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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav University Debate Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-Notiable student debating club - has been AfD before see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yugo Deb Net - on a Google search top 2 hits are WP, the third links to a page with no ref to them, the fourth mentions them in passing and the fifth is to a list of NGO's. No GNews hits, no Google Books hits, no Google Scholar hits. No coverage outside debate results pages in the form of "Jo Blogs from Yugoslav University Debate Network" - even there own website is dead. Not sure that the page meets WP:V let alone WP:GNG or WP:ORG or WP:CLUB Codf1977 (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 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 Speedy Delete Probable hoax. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pischia Tennis Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

WP:HOAX and fails WP:V. I can't find anything related to this 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships on Google. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domonik has also created 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships – Women's Singles, 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships – Men's Singles, 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles & 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles. This AfD entry and User:Sebiku are also somehow related to this user. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 00:24, 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) 00:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian humour music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not really a genre. There is no history, No development. Seems to try to just lump together every comedian that uses music and is australian into one category. 100% original research essay. Ridernyc (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just seems fishy. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR. WWGB (talk) 07:32, 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Brulein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article lacks references and support for statements. ttonyb (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep the article has numerous references to articles, interviews, IMD pages and official film festival pages. MrDirector (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, per WP:ARTIST, he does not meet the criteria for notability. Also, IMDb pages are not considered notable coverage, see WP:NF. The same with the film festival pages. (GregJackP (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment and written articles and interviews by respected journalists are not considered notable coverage? MrDirector (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I see only one article that might fall into "non-trivial" coverage - that would be the French language interview. Unfortunately, the overall coverage for the individual is not substantial enough to support notability. As pointed out above, the IMDB references do not meet the criteria for reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and userfy if requested. With respects to MrDirector, written articles and interviews in reliable sources are indeed worth considering... but so far I was only able to find the French one. If you can show articles that are not in blogs or in self-published websites, they would be welcome. Also, the claim of being a criticaly acclaimed director for his many short films also needs to be confirmed, as that would go far in meeting the notability requirements of Wikipedia. They need not all be in English. Any more French or Belgium sources to be found? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 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) 00:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of App Store applications (Science) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a completely subjective list of mostly or entirely non-notable apps for the iPhone. There are countless applications, and simply listing a handful you think might relate to science in some way isn't encyclopedic. -- Atama頭 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete WP:NOTCATALOG. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Ahunt (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see no value here. There is no indication of notability, no useful content, and no apparent selection criteria. —Roguelazer (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as prodder. Wikipedia is neither a price list nor a catalog. I found this as I was checking out the deletion discussion for its redirect List of App Store applications - do I see a speedy deletion of dependent page coming? B.Wind (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I don't see how this is particularly encyclopaedic but I'm not that bothered either way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Why does there need to be an article on Science Apps, most of which are about as notable as a news story about someone going to the shops to buy milk? PerthMod (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the redirect discussion is here -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW delete per above. Pcap ping 17:52, 2 March 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salonpas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Prod contested on the grounds of the number of Google hits. While that is true, most of those hits are from primary sources and resellers. Google News, however, comes up empty, and Google Scholar shows several trivial mentions of this drug in medical papers and a few false positives. Much of the article is a coatrack article regarding the drug maker's reaction to an FDA ruling. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Factual correction. Google News in fact comes up far from empty, so I would urge anyone commenting here to check out the search results linked above rather than take the nominator's word at face value. I would also point out that the WP:PROD was not contested on the basis of the number of Google web search hits, but on the content of the much more relevant Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News archive hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected about Google News, my search string was just "Salonpas", not the one linked to by the above template. Lots of false positives, though. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Of the many G News hits, about 3/4 are relevant, and of these, very few are truly significant. But the OTC article [1] gives the basic information reliably. The miscellaneous GNews hits are enough to show the product is in widespread use. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am convinced that this is a notable health product, based on personal experience (its available at numerous different pharmacies), and any lack of adequate sources or evidence of excessive coverage of trivial details in this article can be overcome. This may be trimmed, but should stay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be inclined, at this point, to withdraw my nomination based on an IAR acknowledgement that the number of trivial mentions of this drug in Google Scholar is enough to confer notability. Notability guidelines are just that - guidelines - and occasionally there are situations that warrant ignoring them. But personal experience and availability in drugstores do not confer notability per se. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, i guess i just want to indicate that there is an indication of strong evidence for notability which can then be researched. thanks for using g scholar. confession: i often forget to use this search.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clean up and consider moving to a generic name. The current article contains borderline advert and a good bit of coatrack (see "Salonpas FDA approval and current monograph status"). That said, deletion is not for clean-up. I would suggest rewriting and moving the article to a generic discussion of transdermal analgesics. Although Salonpas is currently the only such patch sold in the USA, it is far from the only company making and selling similar patches around the world. Cnilep (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable bootleg per WP:MUSIC with one unreliable source. Any meaningful content can be merged into Unreleased_Pink_Floyd#Live_at_Montreux_Casino, which is itself a bit ropey. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, no mergeable content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable bootleg, one unreliable source. The notability claims in this article (e.g. the length of one of the songs) do not constitute notability per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, no mergeable content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well kept article with a lot of sources popping up if you actually googled it. Str8cash (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prove it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nota bene: [2] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. I'm a Pink Floyd fan, but there's no evidence this album has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Would be very happy to be proven wrong on this one, but I couldn't find anything myself. — Satori Son 14:54, 4 March 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 without prejudice towards a recreation based on independent, reliable sources if/when those are available. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Murugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Probable autobiography. References sourcing facts about the topic all lead to unreliable sources. Contested PROD. Amalthea 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article: The sources are published and reliable in my opinion. Minimac (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not really a matter of opinion. Can you point out the sources that are both reliable and cover the topic in detail, as asked for by WP:N? I don't see any. Artistsites.org certainly isn't reliable, but user-generated content as far as I can tell. And the other three sources don't mention the topic. Amalthea 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the current mess of a BLP. None of the sources are reliable - they are user-made or press releases. The text is so badly mangled as to require a complete rewrite. Based on my ultimate Google search, I doubt this can be sourced at all with English language sources. Every time I eliminated a false term, the number of Ghits went down dramatically. What was left was a bunch of directory listings, many obviously not this person. Otherwise, userfy and fix it. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while it is a good thing to try to counteract the pro-Western hemisphere bias in Wikipedia, the sources in the current article do not serve to show that the subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER. --bonadea contributions talk 10:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Špejbls Helprs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable tribute act. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability in the article; the only link or references is to the band's own website. I can find nothing on google apart from myspace, blogs, etc, so unless there is stuff I have missed this group fails WP:BAND. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 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) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

