< 13 March	15 March >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept, bad-faith nomination. Nakon 02:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subconscious[edit]

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

The subconscious does not exist. If it did, psychoanalysis would not work. According to a friend of mine who although specialized in cognitive behavioral therapy, had some training in it while she as getting her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, the subconscious is New Age bullshit and was literally never mentioned in any book. There are excuses of it being another word, but that only confuses people. According to Freud, the creator of psychoanalysis, "If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically -- to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness -- or qualitatively -- to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious." PÆonU (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article describes a word which does exist (the word itself, whether or not the concept it is meant to refer to does). The article itself should be kept to clear up any ambiguity. –xeno^talk 18:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The word does exist, but the subconscious does not exist in our mind. There is only a conscious and unconscious. Freud, Jung, and everyone trained in psychoanalysis understands this. PÆonU (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's exactly what we should say in the article about it, along with a concerted effort to clean up links to it to point to the appropriate topics instead, where applicable. And if there isn't enough concrete information for an article (which I don't expect), it should at the very least be a disambiguation page pointing at the possible concepts that are commonly referred to by "Subconscious". But deletion doesn't help with such a widely used term, in particular if it's often used incorrectly or unclearly. Amalthea 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a waste of web space. We might as well make articles about the superconscious, the megaconscious, the maybeconscious, and the somewhatconscious. They're all just as ridiculous and non-existent as the subconscious. PÆonU (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of those words generated nearly 70,000 hits with the search Amalthea provided. –xeno^talk 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The internet is filled with garbage. I bet you can find a lot about the subconscious with a Google search, but you cannot find it in a text book. For that reason, this article should not exist. PÆonU (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles on Wikipedia that you cannot find in a text book. Perhaps your time would be better spent improving the article to ensure that it explains that the word "subconscious" is "used in many different contexts and has no single or precise definition. This greatly limits its significance as a meaning-bearing concept, and in consequence the word tends to be avoided in academic and scientific settings" (oh wait...) –xeno^talk 18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) From a quick bit of research, it sure does seem that in Freudian psychoanalysis there is no "subconscious" ("Unterbewusstsein"), only the "unconscious mind" ("Unbewusstsein"). So the decision here seems to be whether the so called "New Age shit" is noteworthy enough, and has enough reliable sources analyzing it (and I expect all discarding it as bogus) to keep this is as a front to unconscious mind, or whether we should simply redirect it there as initially proposed by PÆonU as a reasonable search term. In any case, any incoming links should be checked by an expert whether they shouldn't rather point somewhere else. I'm going to ask in WP:WikiProject Psychology in at last. Amalthea 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if only as a redirect to unconscious mind. It's a very common word and concept. Tisane (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I redirect it to unconscious mind, someone will just undo it. I can guarantee it. PÆonU (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whether it exists or not doesn't matter at enWP; only that it can be verified. The article states, "In everyday speech and popular writing, however, the term is very commonly encountered as a layman's replacement for the unconscious mind. The ... term [is] prominent in the New Age and self-help literature, in which investigating or controlling its supposed knowledge or power is seen as advantageous." If you ask 10 Wikipedians, probably 7 would agree it's a notable term. It's defined by hundreds of dictionaries. There are over 100,000 Ghits at Google scholar. It's a word used in the news hundreds of times each week. This is an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this needs to be closed immediately. this is an utterly nonsensical proposed deletion. the term (in addition to the term "unconscious mind") is and was widely used, became part of popular culture, influencing innumerable works of art and literature. It is entirely irrelevant whether the existence of this proposed phenomenon can be proved, disproved, or remain in limbo. Its also utterly irrelevant whether the turn of the century german psychology researchers used this term or not, or indeed whether any professional psychologist EVER used the word in any context. IT IS USED. Remember, articles are not written based on whether the information is TRUE, but only if the information is reliable and on a verifiable idea, phenomenon or object. Any debate on the existence or nonexistence of the subconscious is utterly appropriate to place within the article itself, as long as its sourced. the tendentious arguments of the nominator make it hard to assume good faith here. "new age shit" is not exactly npov. Should we remove all articles that refer to all ideas related to "new age" because one or more, even a majority of editors dont think ideas associated with it have any objective reality? it doesnt matter whether any or even all new age associated ideas are utter bs, they are notable, widely written about (if often amorphously defined), and of unparalleled influence in popular culture. (i do see a tendency for many new age associated articles to be poorly written and tautological, with extremely poorly defined terms, including this one, but thats another matter entirely).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goal Accomplished I wanted this article either deleted or fixed. This AfD helped light the fire under your guys' asses. Like many other New Age articles, this was written poorly and unless fixed, doesn't belong on an encyclopaedia. Perhaps stupid ideas come from the subconscious? Who knows, but I sure as hell know that until I can move objects with my mind or win the lottery by picturing my numbers on a TV screen, the mind, especially a non-existent part of the mind, cannot affect the physical world. PÆonU (talk) 02:42, 16 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 merge/redirect to Bree (Middle-earth). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Goatleaf[edit]

