. There are a number of seats were UKIP, the Greens and the BNP for example have a good chance of beating one of the main three parties for third place so in those cases it would be difficult to justify. Valenciano (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned previously, it's his HR activities that are significant, he's hardly notable as an untried PPC, but given that the previous LibDem candidate got 30 per cent of the vote last time out, his chances are hardly "zero", so "wait and see" wouldn't be unreasonable.Opbeith (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above regarding the "do we have articles on PPCs for major parties" issue, there was a recent discussion about this and it was decided to slightly adjust the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN to read as follows: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." So assuming Blackman does not otherwise meet the notability guideline (which I believe to be true), standing for election is not good enough and the article should be redirected. Note that this decision about WP:POLITICIAN came out of a past AfD similar to this one and was discussed here at some length with the express purpose of providing a standard for these exact situations. I think we need to abide by that consensus for now (it's not irrelevant that Peterkingiron was the only person who opposed it), which means this article should be turned into a redirect. If by chance Blackman wins we can always restore the article later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, I'm afraid it's going to be difficult to get anyone to spend time doing a Solicitors' International Human Rights Group article in the knowledge that this is what lies in wait, I'm certainly not daft enough to. The point I was trying to make was that when it comes to major - notable - organisations issuing invitations to be a participant in a panel of international observers or acting as patrons or providing speakers on a regular basis and in particular joining as co-signatories in open letters in public appeals on important subjects, this is not notability by contagion. It's endorsement. When Justice for Colombia - with its own TUC-backed status - assembles a group of lawyers whom Doughty St Chambers are prepared to confirm are a group of leading UK human rights lawyers, that is source reliability twice over. When Justice for Colombia highlight five delegation participants on the cover of their report Rule of Law - Doughty Street, Garden Court, Old Square, Thompsons (all up the top of the tree) and fifthly Lionel Blackman - that is not notability by contagion; it is not an arbitrary association, it is an indication that the participant was a member of a select group chosen on the basis of merit. Or is that simply guesswork - might Lionel Blackman have been chosen by lottery as the lucky nonentity picked at random to make up the numbers? When Jackman is listed as one of only four individual endorsers of the Stop the Wall Palestine open letter, alongside Luisa Morgantini (ex Vice President of the European Parliament), Michael Mansfield QC and Fanny-Michaela Reisin, the inclusion of his signature is not arbitrary. Similarly when Graem Mew of Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association (CLA) and Mark Muller of the Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) issue a joint statement on human rights and attacks on lawyers and court officers in Zimbabwe, the status of a cosignatory is hardly to be considered equivalent to that of Lady Gaga's niece.

When the opening up of solicitor advocacy was one of the most notable developments in the UK legal profession in recent years and a solicitor advocate then goes on to win a case taken up from the magistrates' court to the House of Lords, the highest forum of English law (as it was at the time), is the report of the case itself not a reliable enough source in itself? Do non-notable cases succeed before the House of Lords? There's surely enough evidence of judgment by Blackman's peers, one way or another, even if press releases weren't newsworthy enough to get sufficiently regurgitated in the press to provide the Wikipedia formal seal of approval. Opbeith (talk) 00:52, 23 February 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.