34 Greening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article about not notable student residence that cannot be speedily deleted under current CSD. No assertion of notability, other than they use the word "notable" in the article. G-hits do not show any National Register type reference. Some would delete this perhaps as total nonsense, but not sure of the temperature of those particular waters these days. It reads like the creation of a group of frat boys seeking some hint of significance as their school days draw to a close. Dlohcierekim 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It appears to be an essay of someone's personal view about their dorm building and they posted it to Wikipedia instead of their blog. I can't find any coverage on this building.--Oakshade (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have nothing to add that hasn't been said. It doesn't seem to make WP:NOTE. When there was a Speedy Delete Tag on the article, I asked for the reasoning behind the hangon tag on the article's Talk Page, but never got a response. --Avicennasis 06:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above. No evidence of notability, not even an assertion of notability. Sounds vaguely like an essay I wrote about my dorm room years ago. That one wasn't notable either.--SPhilbrickT 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you nailed it-- an essay for am English comp class. Dlohcierekim 15:00, 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 speedy close. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Rot (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I propose a delete of redirect page Windows Rot. Target page does not describe/qualify Windows Rot and nothing links (WhatLinksHere) to Windows Rot. 1st AfD in January 2009 ended in a majority for delete (4 votes); 2 voted keep, but article need source; 2 voted redirect, yet the page was redirected which was against consensus. Meewam (talk) 21:48, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meile Rockefeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This was an unsourced BLP and I've added a source to deal with that problem, but I don't think Ms. Rockefeller meets the criteria of the general notability guideline. She's mentioned in a couple of 1980s stories about real estate, and her biggest press splash came when she was arrested for protesting the Rockefeller Drug Laws. It's one incident and I don't think that's sufficient to warrant an article, and obviously her notability is not inherited from her more famous relatives. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge I think she's notable enough, but if not how about merging into the Rockefeller drug laws article? Her protesting arrest is the main source of her notability, so please at least merge if not keep. Vampyrecat (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merge was actually my first thought, but that article is pretty short (lots of organizations have organized against the Rockefeller laws and we should really have a whole section on opposing/protesting them) so it may not work. Still I'm definitely open to that possibility, particularly if we can expand the target article, but I'm fairly convinced she should not have her own article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability is not inherited, retrieve whatever content is relevant to past it elsewhere (where it is relevant). -RobertMel (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @952  ·  21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to be enough ghits about her campain contributions, real estate, and arrest to be notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If her real estate work is sufficient to get a short NYT article, and a discussion in another, and her activism enough to get a long one, then she is notable. There are also of course articles in other NY newspapers. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources appear to make the bar. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. The subject passes the letter of the notability guidelines, but I can't help thinking that an article on any subject with equivalent coverage in, say, Tehran or Tianjin would not be treated so favourably. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I didn't expect my point to be confirmed quite so quickly, but reading down a few articles in the daily AfD log I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Lisa Brookshire, a discussion about a subject who seems to have roughly equivalent notability to Meile Rockefeller but hasn't attracted the same kind of support. This isn't an "other stuff exists" argument, but a plea for consistency between Western subjects and those from the developing world. I would invite those commenting here to consider why this article is heading for a "keep", but that one is heading for a "delete". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much good faith in that paragraph of yours. maybe specific and non-trivial mentions in the NY Times made the difference compared to a puff piece on an ideal date. You may be hung up on birth locations but please don't project that opinion onto others. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:46, 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. The article has been renamed Refsnes Gods. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article is about a non-notable hotel in Norway. (The article's title is actually spellt wrong - it should read Refsnes - with an extra "s".) I can't find any sources that support the notability of the hotel or the building itself. Online hits are almost all either advertising for the hotel or trivial (blogs, etc). Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - hmmm, not sure about notability of hotels, but there's an entry for the hotel here (with the alt. spelling of Refsnes Gods which actually seems to be the more common) which calls it "the most elegant resort in the environs of Oslo", and it also appears that the hotel is sometimes used for international conferences. (see google books link here. So assuming hotels are notable if they get mentioned in travel guides, I guess this one might be notable. Gatoclass (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my !vote to Keep. Given that the hotel dates to 1767, I think it would be notable just as an historic building alone. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User: Gatoclass. Frommer's, presumably a reliable source, says that it is "the most elegant resort in the environs of Oslo." That by itself should satisfy any notability concerns. --PinkBull 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I moved the article to the more appropriate name, per the above discussion. --PinkBull 00:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to its historic values, it's a notable private art gallery. Three of its Munch holdings were stolen in 2005. Both are now noted in the article and cited to independent sources. Novickas (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dayanand N. Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Except his two books in Statistics, google scholar report is below expectation for WP:PROF . The books are not popular textbooks outside. No breakthrough work or awards. Dayanand N. Naik a.k.a D. N. Naik fails to meet WP:PROF kaeiou (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: How does one evaluate whether a given textbook is widely used, in the context of WP:PROF? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good question - those numbers shown in Google are low for good books. Also who are in that academia may know. --kaeiou (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I think the books are more in the way of user's manuals than textbooks, and that most of the citations carry the meaning "I used the SAS software to do the data analysis for this research and I need something to cite that's about SAS" rather than demonstrating any actual impact of Naik's own work. That is, SAS is notable but I don't think its user manual is. As for Naik's own research, I see one paper with 75 citations and then it rapidly drops off; I don't think this is enough for WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein's analysis. Pcap ping 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. From GS link in article I find cites of 246, 157, 73, 25... h index = 9. Not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment 246 and 157 are for his books. Thx.--kaeiou (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

comment I just wanted to make it clear to users what these numbers are. Nothing perticular. thx--kaeiou (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add 'em Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Only sources are Golden-road.net, a fansite deemed non-notable. No other sources found, absolutely no individual notability. Last AFD was part of a bundle which claimed no prejudice to relisting separatey. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on unsourced & original research mentioned above. Article fails notability guidelines and first page of Google search results only lists links to fansites, YouTube and unrelated pages. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, just needs more sources.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Chris[reply]

• Delete. Another one I'd like to keep, but I can't find any sources that pass muster. The question isn't if the article is sourced, but whether it is sourceable - and if sources don't exist, they don't exist. The list of games provides some information, and that'll have to do for now. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:54, 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) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 Strikes (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Absolutely no sources found anywhere besides fansites. I removed an WP:OR section on "possible" cheaters. Last AFD was part of a bundle which closed as keep with no prejudice against renomination. Since the individual pricing games' articles are of varying quality, I think a smaller-scale renomination is in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on unsourced trivia & original research mentioned above. Article fails notability guidelines and is not significantly covered in other media. First page of Google search results only lists links to fansites, YouTube and other video sharing sites. Also, Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality and article subject is adequately covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd love to keep it, but I can't find the sources to do so. I'm surprised there aren't more books about the pricing games, given the show's history. I might try a more in-depth search later on. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is seriously original research and also fails notability guidelines. Also, there are no reliable sources to cover this article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crufty OR. Hairhorn (talk) 21:21, 2 March 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 as blatant original research. However I also recreated it as a redirect to C.O.P.S._(animated_TV_series)#Minor_supporting_characters on the off chance that somebody might actually search for this one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buttons McBoomBoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

non-notable, unsourced minor cartoon character from the 80s. Wikipedia is not a fansite.