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

Another minor Lord Of The Rings character. Kind of amazing how much you can write about a character that opens a gate and watches a fight. Ridernyc (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike most of the articles you've nominated in the last hour or so, this character at least appears and plays somewhat of a significant part in the narrative; while he's not a major character, he's much closer to it than individuals such as Wulf the Dunlending or Frumgar father of Fram. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Bree (Middle-earth) along with Barliman Butterbur the bartender. Probably redirect. They're the only two humans of note in the town besides Aragorn. I also don't see why deletion is necessary when a redirect will do as fine and still allows the name to show up in categories (Category:Middle-earth Men). Uthanc (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be a search term because it's Tolkien. Uthanc (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep or at least merge substantially. Every named tolkien character with any role in the plot should be included. The work itself is adequate sourcing DGG ( talk ) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a LotR character is not a reason to delete. The character is notable, being covered in numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: This character doesn't warrant their own article, belongs on a LOTR wiki. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:36, 21 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 no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghân-buri-Ghân[edit]

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

Another minor Lord of the rings character. Ridernyc (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike most of the articles you've nominated in the last hour or so, this character at least appears and plays somewhat of a significant part in the narrative; while he's not a major character, he's much closer to it than individuals such as Wulf the Dunlending or Frumgar father of Fram. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drúedain. I don't see anything significant in this article that isn't already present in the suggested target, but if there is, it can be smerged. Deor (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN left me a note on my talk page, asking me to revisit this discussion in the light of her work on the article, so I'll just note that I still think redirection is best. The Drúedain are an interesting feature of Tolkien's mythos, and I think Mr. G. can best be treated in that wider context rather than in a stand-alone article that deals only with what one is told in LotR. Deor (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drúedain. A significant minor character. Also, don't argue with a King of Rohan. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Déor (note the diacritic)—had some problems with the Dunlendings, I believe, but I'm not he. Deor (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Drúedain 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drúedain. I don't see why deletion is necessary when a redirect will do as fine and still allows the name to show up in categories. Uthanc (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be a search term because it's Tolkien. Moreso for this character because of the space he gets in a book teeming with minor characters. Uthanc (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Named characters with a role in the plot of major fiction are notable enough for articles. Some of the others above don't really fit into this category, but not him. Let's put it this way: most of the others, I had to check the articles to see just who they were: he i remembered. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have read the notability guidelines, yes? Where does it state that "named characters with a role in the plot of major fiction" are somehow exempt from WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, fails WP:GNG.Change to keep now sources have been provided. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the only one (out of the current string of proposed Lord of the Rings deletions) that I disagree with. Ghan-buri-Ghan is not a trivial character. He has a lot to say and he propels the action significantly. In movie terms, he has "more than three lines". --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And can you show any coverage per WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters don't tend to get a lot of newspaper/magazine articles or books written about them. I can't show you mainstream coverage about Aragorn or even Frodo, but they are clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Ghan-buri-Ghan is enough of a presence in our public consciousness to generate more than 6,500 Google hits. Yes, yes, I know - Google hits are not a criterion of notability - but in the case of a fictional character I really don't know what else would be. And Ghan-buri-Ghan is not without his fans. For example, I found a blog review titled "Ghan-buri-Ghan, where are you?" complaining about all the characters that were important in the book but were dropped from the movie. (I can't link to the review because it is on a "blocked site".) --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is very easy to show mainstream Coverage of both Aragorn and Frodo. Ridernyc (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you dig, or use print references. But in a simple Google search you get the same kind of thing for them as you do for a simple Google search for GbG - namely, blogs, fansites, wikis, derivative games, things named after them, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also use google books, which comes up with a ton of hits for Aragorn - and almost nothing for Ghân-buri-Ghân. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To prove the point [1], [2].

Thanks for that suggestion! "Almost nothing" turned out to be "something". I just added to the article several references about or analyses of this character, Ghan-buri-Ghan. I will add more when I have more time, but I suggest anyone who voted "delete for lack of sources" take another look. I would also argue against "merge" since the referenced information is mostly about GbG as an individual, not about the Druidain in general. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: Today 3/19/10 I posted the following notice on the talk pages of several people who voted above: "Hello! I see that you posted a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghân-buri-Ghân. Since then, the article Ghân-buri-Ghân has been expanded and references added. Just in case you want to take another look." I don't think this violates the ban on soliciting votes. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blog review on a blocked site = probably an unreliable source anyway. The WP:GNG trumps all; we cannot keep an article if it shows absolutely no evidence of notability, which this doesn't. Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG per the sources provided by MelanieN (in the article). Specifically, the character is substantially covered in the book Tolkien the medievalist (preview), where the author discusses how Tolkien depicts wild men. There are many mentions of him in other works/books, several are nontrivial (ex1, ex2), it is overall sufficient for meeting GNG, provides enough verifiable content and given its significance in the plot, it makes the character worthy of a standalone article. Cenarium (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a nontrivial (if minor) named character in the novel, he gets mentioned repeatedly in secondary sources, some of which are cited in the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--multiple independent sources suggest that a separate article is most appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 21 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 merge/redirect to Éothéod. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frumgar[edit]