• <del> — as nom; it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 19:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 19:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. There will be commentary out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge the article has insufficient reliable third persons info to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an article about a minor character from a minor 80s cartoon series, "sourced" entirely from a handful of youtube videos. It's inherently original research. Reyk _YO! 22:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Ranking System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails...well, everything. WP:N and WP:V to start. Couldn't find any reliable sources that addressed it. Using "universal ranking system" and "martial arts" on Google, I mostly got returns where someone wrote "there is no universal ranking system...". Of course Wikipedia and mirrors. In short, I'm tempted to call it a hoax. Aside from the 2 edits creating this article, the author has a coherent talk page edit in another article, so I'll AGF and not call it a hoax. Trying to search by the founders name is a fools errand. Aside from the 2 colleges of the same name, there are 18 Robert/Bob Morris articles on Wikipedia alone (none of which are this guy). Tagged for no refeences and notability for nearly a year. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice - not an easy term to search, but if it really does exist, and someone can produce real sources, try again.--SPhilbrickT 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete No reliable sources. Searches find either statements saying there is no universal ranking system in martial arts or discussion boards advocating a universal ranking system for MMA. Search for creator and system together produce only wikipedia/mirrors. Papaursa (talk) 01:11, 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) 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayukha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD. Prod reason "All this may be true, but it is not notable" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia isn't a dictionary or even a baby name meaning as this is.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not nearly enough for an article about a given name; just a dictionary definition and some numerological hokum. Favonian (talk) 23:16, 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. Yes, !votes from a "random IP" are taken into account, depending on the strength of the argument advanced. "There are no sources" is a better argument for delete than "It actually exists" is for keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Cube (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No citations, no indication of why this game is of real-world importance to include on Wikipedia, page has been orphaned for a year ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 18:16, 25 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) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the game actually exists Str8cash (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nota bene: [3] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just because a game is unlicensed doesn't mean it's not notable. Pirated games that are notable in the gaming community are just as important as Final Fantasy IV or Chrono Trigger. GVnayR (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while being game being pirated does not mean that an article cannot meet the notaibilty guidlines the fact that there are no sources whatsoever is another story. If this game is seen as important as the other two games listed it should not be hard to find several soucres covering it.--76.69.171.174 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do Deletes count if it's from a random IP? Str8cash (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "It exists" is not enough to qualify for an article. Notability amongst the gaming community is not relevant. The article does not demonstrate where the game has had significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable. Per the WP:GNG, a subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources." — Satori Son 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lemar's 5th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod, removed without explanation. Original deletion proposal by Disolveinarow (talk · contribs) because "Not an album yet released". Prod endorsed by myself for the following reason:

Per WP:NSONGS: "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it."

A few changes have been made since the deletion proposal but they don't seem to address the concerns. Adambro (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - way too early for a WP article, as sources cannot even agree on what year the album will be released. The nominator is correct about WP: SONGS, also applicable are WP: CRYSTAL and WP: HAMMER. The editors behind this article should realize that there is nothing wrong with exercising patience until the album becomes a reality. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's waaaaay too early. Plus, with the usual things that I look for in this type of page - i.e. tracklisting, name and release date - all missing, bring on the wall hammer!!! DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too early per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This album doesn't even have a title, that there is enough for deletion; aside from that, two contradicting release dates within the article, no track listing and very little significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lots of hammering these days. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. This fails WP:NALBUMS; WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut Grove School (London) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

For lack of notability. A Google-search for the school only gives hits on database like listings of schools and the school's own website. I propose Chestnut Grove School gets deleted along with it, since that disambiguation will then not link to anything. TheFreeloader (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This school exists, articles are written about it, and information is easy to find about it. The sources found on Google News (not to mention google books and elsewhere not so FUTONable) are certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - firstly it is a high school and I support the arguments for keeping high schools at WP:NHS. Secondly, there are several claims for notability; it is the first Arts College in England and was described by Ofsted as "Chestnut Grove School is an outstanding school.", assessed as Grade 1, the highest designation for a UK high school.[4] and there are plenty of sources from which the page can be expanded. Sure it is a sub-stub at present but the way forward is to expand it; always much harder than proposing deletion, but infinitely better for the development of the encyclopaedia. TerriersFan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have a well established practice of keeping all High school articles. The rationale has been said before: since 95% are notable if people look hard enough, it's not worth the trouble to bother discussing the others, and simpler to keep them all. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, like DGG says. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 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) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anjing banfa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Speedy was declined since the art doesn't fit any of the CSD categories. Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:N in general. Zero gnews returns. Gbooks got 1 return, a "who's who in california". It had 1400 ghits, marked by a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Mostly either stuff connected to him or blog entries. Article appears to be promotional in nature, being written by an author using the name of the founder, as their only wikipedia edit. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Completely promotional and fails all reasonable searches to even begin a listing of WP:V and WP:RS. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CobaltBlueTony said it one line advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 12:41, February 25, 2010
• Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Appears to be self promotional. jmcw (talk) 16:54, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steelers–Ravens rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Only one rarther poor refs to justify it being a notable rivalry. BUC (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many rivalry articles such as the yankees-red sox and michigan-ohio st. ones. No reason to delete this page. Str8cash (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nota bene: [5] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Str8cash may be someone's sockpuppet, but he is correct. The article can still be improved and does not need to be deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not a sockpuppet lol, where'd that come from? Str8cash (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently the IP after your response believes you are + the fact that you started your contributions at AFD with aknowledge simply much higher than most starters, I don't think it is a stretch to say you've been to Wikipedia before (perhaps under an IP address? another name?). To be honest, as long as you aren't banned/indef blocked/doing a good hand/bad hand account swap, I really could care less. And that's my point: your POV is accurate and you aren't being disruptive. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh alright, i understand. Every once in a while i come to the Afd page to help out, i didn't mean to do anything wrong as the IP Address person says, haha.Str8cash (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of football's best and most notable rivalries. ~ Richmond96 t • c 02:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: Any divisional rivalry is notable Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article can use better sources? Why not simply tag the article? A lack of something so readily available is no reason to nominate for delete... its a reason to improve the article. Some of the availabe souces include AFC North, USA Today, LA Times, KTVU, Baltimore Sun, ESPN, Denver Post, and a few others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: This is a legitimate rivalry and a legitimate topic for WP coverage. I agree that the article itself could be improved, but that's no reason to delete it.— DeeJayK (talk) 16:20, 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) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valeri Lilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by Glenfarclas (talk · contribs) but author's talk page comment indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial. Prod rationale was "Non-notable youth chess player who does not meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reason I stated in my PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG (references provided by article's author are neither independent nor significant coverage); and not notable for having IM norms: we have articles for well under 10% of even full IMs. —Korath (Talk) 21:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Edited only by a WP:SPA, so smacks of self-promotion. Pcap ping 05:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Gilchrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a biographical article is about an athlete in the British Universities American Football League, which I don't believe satisfies WP:ATHLETE. He supposedly will be drafted to the NFL in 2010, but this claim, and the entire article, is unsourced. A Google search turns up no hits that demonstrate this athlete meets our notability guidelines. PDCook (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search only yields profile and statistics pages. I do not find any articles or secondary sources that suggests the player is notable, hence he does not meat WP:BIO. He has not played a game at the highest level of his sport so he does not meat WP:Athlete. I would also like to add that whether he gets drafted or not is irrelevant, as he has to actually play a game to be considered notable under WP:Athlete, at least based on my interpretation of that section. MATThematical (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't mean to suggest that being drafted would satisfy WP:ATHLETE. I only mentioned it because it was the closest thing to any assertion of notability in the article. PDCook (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per the nomination, fails WP:ATHLETE and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. PackerMania (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Based on a search of the NewsBank database, as a supplement to the google search by MATThematical, I found no non-trivial coverage of this player. Cbl62 (talk) 07:02, 2 March 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, technically requested by an original author; but I have taken the liberty of moving the page to User:Liouxsie/Disingenuous Twaddle in case it should ever get the sort of needed coverage to become notable, or just because it's an editor's personal project and interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous Twaddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not notable in the slightest.

• Delete. Note that this is about an experimental language and art magazine... created in 2010... Lord knows, it does seem that we are awash in disengenuous twaddle at times, but this article is not about that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Methinks the creators are also removing the delete tags from the article itself. Sigh.... 86.2.118.52 (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Camuscando (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a vote, it's a discussion of reasons to keep or delete, so you need to explain why -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if the page is inappropriate, but reserve a space for when it is. Liouxsie (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notablity not established by coverage in other publications, but if it is then recreate article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the page is inappropriate, but reserve a space for when it is. Liouxsie (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; I indented and struck your second Delete comment; since this isn't a vote, one such comment is sufficient. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would hope that it followed in the footsteps of L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E rather than in the vein. Still, a monthly paper copy - gives them two issues. Hardly enough for notability. Especially as there appears to be no content yet. I quote from 21 Feb 2010: "The really good stuff will go up on this blog, the really, REALLY good stuff will be published in the first issue of a soon-to-be-regular zine! Made out of real paper!" I've been through the site and can find no more than begging for stuff to be sent. Sorry, guys. When you get some actual stuff to show, or fix the page so people can find the content - it might be just me that's missing great quantities of twaddle - and can reference it other than from a blog, forum, etc, then come back. Till then, remember - Wikipedia is not for promotion. Good luck with it, anyway. I might send you something - but not as Peridon (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. I agree that an article may become appropriate if the publication eventually becomes notable; as it stands, though, the article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before this gets unnecessarily lengthy: all comments appreciated, both constructive and negative. It was a shameless (though harmless) act of self-publicity and I apologise. Can't blame us - someone needs to be there to enjoy the material when it goes up (it's for our peers' benefit, and if they achieve even a little recognition, it's a worthwhile venture - this isn't begging for personal gain). Whoever is able to delete the thing, please go ahead and kill it before our tender spirits are well and truly obliterated. The creator, Liouxsie (talk) 19:22, 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) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concession (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable subject lacking reliable sources. It didn't even receive any awards from the fandom it narrowly aims at. Weissbaer (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unfortunately. I hate to see such a long and decently written article deleted, but it is simply not notable. All of the sources are similar, the only really notable one being cracked.com, which probably doesn't count since it's a satire website anyway. It's received no awards for anything, and the only media coverage seems to be the article on cracked (where, in fact, the comic is made fun of) and a panel at Anthrocon. While Anthrocon is notable, considering it has a Wikipedia article, I don't think that's enough to save it. I'm really on the fence about this article, and I feel bad voting delete on three articles who are covered by a WikiProject I'm a part of in just as many days, but rules are rules. I may change to keep if others post convincing information. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 15:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete - I personally do not think the page should be deleted yet, yes the comic may be up for an award shortly with the Ursa Majors, but even so, exactly how much notability in required? I realize the commentary on cracked.com wasn't exactly a favorable review, but it is an outside source of sorts and is referenced correctly, Concession does receive criticism for what its about, and should count as a reference nonetheless. Immelmann himself has worked on the Further Confusion con book, making himself more notable as published in the book itself, and as Baron said, Concession was featured in a panel for Anthrocon 2009. I honestly think that should be taken into consideration to being notable enough. Not to mention the comic has spawned two spin-off projects, both of which have been ongoing for over a year each, and the comic hosts its own server for all three of these projects, as well as a few others that needed hosting. I'm not saying the comic couldn't be more notable, but I think the references I've provided so far should be enough to keep the article from deletion, not every topic given an article on Wikipedia has earned awards. DarkMask (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me start by saying that I do not consider the Anthrocon panel notable. Anyone can run a panel at Anthrocon, so long as it is approved by staff. Meaning, someone completely un-notable may be running it, which makes it's inclusion as proof kind of iffy in my eyes. Anyone can run a panel about anything. Someone talking about something at a non-business convention doesn't really make something notable.

Furthermore, WP:WEB, which applies to this article, being a webcomic... well, it fails all three categories. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources (the only one in the article is Cracked, and being a satire site who was merely making fun of the comic, I'm not sure that even applies). It hasn't won a major award (yes, it may win one eventually, but it has not won one - one could argue that Ursa Major isn't well-known, as well, even if it did win), and the content is not distributed via a media that is not controlled by the owners.