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

Another Lord of the Rings article that is nothing more then genealogy. Ridernyc (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Send him back to where he came frum. The only way you're likely to have heard the name is by reading whichever appendix he's listed in, in which case you already know all that's available. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Éothéod 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Éothéod. I don't see why deletion is necessary when a redirect will do as fine. Éothéod itself can be merged into Rohan, but that's another issue. Uthanc (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be a search term because it's Tolkien. Some will inevitably treat Wikipedia like a Tolkien encyclopedia site. I'm not saying we should keep every single scrap of info but there's a place for everything no matter how small. Uthanc (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Every named tolkien character should be included, at least as a redirect, even for the backstory. . There's no possible reason why a redirect would be harmful. it will help some people: yhere is no name in Tokien that people may not look for. . Redirect are an easy compromise in situations like this. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Don't you dare delete my father!. Seriously though, a redirect is the best solution for this and other truly minor characters. Fram (talk) 14:24, 19 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 merge/redirect to Éothéod. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Léod[edit]

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

Another Lord of the Rings genealogy listing. Ridernyc (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Éothéod. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Éothéod.
Redirect to Gondor. I don't see why deletion is necessary when a redirect will do as fine and still allows the name to show up in categories (Category:Middle-earth Men). Éothéod itself can be merged into Rohan, but that's another issue. Uthanc (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be a search term because it's Tolkien. Some will inevitably treat Wikipedia like a Tolkien encyclopedia site. I'm not saying we should keep every single scrap of info but there's a place for everything no matter how small. Uthanc (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Every named tolkien character should be included, at least as a redirect, even for the backstory. . There's no possible reason why a redirect would be harmful. it will help some people: yhere is no name in Tokien that people may not look for. . Redirect are an easy compromise in situations like this. DGG ( talk ) 14:35, 16 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 closed as keep per the nominator being a confirmed sockpuppet. The AFD was also heading towards a keep anyways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Magnus[edit]

The article does not adhere to WP:MUSIC. Notability is not inherited just because of and AI appearence {WP:NOTINHERITED) be it because of the tabloid media frenzy (WP:INTHENEWS) or because lots of US citizens watch the show (WP:BIGNUMBER/WP:LOCALFAME) Supertart (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes criteria #9 of WP:MUSIC. The article simply needs a few reliable sources. I find it surprising that a brand new user knows how to write AfDs and using a bunch of Wikipedia lawyering links and it seems the user made no effort to find any reliable sources before placing the AfD and made no effort to contact editors of the AfD. Why do we have to go through the same year with the same results that the articles are kept for the finalists like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series suggests? Aspects (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because a WikiProject holds no weight at AFD and consensus can change (WP:CCC). Do not bad-mouth me as an editor as I have taken the time to read policies and guidlines (unlike others). Supertart (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. What concerns me is that you immediately nominate the articles for deletion without doing anything else on this project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stub/start-class articles are allowed on Wikipedia if it's written decently and their are reliable resources. The article is just beginning to be written and I fixed the article to be decent, because before my edits it would of met AfD policies, but now it doesn't. ATC^{. Talk} 02:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its enough for now. Also, its generally my opinion that AfD nominations of major TV show contestants fare better and suffer less drama and distractions if you wait until the show is over.--Milowent (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 9). This is a WP:BLP1E. There is no indication that this (or any other American Idol contestant) will be able to parlay this appearance into a sustainable career that would prove notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes criteria #9 of WP:MUSIC. Raggedyland (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes criteria #12 of WP:MUSIC. Not continuously, but Fox has spent more than half an hour discussing Siobhan's life during American Idol. Besides, I searched for her in Wikipedia because I was curious about her life, since she's one of the favorites now. I can't be the only one, considering that she probably gets 1 million call-in votes per week. As a show favorite, she's just about guaranteed to put out an album by the end of the year, win or lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priorart (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 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 closed as keep per the nominator being a confirmed sockpuppet. The AFD was also heading towards a keep anyways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Stevens[edit]

The article does not adhere to WP:MUSIC. Notability is not inherited just because of and AI appearence {WP:NOTINHERITED) be it because of the tabloid media frenzy (WP:INTHENEWS) or because lots of US citizens watch the show (WP:BIGNUMBER/WP:LOCALFAME) Supertart (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes criteria #9 of WP:MUSIC. The article simply needs a few reliable sources. I find it surprising that a brand new user knows how to write AfDs and using a bunch of Wikipedia lawyering links and it seems the user made no effort to find any reliable sources before placing the AfD and made no effort to contact editors of the AfD. Why do we have to go through the same year with the same results that the articles are kept for the finalists like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series suggests? Aspects (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because a WikiProject holds no weight at AFD and consensus can change (WP:CCC). Do not bad-mouth me as an editor as I have taken the time to read policies and guidlines (unlike others). Supertart (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. What concerns me is that you immediately nominate the articles for deletion without doing anything else on this project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its enough for now. Also, its generally my opinion that AfD nominations of major TV show contestants fare better and suffer less drama and distractions if you wait until the show is over. (I made the same comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siobhan Magnus)--Milowent (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After polishing up the article a bit from my recent edits, it should not be nominated here at AfD because it still meets Wikipedia's criteria standards. (I made a comment similar to this one at WP:Articles for deletion/Siobhan Magnus. ATC^{. Talk} 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 9). This is a WP:BLP1E. There is no indication that this (or any other American Idol contestant) will be able to parlay this appearance into a sustainable career that would prove notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 16 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Kavanagh[edit]

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

No references. Only thing I found is [3]. I can't confirm that the plot is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most, if not all, of the article appears to be Original Research.--Pink Bull 23:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Pink.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:00, 22 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 under criterion G3, a blatant hoax. The claims in the article do not match up with the sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Steinberg[edit]

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

Possible hoax. The Federal Judicial Center database has no record of a federal judge by this name. Article was initially created by a single-purpose account with a tag falsely indicating that it was imported from said database. bd2412 T 23:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Schlitt[edit]

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

Her main claim to notability is hosting USA Up All Night. No significant ghits that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While her filmography indicates that she has done more than just USA Up All Night, the other roles are not significant. The only RS sites that mention her, do just that... only "mention" her. There is no coverage found that meets notability criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator comment: GaryGo (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC): Well, do what ya gotta do. I see that the wikipedia stats show 14 hits per day in February 2010. Certainly a low-level personality, but not zero. I don't know what a "significant ghit" is. I think Schlitt is a low-level but legitimate TV/movie personality, but she's keeping a low profile these days. The information is not controversial and it is accurate, as far as it goes. GaryGo (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghit = Google hit. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garygo: Ghits refer to Google hits, not Wikipedia hits. If you search for her on Google, you won't come up with enough secondary source coverage. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator comment: To be honest, I have no more defense for the Caroline Schlitt page. However, within about 60 seconds today, I found a Wikipedia page for the Queercore group "Hott Beat", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hott_Beat. This page has three links, one to their home page, and then two bad links. Delete Caroline if you must, but I find it hard to see the Wikipedia justification for any music group that plays a couple shows and creates a home page. GaryGo (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Or you could just nominate Hott Beat for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article creator comment: Thanks for pointing out OTHERSTUFF. GaryGo (talk) 22:18, 18 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Clinton, Jr.[edit]

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

Not notable individual, coatracked on a very notable brother, Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable in his own right. It's true that his notability is contingent upon his brother's fame, but there are sufficient newspaper articles about him from which to write a bio. Woogee (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of a controversial presidential pardon, at least. bd2412 T 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Really if you are going to keep him for a reason you should have at least to cite that reason in the article, I assume he has had this pardon for sometime and yet after about 4 years we have this uncited rubbish of a stub, as it is if no one is prepared to improve it then it is worthy of nothing but deletion, in fact he has had this uncited pardon since 2001. I wouldn't say that asserts notability either. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2010 . What is he actually notable for?(UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is certainly notable enough for an article. That the article could do with some expansion is clear, but I'm not sure I understand the reason for proposing its deletion. He isn't exactly the only minor celebrity on Wikipedia, or even the only embarrassing brother of a president. -Rrius (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very minor figure, to be certain, but he passes WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just passing through. His most noteworthy aspect was that he was (as I understand it) an embarrassment to his famous relative. Frankly, he wasn't as embarrassing as Billy Carter, whose shenanigans caught the attention of the nation. Perhaps he'd be worthy of inclusion in an article on embarrassing presidential relatives? TreacherousWays (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, he is a famous brother and yes, he has garnered significant secondary source coverage. The article even cites his continuing celebrity as a guest star on TV shows and appearance in films. This seems to satisfy WP:NRVE. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 17 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) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cop Out (game show)[edit]

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

Only source I could find was a press release announcing Geoff Edwards as the host. Geoff is notable, Chuck is notable, even Johnny Jacobs is notable. This, however, is not; what little sources I could find amounted to no more than "Geoff hosted Cop Out for Chuck Barris; it didn't sell." Pilots that never turn into actual series are almost never notable, even if someone did care enough to throw it on Game Show Network a few times. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article is not notable and half of the actual content is nothing more than original research. "Presumably," "likely," "status unknown," and "thought to be destroyed" are all found within. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CB-delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Opening with "unsold television show" also appears to disclaim notability. Ikluft (talk) 03:02, 15 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) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