I realize the comic hosts it's own server, but that is actually a negative per WP:WEB notability rules, since it is owned by the creator of the comic in question. Hosting other things does not matter, since all of the other things it hosts are just as non-notable as Concession is. Besides, all of this is invalid - the article is about Concession the webcomic, not the server Concession is hosted on. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this webcomic. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying at least. DarkMask (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete: At least not yet. It depends or not it wins the Ursa Major. Should it win, that's definitely something notable. Webwyre (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — Webwyre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and Userfy Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. One award does not necessarily establish notability. What kind of coverage will winning that award generate? --Bejnar (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SaaS integration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article has multiple issues - it's not verifiably notable, constitutes almost 100% original research and does not accurately reflect the subject (which is anyway generic and typically refers to services e.g. consulting), all of which are no doubt due to the conflict of interest that arises from the authors' company's flagship product being "SaaS integration" software. It was previously nominated for deletion exactly a year ago and barely survived with "no consensus", in part due to a "weak keep" vote from me, but as it has not improved and is flat out misleading I'm running with Strong Delete today. -- samj _in^out 14:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreadable hash of vague glittering generalities that seems likely aimed at selling something: A business objective is focused on the creation of accurate, consistent and transparent information flows. Saas integration emphasizes flexibility, agility and responsiveness. It is concerned with how the capability is integrated into business applications as well as how it is passed along from one business process to another. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of WP:NOTE, lack of WP:RS separate from the mass of WP:OR. Reads like an infomercial, not an encyclopaedia article. Verbal chat 16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is one among many written by a single author with probable conflict of interest, and its wording has too much of an advertising slant.—Tetracube (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete BBC Sessions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No sources, inappropriate tone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's an album that was never released (it's getting on for 2 years since it was apparently planned for release), and has no release date planned. The BBC radio sessions might themselves be notable (I have no idea), but until there's some sign of the album seeing the light of day, I don't think it's notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I created the article in anticipation of the album being released at some point. It doesn't look as if it's likely to be released any time soon (the band members have moved on to new projects) so I'm not going to raise any major objections ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 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) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No indication of notability. Google shows no signs of significant coverage by reliable sources necessary to meet the notability requirements for web content. PROD and notability tags were removed by the author without explanation. Rankiri (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources, and it's borderline spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 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) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONGS (sidenote: article creator may be a sockpuppet of brexx - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx Alan - talk 04:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough sources, didn't chart, digital-only release. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mwangi Mukami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This admirable individual does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The only thing close to independent third-party coverage about him is a non-news video piece in the NYT. That piece (I reviewed it in its entirety) doesn't give any details of the subject whatsoever--it is more along the lines of an interview. None of the other sources cited amounts to significant third-party coverage, either, nor was I able to identify any after good faith news, web, and book searches. ^Bongo_matic 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he and his work were recognised by the Georgia General Assembly (see [6]). I guess this is the political equivalent of a bronze medal or an Booker prize nomination, making him notable. - TB (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a notable award. One way this can be demonstrated is that it wasn't noted—not in any newspapers that can be searched in the Google archives, not in any newspapers that can be searched in Factiva, and not in the Atlanta Constitution. More generally, this isn't the sort of recognition that is subject to senate debate, gubernatorial approval, or any other sort of rigorous vetting. This sort of thing generally comes at the request of a constituent or the direct attention of an individual who happens to serve in the state legislature. ^Bongo_matic 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(More discussion between Bongomatic and myself on the subject here - TB (talk) 18:25, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, his national status and recognition by the US embassy and other organisations is enough. I'll add that the article needs a fair bit of work and better referencing. This should be undertaken soon. (Milestokilo (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)) — Milestokilo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• NOTE, the article creator should come back and start doing the references and tidy up sooner than later. Thanks (Milestokilo (talk) 13:20, 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, Pcap ping 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Will very possibly be notable in active life, at which time in which there can be an article DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Taylor (businesswoman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This BLP appears to fail notability using WP:AUTHOR as I find no significant published works using google. She may be a well established professional, however based on publications I only see co-authored books that do not appear to be a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. There may be a basis of notability if she is widely cited by her peers but I have found insufficient evidence for those grounds though a number of press releases and articles derivative of press releases can be found on GNews. Ash (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm not seeing a particularly strong claim of notability (or viable sources) here either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G12 Copyvio. Article deleted at 12:52, 26 February 2010 by Lectonar. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Component of environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This just seems to pulling together a random collection of stuff about environmental issues from other sources. I found one part of it here, and another part here (doc). The title is nonsense too - if there is anything of value here, which I really doubt, it should be added to the relevant Wikipedia articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I suspect that this is a copy-and-paste straight from a high school term paper. Or maybe college. Adds nothing to any existing school of environmentalism or coverage of known issues and problems. Maybe some of the text here could be added to existing articles on environmental issues. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:08, 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 Sufficiently sourced Mike Cline (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjatō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

After nearly six years, this article still lacks any reference to reliable sources to collaborate any of the fictional claims it poses as fact, and even after a merge there appears to be no interest in finding any. Binarywraith (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Once all of the original research has been removed, there is nothing left. --DAJF (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: There does seem to be quite a lot of stuff out there about this, eg - [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. There does seem to be some disagreement about how much is genuine and how much is Hollywood fiction, and I'm not sure how notable those sources are (though plenty of people seem to sell the things). I've only gone for a weak keep based on those doubts. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keeep. Reliable sources? So hard to find, supposedly? OK. I present you for example this article Black Belt (btw the magazine article needs to be completely rewritten, it's a mess) or this whole book (no prevew avaible) or this fragment from a novel by Stephen K. Hayes or this and [13] and this and this fragments from some non-fiction books. And so on, just a few examples - but I guess this is enough? You guys (Binarywraith & DAJF) are just REALLY bad at research.You should be ashamed of yourself as you are apparently claiming to be na wannabe encyclopedia editors or something. --79.162.148.194 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and tell me what did you mean by "fictional claims it poses as fact", and what are your sources for this. --79.162.148.194 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My intent was to note that the claims the article makes, while within the ideas presented for fictional ninja in media, are not substantiated by any reliable source as attributes of a historical weapon. If you have good sources, please do add them! Binarywraith (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I just showed you it is in fact "substantiated by any reliable source as attributes of a historical weapon". What now? Oh and about "how much is Hollywood fiction" - Hollywood has nothing to do with this. If anything it would be "how much is Japanese popular culture fiction/myth/folklore". Maybe. --79.162.142.22 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why won't you check out the Japanese Wikipedia article on the subject and how is this constructed? --79.162.142.22 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have looked fairly briefly at the references provided by the anonymous editor above (excluding the one which is not available online). While I have not read every word of every one of them, I cannot immediately see that they support many of the statements in the article. If they do then perhaps the anonymous editor (or someone else) can point out just where the sources confirm what statements in the article. As for the sources given by Boing! said Zebedee, only a couple of them look reliable to me, and, far from confirming the content of the article, several of them actually contradict it, and suggest that the whole popular notion of Ninjato is largely mythical. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep disagree with nominator, per sources given above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable subject per sources given above, including an entire black belt mag. article on it and frequent mentions in other Ninja-related works. It's true that sorting out how much is legend and how much is fact is not easy here but that's why an encyclopedia entry for it based on principles of neutrality, verifiability, no original research, and reliance on reliable sources will be useful: It's a common enough term that someone might want to get a better idea on what's fact and fiction. JJL (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep many things have one face in the historical world and another in fiction. The fictional reality is not any less by being fictional. --Bejnar (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven - 80's Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No sources are provided and I cannot find anything about this band at all. Would consider this a speedy deletion candidate but there is some assertion of importance (notable band members). Quantpole (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources at all. Str8cash (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nota bene: [14] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The above note headed "Nota bene" has been added by the same anonymous editor to several AfDs that Str8cash has contributed to. The link simply shows some of Str8cash's edit history, indicating that he/she has contributed to a number of AfD discussions. I do not know what the point is meant to be. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete The band did exist. It was formed just for the John Peel session mentioned in the article, and never did anything else. After extensive searching the only source I have located is this one. By no stretch of imagination can this be considered to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely Delete. sorry it's a no-brainer. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a scratch band whose entire career comprised one radio session is not notable, no matter who its members were -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tómas Davíð (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, unreferenced, nearly zero coverage online and none from WP:Reliable sources. Started out as what looked like a hoax page with minor edits to a paste of Jón Þór Birgisson, but even with the Sigur Ros stuff removed non-notability remains. Speedy deletion repeatedly contested by creator and anonymous IP editor. MuffledThud (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The anonymous IP editor has stated in this edit that he/she is Tómas Davíð's manager, and also that the article has been created with the express purpose of being used for promotion. In the edit summary to this edit, the creator of the article (Listarmadur) states that he is Tómas Davíð's manager. This is entirely consistent with the impression I had already formed that they were one and the same. I feel sympathy for someone who comes new to Wikipedia, puts a lot of work into creating an article without being aware of our policies, and then finds their work being deleted. Nevertheless, unfortunately the article has, as I said, been created with the express purpose of promotion, and is inconsistent with our policies. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - preferably speedy delete There is no evidence of notability or significance, either in the article or found on searching. Since speedy deletion tags have, as stated above, been repeatedly removed by the author (including the IP, who states in effect he is the same person) there is no reason why it should not be speedily-deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have spent a considerable amount of time searching for sources on Tómas Davíð. It took some effort, as both names are common in Iceland, so some effort was required to avoid references to other people called Tómas Davíð, and it was also necessary to bypass Google's default behaviour of accepting "David" instead of "Davíð". The end result was that I found nothing at which could possibly relate to this Tómas Davíð except for his pages on social networking sites. Surprisingly, even those pages did not describe him as being a musician, or indeed repeat any of the claims made in the article. I have come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that MuffledThud was right in seeing the original version of the article as a hoax, probably written by Tómas Davíð, and based on very minor editing of Jón Þór Birgisson. The original article even contained a picture of Jón Þór Birgisson, wrongly captioned as being Tómas Davíð, and followed the article Jón Þór Birgisson in numerous details. When the article was tagged for speedy deletion some rapid editing took place to make it look more plausible. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable on the face of it. The article does assert significance, however, the refactoring of information mentioned above leads me to believe this is a hoax and thus vandalism. Would love to hear from the article creator as to my information about the subject was changed, apparently to improve plausibility. Dlohcierekim 15:36, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted A7 - no assertion of (or likelihood of there being) notability -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of eternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This was tagged incorrectly as "no content" and therefore speedy was declined. Should in my opinion, have been A7-not notable (How could they be after 3 days???) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:29, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inktel Direct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