$50,000 a Minute[edit]

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

Absolutely no secondary sources found. Only sources are fansites. Searches for "$50,000 a Minute" turned up only false positives, and nothing at all when keywords were added. Pilots that never aired are almost inherently non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
((CB-delete)) --> Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Only ref is not reliable. Ikluft (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A failed pilot might be notable if it was unique or groundbreaking in some way - but something truly unique would either have been picked up or would be too gimmicky to matter. But that doesn't matter, really, if there are no reliable sources about that pilot - which is the case here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails notability, no sources; same arguments as above. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, no reliable sources; I can't see how a failed pilot would be notable, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:52, 19 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 a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-C & Diva-J[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pop-C & Diva-J

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

PROD contested by author. Unclear that the competition in question confers sufficient notability for an article. It has no article itself. Also unreferenced and COI. Not seeing any RS coverage. DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 14 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. The author has acknowledged that this is a hoax, so I'm closing and deleting this myself. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Emotions Tour[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this tour exists; the person who created this article may be writing about an entirely different, non-notable, artist, but I haven't been able to verify that, and the author has not responded to my requests for clarification. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 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) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Ahab and Jezebel[edit]

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

YouTube film, no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NF Hekerui (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CB-delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Ikluft (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 15 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) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond 2morrow[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS, can't find significant coverage in reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CB-delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ikluft (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless another user can justify the article overall, I have no problem with it being removed. • Mtirkmane (talk) 07:44, 15 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) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aquila TV[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this company. fetchcomms☛ 21:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CB-delete No refs, appears to be spam. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ikluft (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 18 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) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cudder: The Revolution of Evolution[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, no reliable sourcing, and pure speculation. The album is not yet notable and should not have a page until more reliable sources and more information on the album comes up. Str8cash (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. There is no confirmed release date or track listing for this upcoming album, and no significant coverage in reliable sources; only a few passing mentions like this. An independent article is premature at this time, as it currently fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 20:58, 15 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 no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace strategy[edit]

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

Essay, dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Woogee (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:NOTBLOG, despite being well-written. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reason that there is something to say about "workplace strategy," but this approach is not the right one. Someone who knows something about the subject should rewrite it based on the sources in the references section as well as other sources such as those in the Google books list, with shorter paragraphs and more breakheads, and then it will be a fine article. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly not a dictionary definition. This is a fully encyclopedic topic and there are masses of sources that can be used to expand the page. Of course, it was written as an essay. However, that is something that can be fixed by editing. When we have a sensible, sourceable topic, the development of the encyclopedia is better served by rewriting than by throwing hands up in horror and deleting. I have now added some structure to the page to make it less essay-like. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is incoherent as essay and dicdef are contradictory criticisms. The topic is notable and so should be developed further in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:51, 20 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 Éothéod. History left intact for any merging that's desired. ~ mazca ^talk 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

Nothing to say about this character, not sure we need to recreate the genealogy of Lord Of the Rings by giving every minor mention it's own article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Éothéod. De728631 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, along with Frumgar and Léod. I don't care if he did invent the oil filter. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect/Merge to Éothéod. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Éothéod (which I can see being merged into somewhere else in the future). I don't see why deletion is necessary when a redirect will do as fine and still allows the name to show up in categories (Category:Middle-earth Men). Uthanc (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be a search term because it's Tolkien. Some will inevitably treat Wikipedia like a Tolkien encyclopedia site. I'm not saying we should keep every single scrap of info but there's a place for everything no matter how small. Uthanc (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found no difficulty in adding a reference and there are better alternatives than deletion. Please see our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect me, please ;-) The source given is a quote from LotR (a primary source), with an accompanying paragraph of text that is about Scatha the Worm (a dragon), just mentioning Fram in passing. It may not be difficult to add a reference, but it may be very hard to find any significant coverage of Fram in reliable, independent sources. Fram (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect Every named tolkien character should be included, at least as a redirect, even for the backstory. . There's no possible reason why a redirect would be harmful. it will help some people: there is no name in Tokien that people may not look for. . Redirect are an easy compromise in situations like this DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 19 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 The Book of Lost Tales. No evidence of independent notability, but no reason this would be harmful as a search term. History has been left intact for any merging that's desired. ~ mazca ^talk 22:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eltas[edit]

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

the article sums it up nicely when it says "Eltas remains overall a mysterious and unexplored minor figure" Ridernyc (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Book of Lost Tales. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Book of Lost Tales. Uthanc (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the nominator says it's not notable enough to ever be a search term, consider that it's Tolkien stuff. Some will inevitably treat Wikipedia like a Tolkien encyclopedia site. I'm not saying we should keep every single scrap of info but there's a place for everything no matter how small. Uthanc (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Every named tolkien character should be included, at least as a redirect, even for the backstory. . There's no possible reason why a redirect would be harmful. it will help some people: yhere is no name in Tokien that people may not look for. . Redirect are an easy compromise in situations like this. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Redirect. Given that there are no secondary sources, this obscure character can not be given encyclopedic treatment. Abductive (reasoning) 03:58, 22 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 Gondor. If a more suitable redirect is found, feel free to alter it. Black Kite 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borondir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Character from Lord of the Rings everything that can be said about is said here in one sentence. Ridernyc (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gondor? Hekerui (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Éothéod, it describes how Borondir's party was sent north to get help for Gondor. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gondor. I don't see why deletion is necessary when a redirect will do as fine and still allows the name to show up in categories (Category:Middle-earth Men). Uthanc (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be a search term because it's Tolkien. Some will inevitably treat Wikipedia like a Tolkien encyclopedia site. I'm not saying we should keep every single scrap of info but there's a place for everything no matter how small. Uthanc (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge in toto. Every named character who actually does something in the plot should have an article, considering this is famous fiction. The book itself is an adequate source. DGG ( talk ) 14:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are an awful lot of Tolkien characters. Abductive (reasoning) 04:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Without secondary sources there cannot be an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. This character is quite obscure, and is part of the deep history of the LotR. Abductive (reasoning) 04:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been transwiki'd to: annex:Wikia:Borondir -- Jack Merridew 17:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This topic is covered at: lotr:Wikia:Borondir -- Jack Merridew 19:57, 22 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 merge to Beregond. Black Kite 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bergil[edit]

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

Character that makes a brief and unimportant appearance in Return of the King. Ridernyc (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beregond. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Changed to Keep as I have included Abductive's secondary sources. The character is clearly important for the development of other Tolkien characters in the novel. De728631 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Beregond. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge into his dad Beregond since he's already mentioned there. I don't see why deletion is necessary when a redirect will do as fine and still allows the name to show up in categories (Category:Middle-earth Men). (Beregond himself is a prominent supporting character in ROTK because he's a plot dump and instrumental in saving Faramir from the pyre. Cut from the film, naturally. But if Beregond himself needs to be merged, I'd say go into Gondor.) Uthanc (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the nominator says it's not notable enough to ever be a search term, consider that it's Tolkien stuff. Some will inevitably treat Wikipedia like a Tolkien encyclopedia site. I'm not saying we should keep every single scrap of info but there's a place for everything no matter how small. Also, for a book teeming with minor characters Bergil gets more than usual space. Uthanc (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A minor character, but significant in one of the chapters. The interaction with him is significant, This is cvery major fiction, and should be covered completely. DGG ( talk ) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beregond. I agree he's a minor but significant character, but I couldn't find much on him to support notability, and for content organization, it may be better to cover the character in Beregond. Cenarium (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, receives treatment in secondary sources; [4], [5], [6] [7]. Basically this is one of the few children with any character development in Tolkien's work, and he has drawn the notice of scholars. Furthermore, these works do not always mention him in the same breath as his father. Abductive (reasoning) 04:05, 22 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 Man (Middle-earth). Black Kite 22:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atanatári[edit]

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

Middle earth term that explains nothing o someone who has not read the books. Ridernyc (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Edain. De728631 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Man (Middle-earth). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Edain, but I won't be surprised if Edain gets merged with Man (Middle-earth) in the future. Uthanc (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the nominator says it's not notable enough to ever be a search term, consider that it's Tolkien stuff. Some will inevitably treat Wikipedia like a Tolkien encyclopedia site. I'm not saying we should keep every single scrap of info but there's a place for everything no matter how small. Uthanc (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Every named tolkien character or group or mythological being should be included, at least as a redirect, even for the backstory. . There's no possible reason why a redirect would be harmful. it will help some people: there is no name in Tokien that people may not look for. . Redirect are an easy compromise in situations like this. DGG ( talk ) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Redirect to Man (Middle-earth). Reyk _YO! 06:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edain. Possible search term, a sentence or so could be smerged also. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:13, 22 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 The Introduction-Dubstyle EP. Nothing to salvage, but redirected as is usual in these circumstances as a plausible search term Black Kite 22:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shine on Jamaica[edit]

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

This is definitely not WP:NPOV and it is WP:OR. I only put it into AFD because I couldn't find any CSD that it fit. NotAnonymous0 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to song's album, The Introduction-Dubstyle EP. --Pink Bull 23:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what could be salvaged from this article. NotAnonymous0 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, no, as it's unsourced, but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with at least redirecting the article name there.--Pink Bull 04:13, 22 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) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Buda[edit]