List of awards does not establish WP:N but precludes WP:CSD#A7. References are pretty much all about the awards. -Zeus-^u|c 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment page moved to correct capitalization just after this AfD was opened. DES ^(talk) 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep seems sufficiently, although not hugely, notable. i have added some text and a number of refs since this was nominated. Many more refs are behind paywalls, at least twice as many as I have cited. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Given that the nominator put this up for AfD very shortly after I had declined an A7 Speedy that he placed, I question the amount of WP:BEFORE work that he did on this article. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did do some legwork. I looked through the provided references as they were, and they all seemed to be template pages or press releases - nothing significant. The most notable source I found was a sentance in the Miami Daily Business Review, and that was only in passing on an article about economic recovery. -Zeus-^u|c 04:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view, perhaps not universally shared, that when the prime issue is notability, a nominator ought to make a good faith attempt to actually find sources not in the current article. Given that I found and added 7 citeable refs, all via basic google searches, well...

In any case what do you think of the article with the refs I have added? DES ^(talk) 11:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I find close to WP:RS is the Miami Business Review, and I don't think that's enough to establish WP:N. Any company is bound to be mentioned in some magazines or papers, but I don't see any of these refs (or awards) as establishing notability per WP:CORP. -Zeus-^u|c 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 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, Pcap ping 11:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:26, 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 Lebanese Premier League. Though different guidelines have been cited for why these articles should be deleted or redirected, the principle behind the comments is essentially the same - that the information contained within the articles does not in most cases exceed what is found in the parent article. The intention of the creator was reasonable, and appropriate and guideline compliant articles may be created at some point in the future; it is just that at the moment there is not enough material to make it worthwhile. See Wikipedia:Summary style for discussion on when it is appropriate to split out a sub-article from a parent. SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Premier League 1996–97 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This nomination includes 37 articles in full. The list is below. There is a relevant discussion at ANI here.

In total this user created about 396 articles. I'm only nominating this set of 37, all of the same type for now. If appropriate, the rest can be dealt with in turn.

As for the pages, they have no prose. They consist of "Statistics of Lebanese Premier League." They have a corresponding template and a "reference" which is an external link to the championship listings. They are a classic example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and also WP:NOT#STATS.

Perhaps if they were integrated together they would be useful, but as a massive set of articles they are not particularly useful. There's also no indication from the creator that they are going to improve these articles. The bot spam indicates a lot of unreferenced BLP notes, and they have yet to respond on their talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full list: Lebanese Premier League 1996–97, Lebanese Premier League 1995–96, Lebanese Premier League 1994–95, Lebanese Premier League 1993–94, Lebanese Premier League 1992–93, Lebanese Premier League 1987–88, Lebanese Premier League 1991–92, Lebanese Premier League 1990–91, Lebanese Premier League 1989–90, Lebanese Premier League 1974–75, Lebanese Premier League 1972–73, Lebanese Premier League 1969–70, Lebanese Premier League 1968–69, Lebanese Premier League 1966–67, Lebanese Premier League 1964–65, Lebanese Premier League 1962–63, Lebanese Premier League 1960–61, Lebanese Premier League 1956–57, Lebanese Premier League 1955–56, Lebanese Premier League 1954–55, Lebanese Premier League 1953–54, Lebanese Premier League 1950–51, Lebanese Premier League 1948–49, Lebanese Premier League 1947–48, Lebanese Premier League 1946–47, Lebanese Premier League 1945–46, Lebanese Premier League 1944–45, Lebanese Premier League 1943–44, Lebanese Premier League 1942–43, Lebanese Premier League 1941–42, Lebanese Premier League 1940–41, Lebanese Premier League 1938–39, Lebanese Premier League 1937–38, Lebanese Premier League 1936–37, Lebanese Premier League 1935–36, Lebanese Premier League 1934–35, Lebanese Premier League 1933–34.