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

Vanity article about a non-notable writer. Does not meet WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The following links suggest that Nicholas Buda participates in the cultural life of Romanian community in New York: Eveniment Literar la New York, New York Magazin, reteaua literara. However, the coverage is insufficient to pass the notability requirements for authors. WorldCat and G-Books has no entries for his works, and I can't find any independent reviews of his work published by reliable websites or journals. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:30, 17 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) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentinels (TV series)[edit]

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

unreleased web tv series with no references - no indication of notability and appears to be promotional noq (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC) * ((CB-delete)) It says the cast and crew lists won't be released until it's in production. They can try again if/when it gets there. Fails [[WP:N]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. [[User:Ikluft|Ikluft]] ([[User talk:Ikluft|talk]]) 03:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete as a borderline hoax. It appears to follow the same theme as Time pilgrim, which was created and then deleted not even twenty-four hours ago. There's also a conflict of interest here, as the article mentions the original name of the series as "Time Teens" and the article was created by User:Timeteen. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal-ballery at best, no indication of notability, possible hoax. Edward321 (talk) 16:33, 19 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 redirect to For sale by owner, as the concept is essentially the same. Author blocked, as username implies promotional intent. Blueboy 96 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private house sales[edit]

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

Delete, no external references and written like a brochure SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 20:17, 14 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) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redoku[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable, newly invented game. Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. In addition, the article was created by the inventor of the game. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudoku. ^Pepper∙_piggle 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. A redirect is only appropriate if the target article mentions Redoku (see WP:R#PLA), which, however, it shouldn't as this is totally nonnotable. --Lambiam 23:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some kid promoting a game he made up. Not a candidate for redirection. — Gwalla | Talk 17:04, 19 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glicaramide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems weird to submit my own article for deletion. It was procedural, based on the discussion here. The threshold for inclusion for chemicals, the notability needed. Glicaramide is not very notable, deleting it or not? RobertMel (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~CB-delete3 Qualifies for speedy deletion under G7.~~ Ikluft (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pretty much fooled by the missing pharmacology list, and the problem with assessing the notability of chemicals. They're more universal than anything else, under a formula a structure etc. -RobertMel (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No harm to have this article hanging around, so long that the data is verifiable and there are at least a few mentions of this compound. WP is not paper. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep The article creator and AfD nom was the sole significant editor at the time when I said it qualified for Speedy G7. But with another edit having been made, that is no longer the case. I'll go along with the consensus, which has swayed to keep. Ikluft (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Keep - I realize it's not very notable, but it is verifiable, and it's not like this is a BLP or an article promoting a non-notable musical group. PDCook (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it does not appear to have ever become a marketed drug, the scientific literature suggests glicaramide has been a reference point guiding further research on antidiabetic agents. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 19 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 close as a malformed duplicate nomination. Presently, a proper deletion discussion is occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glicaramide (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glicaramide[edit]

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

Seems weird to submit my own article for deletion. It was procedural, based on the discussion here. The threshold for inclusion for chemicals, the notability needed. Glicaramide is not very notable, deleting it or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMel (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss República Dominicana US[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable event, not to be confused with Miss Dominican Republic. Does not have sufficient secondary sources to meet the notability criteria of WP:EVENT. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be non-notable feeder pageant. --Pink Bull 23:50, 21 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Money, Healthy Planet[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable book by non-notable author. No evidence that this book gets anywhere near passing WP:NB. Nancy ^talk 18:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Oddly, the publishers seem to have deleted the book from their website (if you click on the link [8] it says "This message has been deleted," and their "full list of New Zealand nature and environmental books" does not include it). Amazon [9] says "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 21 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) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Insinger[edit]

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

The Musician really doesn't seem notable enough for an article, the links are all either self-published or barely mention him, google search brings nothing, mostly youtube and myspace links Jac16888 ^Talk 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per non, unable to find sources.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom and Skater. Not finding coverage of this person RadioFan (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only this article could be considered a reliable source, and it's just not sufficient as it only mentions Insinger in passing. Favonian (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 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. Withdrawn by nominator. DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Oommen[edit]