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was having a conversation with another user a few days ago about the state of the Cambodian League season articles, which are exactly the same as these and I was also considering putting them up for deletion. -- BigDom 08:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As a question of curiosity, were those created by the same user (or this user)? The creator of this set of articles did the ~400 articles all in one stretch (they're still unpatrolled in the patrol log), but I know they did others in the past. Shadowjams (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This problem could be a LOT worse than we imagined; it appears that this user has created almost 4000 league season articles, many of them with very little context or content. [15] -- BigDom 12:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a profesional competition. No reason for coverage of individual years per WP:CONTENTFORK. A list article could deal with all of these events and redirects are completely unecessary. E.g. who is going to miss Lebanese Premier League 1936–37. Obviously Lebanese Premier League would remain. Best interests of wikipedia to have concentrated detailled and referenced coverage. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I confess that I did not look at every single article on this list, but of the ones I checked, there was no information that was not otherwise in the Lebanese Premier League main article. If they all have the same source, why could not they all be covered in one article? How do we establish the notability of Lebanese Premier League 1937–38 separate from Lebanese Premier League? Separate articles do not presently provide added value to the user. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, with option for speedy of rest on precedent. Seems to be nothing more than lists of statistics - that is not what we're for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, BUT... First of all, the articles created by User:Nameless User should be deleted because they do not have any meaningful content and further do not satisfy any of the de facto guidelines of WP:FOOTY task force WP:SEASONS. This would probably make them eligible for speedy deletion under "No meaningful content" as well. However, I strongly oppose that WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOT#STATS are brought up as arguments, because this would basically mean that articles such as 2009–10 Premier League and, ultimately, everything under the auspices of said task force would have no right whatsoever to exist, as well as countless MLB, NFL, NASCAR or whatever sports seasons. Do you really want to delete those as well? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - The difference between 2009–10 Premier League and this article (and others like it) is that the Premier League article is a real article. It has a full lead, sections and descriptions, pictures, etc. Within three days of its creation it had all of those features. Even early on there were indications that this would happen. I agree, we have to be careful about Not Stats, but if those specific stats articles are only stats, and not valid forks, they ought to have a look at them. I don't believe there are many examples of the articles you talk about with those problems. Shadowjams (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep League tables by season for national leagues are surely notable, and as soccer-holic mentions above, there are numerous examples already of these in Wikipedia. Shadowjams responds by saying that they are not proper articles without a lead, but if so they can be improved and thus are not suitable candidates for deletion. I would be happy to assist in improving the articles - will other respondents here help? Eldumpo (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I came across over 1000 articles on new page patrol that were all about two weeks old and not fleshed out in the least. These are not apparently national teams, they were mostly on other obscure leagues in assorted cities, mostly across Asia, but other places as well. I question if any of these are notable at all, but even if they are, rather than thousands of separate articles, these could be merged into single articles for each community, with all years combined. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I question if any of these are notable at all" - your analysis makes it sound like these are no-mark sandlot leagues, which is not the case at all, the articles under discussion relate to the equivalent of the NFL or MLB in their country. The league is certainly very notable. The question of whether articles with so little content should be kept is a different matter..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - at the moment, the articles have just standings, but there is nothing preventing further expansion. This is an acceptable starting point. And yes, it's important to remember that this is the top division in a country. The issue is that the articles lack prose at this point, which doesn't seem like a good enough reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all I see no reason for this to be treated differently than summaries of the seasons of any other sports league. So long as it refers to a reliable source-- and the RSSSF archive site is a source for a lot of our soccer data-- then it should be kept. Sports articles have a lower threshold to clear on Wikipedia. In many cases, they start out with little more than a table, as was the case of the articles on the individual National Football League seasons (for example, [16]), and they grow from there. I think that it is cause for concern if we see 396 or 1,000 articles being created in a two week period, and that we do need to delete those that fall in the category of "obscure leagues in assorted cities" (described above), and. In the case of the Lebanese Premier League, it's the highest level sports league in the nation of Lebanon, so I can't count that as obscure. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mandsford, who pretty much sums up my position. I don't know about the other articles from this user, but the league in Lebanon is sufficiently notable to justify these articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't expect you to look at all of the articles, but for example take a look at this one. "Statistics of Lebanese Premier League in the 1955/1956 season.
  Racing won the championship."
  
  And that's it. Does this meet even the supposedly lower threshold of sports articles? I also think the notion that a specific segment of articles has a lower threshold for some unspoken reason is simply wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the nomination was for all the articles, regardless of whether they had content or not. It's questionable whether anyone will ever find information for the seasons prior to 1991, beyond what would be included in a single list of year-by-year champions. However, the entire nomination was based on deleting all the articles as a matter of policy, regardless of content. From an encyclopedic standpoint, I would agree that the double standard for Wikipedia articles probably is simply wrong, but it's no secret that entertainment (sports, TV, film) gets treated differently than academics (science, history, politics). Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with time and work done, this article can be brought to standards. Str8cash (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nota bene: [17] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• That doesn't seem realistic or likely. This set only includes 37, but the full extent of these types of articles is at least 400, maybe closer to 1,000 when you consider the above. That's a remarkable number of articles that have little to no real content. That's exactly the meaning of WP:DIRECTORY. Shadowjams (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CONTENTFORK. Individual articles are not needed, as the main article, Lebanese Premier League, already contains all that is in these separate stubs. Consider redirecting the said pages to the main one. The same goes for the other 300+ articles; merge any (probably not much) content into the main article and redirect or delete. Airplaneman ^talk 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The league page you reference does not have all the information contained in the pages requested for deletion; it only lists the league winners, and does not have the tables for each year. Eldumpo (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Consolidate per Airplaneman. No need for unnecessary duplication. --Bejnar (talk) 01:27, 6 March 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. Any renaming discussions can be held on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Titus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. This is arguably a BLP1E (or would be, if the subject were still alive) -- essentially a non-notable biography about a person who was wrongly accused of rape. JBsupreme (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. BDP1E. Relevant notability standard is the same for both living and dead persons. Pretty clear cut, in my opinion. No coverage of event or individual past when the event was current. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there's a good conversation one the article's talk page about notability. If the -event- is notable, or the book covering the event, then the material in this article could contribute to that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article (though renaming it would be fine). The content of this article is very obviously notable, as demonstrated by the sources, and belongs in one place. Whether the article is titled for the individual or the event is probably not terribly important, but it would be useful to have a reasonably descriptive name. ^Bongo_matic 08:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename - the prize makes the events documented within notable, regardless of wether any other factors (such as the proven attempt to frame him) might independently do so. Has rceived apparantly signifigant coverage. Per WP:BLP1E he shouldn't have an article abouyt him for this single event. I note that BLP1E is a policy only for living people, but I believe it is also a sensible guideline more generally. The article should not be about Titus himself, but about his case. Steve Titus rape trial, perhaps? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not for news stories of the single-event type, and that's what this is (human tragedy or not). That his story was the basis for a journalist winning a Pulitzer is not, in my opinion enough. What I don't rightly understand is that there isn't an article for the convicted rapist, which is where this would fit in--and in that case a redirect would make sense. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nomination invalid Subject meets WP:GNG (nominator did not doubt this). As per second paragraph of GNG this subject does NOT have to also meet WP:BIO (including BLP1E). It's one or other (BIO or GNG) not both. Agree with Blood Red Sandman but don't delete just because of BLP1E. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The opinion offered that the nomination is invalid is not correct. BLP1E specifically excludes the conclusion of notability for certain events that meet the GNG. ^Bongo_matic 02:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: the nominator never said the subject met GNG, as far as I can tell, but it's not the point, anyway. WP:ONEEVENT and GNG are not at odds--ONEEVENT is a guideline that can allow us to decide for deletion even if GNG is met. (Edit conflict: I think I'm chiming in with Bongo, as usual--except for in our opinion here on deleting!) Drmies (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Time out, the terms "General Notability Guideline" or "GNG" are not ANYWHERE in BIO. What's referred to is Basic Criteria which are similar to but less than restrictive than GNG. Regardless, GNG says that if GNG is met than topic specific guidelines are optional (my undertanding from the quote that was removed). -Stillwaterising (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. What BLP1E actually says (with my commentary in brackets) is:

If reliable [independent] sources cover [even if significantly] the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

In other words, the magic token "GNG" doesn't need to be mentioned for its plain meaning to be that even something that is presumed notable under GNG is not subject to inclusion if it meets the criteria of BLP1E. There is no other interpretation that makes sense.

Further note that the GNG in its own words only gives rise to a presumption of notability, to be rebutted by WP:NOT (explicitly) or other restrictions (implicitly).

The interpretation advanced would remove any semblance of teeth from BLP1E or NOT. ^Bongo_matic 02:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename I'm changing my vote. This is place to discuss notability and not a discussion of the literal interpretation of guidelines. I see the events to be notable but not necessarily the accused. I propose the article be renamed Steve Titus rape case. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm inclined to agree that this is virtually a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Technically it isn't, as the news stories cover more than a single event, but I'm not convinced there's real longterm notability here: this is just a case of a man who was convicted of rape and then had his conviction overturned, with no indication of what makes it particularly important. The strongest claim to being article-worthy is that the coverage of the story won the Pulitzer prize; but so have many other news stories, and does that make them all notable? I don't think so (if anything, it's a claim to the notability of the person who wrote the article instead). Robofish (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename, rewrite This information is all notable and documented in reliable sources; however, we should not keep it in a biography of Titus. Rather it should be in an article about the whole case – perhaps Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus – and rewritten so it is not a biography but an encyclopedic entry on the rape, wrongful conviction, subsequent confession by Smith, and perhaps this book. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/write The event seems notable, although I don't question the person himself could be considered in violation of BLP1E, but the event itself received coverage and has a long lasting impact. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or merge there is some potential in merging with Paul Henderson (journalist) as this news story won him the pulitzer and could be claimed to be the most important case of his career. Ash (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The story was the basis of a Pulitzer prize. That's sufficient notability. The only reason for renaming is to avoid the undue emphasis on the name of a living individual, and this is irrelevant here. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 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 per multiple reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Soon to come book, no independent reliable sources found about it, the author doesn't have a wikipedia page so it's not notable through that. -Zeus-^u|c 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources at [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Also a bit about the author's background here - [27]. There appear to be 2 different titles for the book in different provinces. ArticlesForRedemption 01:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be a page for a book that doesn't exist (yet?). Vampyrecat (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has pages for lots of things that are yet to exist (Jackass 3D, Bel Ami (2011 film)) and some things that will never exist Star Wars sequel trilogy, Something's Got to Give). ArticlesForRedemption 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It will be about a notable person, but at present, there are no references on the article itself and it's almost a speedy delete for lack of content. I'll gladly change to a full-blown keep if it's significantly expanded. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Los Angeles Times item is enough to establish notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete while its true that LA times covered A lady gaga bio, it didnt cover THIS bio, which is from a nonnotable publisher (follow the bouncing isbn). the la times article book, from overlook, probably deserves an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)changed to keep, as it now appears true that there are 2 editions of this book in 2 publishing regions, under the one author name.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BK#Not yet published books. The sort of advance notices cited don't mean that "anticipation of the book is notable in its own right" - that's meant for something like a new Harry Potter. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to a one-line mention in the Lady Gaga article, if there is sufficient source for that. When the book comes out, it may be appropriate to remove the redirect and improve the article to reflect release and reviews. By the way, the LA Times review is indeed of this book, I've reasonably confirmed that the article is correct and this is being released in the U.S. under one name and in the U.K under another. So the Brits and the Yanks can have a war over which title gets the prize, its very own shiny new Wikipedia article. Both would be mentioned at Lady Gaga. As to the Lady herself, my, my, my. Perhaps I should do more research on this. Tough job, but someone's got to do it. --Abd (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) see new !vote below. --Abd (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How have you 'reasonably confirmed that the (LA Times) article is correct and this is being released in the U.S. under one name and in the U.K under another'? SunCreator (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at ArticlesForRedemption's sources above and at the L.A. Times article. Notice [28] for Amazon UK. Notice same author, same subject. And more, I saw more when I looked. Not difficult. Sure, to say "same book, different titles" in an article might require better sources. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore the obvious. --Abd (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lady Gaga until such time as it can satisfy WP:CRYSTALBALL. SunCreator (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Abd below - connecting US and UK to same author. SunCreator (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (change to !vote above) There is adequate evidence that the release of this book, both in the U.S. and in Great Britain, is imminent. The LA Times article is evidence of notability, and there is plenty of other mention of this, Amazon is offering the book(s), etc, so the guideline at WP:BK#Not yet published books is satisfied. A temporary Merge could be done, but why bother? No Harm. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The author of this book is Virginia Blackburn, who uses the pseudonym Emily Herbert. ArticlesForRedemption provided the source for this, but didn't make it explicit. I'm suspecting that the author, under one name or the other, is sufficiently notable for an article, but have not verified this yet. --Abd (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times article says overlookpress and overlookpress.com gives Emily Herbert. So yes, same book and have amended above to keep. Good work Abd SunCreator (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the fact i hate lady gaga, this book is not very notable. Str8cash (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nota bene: [29] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as per ABD. The article is able to make a sourced, notable statement at least about the two titles for the same book, I see no harm in skipping what I expect will be a merge followed soon by an unmerge. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability as evidenced by secondary source coverage. Also, poker face. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 4 March 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 Mysophobia. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rupophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable definition, inaccurate original research. Suggest deletion or perhaps redirection to existing wiktionary article.  7  01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why not reference and tidy up? Opbeith (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could not find sources independent of WP/mirrors/dictionaries, unless [www.associatedcontent.com/article/1314881/rupophobia_the_fear_of_dirt_or_filth.html?cat=70] this ("http://" removed from beginning of the url, so i can post it here) is, in which case this article is a copyright violation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to use a different search method or engine. See Google Scholar for numerous good hits. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]