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

This academic does not appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot find "significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources" that provide evidence of meeting any of the specific criteria outlined in notability guideline. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the purpose of meeting the academic notability criteria, it is sufficient that they can be substantiated through reliable sources. The sources in this case are the subject's university web pages. These are admittedly not independent, but that is not required: as WP:RS states, self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. --Lambiam 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The IAPR and IEEE Fellowships give him a clear pass of WP:PROF #3, and he also has an outside case at #5 with the Chancellor's Professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes several categories of WP:Prof. An ill-researched nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Contra Lambiam, we can't base a bio article entirely on self-published sources (see WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves #5), but I've added an RS on the IEEE fellowship. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the web site of a recognised university can be taken to be a reliable source. Although information about individuals is often supplied by the individuals themselves the institution will take resposibility for the information being accurate. Also, for this BLP, we have excellent cites on Google scholar. The article is well-sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think we're 100% in agreement on this case, but as a general policy, I think major claims (like being an IEEE fellow) should be backed up by an authoritative reference (which is why I added one). -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, as is the case in many universities, he has two web pages, one with the university logo, which the university presumably takes responsibility for, and one which he presumably maintains himself. Now I think we can take him at his word regarding what he says, but there have been other people on the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions for which that wasn't true. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, IEEE and IAPR Fellow, passes WP:PROF #3. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Persons do not have to satisfy multiple aspects of WP:PROF, one is sufficient. We have WP:RS that this person holds a fellow rank in IEEE, which by itself is sufficient for #3, as Nsk92 and David point out. I think we can end the debate on this case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Withdraw. Sufficient sources have been added to the article to support the clear consensus to keep the article. As nominator, I withdraw the nomination and recommend the debate closes. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:36, 15 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country Singles (newspaper)[edit]

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

no indication of notability. The court cases do not mention the paper, the 21balloons web site dose not mention any documentary about it. noq (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not even mentioned in any of the sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've addressed comments above. The paper changed its name - court cases do in fact refer to this paper. I edited article to clarify this. The last reference is in fact a dead link, my error, I've deleted reference until I find correct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfrphoto (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update I decided in-depth legal discussion belonged on publisher page so I put it there at Jacobsen_Publishing Mfrphoto (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet general notability requirements. It is not widely quoted and there are very few - if any - secondary sources that quote the magazine. The legal case mentioned in the article, if notable, should be a stand-alone entry, but regardless of the case's notability, the publication in question does not inherit notability from the case. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:02, 14 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) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Unlikely of Heroes[edit]

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

Non-notable band: not signed to a label, no releases, couldn't win a school talent show. Google search returns tens of thousands of hits, but it's a common phrase; narrowing it down with extra search terms like "band" brings up nothing apart from Wikipedia, and self-publicity like Facebook. No evidence of any third party coverage. Bulk of edits have been by a single editor who has edited no other articles. No evidence of any notability - a legend in their own imaginations. Emeraude (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the above checks out. Has all the hallmarks of a member of a barely-known band creating their own article. Smocking (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability, fails WP:BAND. Not even signed to a label which is probably the barest minimum needed to be notable. Mattg82 (talk) 00:49, 16 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 Devaneya Pavanar. The general consensus is that this content doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia and that the title should merely be a redirect to the author. —SpacemanSpiff 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Primary Classical Language of the World[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable book that pushes a fringe theory. Article does not pass any of the criteria set out at WP:Notability (books) - Google scholar shows next to nothing, Amazon lists it as out of print. No awards. etc. Raw Google search shows that it has received some limited notice on pro-Tamil fringe websites, but that is about it. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator... Merger to article on author has been suggested. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since pavanar's crackpot historical theories are already covered in his article, this is unnecessary. This book alone is not sufficiently notable.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more than adequate coverage of this mans ideas in his own article, and a section of the article on the history of the term Lemuria. enough already.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable WP:Fringe. Buddhipriya (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Devaneya Pavanar, as we usually do with book titles failing WP:BK with authors who do pass WP:BIO. --dab (𒁳) 15:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Devaneya Pavanar as it was originally there. Rajan (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author's article, as the book does not seem to be notable. Hans Adler 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devaneya Pavanar, as per dab. rudra (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author or delete. I'm not sure whether we should redirect every book title of every author who passes WP:VIO or AUTHOR, but it wouldn't do any harm. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author - I like the idea of redirects for books of notable authors when the particular book is not notable enough. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author Wikid ^as© 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Devaneya Pavanar. The book is not notable, but it's notable within the works of its author. Kostja (talk) 18:54, 21 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 G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie 2[edit]

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

Unsourced, apparently imaginary film. —Kww(talk) 17:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and borderline WP:HOAX. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie did come out in the future (even with the listed cast), but I can't find any sources for it even being in the making. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:02, 14 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) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eazy az 1 2 3[edit]

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

Growing precedent that pricing games are not individually notable. All of this has been unsourced since 2007 with no reputable sources forthcoming. Blatant violation of WP:OR, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely a subgame within a game show can't be individually notable enough for an article can it? That seems insane to me. Unless there is an RS source that tracks the coming and going of these subgames then there is no way to verify this. Even spelling the name right wouldn't help. ;-) As I see it, if it can be verified as existing then it can be listed (very briefly) either in a list of subgames or in The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). If not, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. People looking to document the trivial minutiae of their favourite shows should look to set up a separate fan Wiki for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability, already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games, entirely unsourced and article title is even spelled wrong. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:59, 15 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) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gallop[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO from what I can see; only marginally notable. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlestown United[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:N. This two and a half year old article is unreferenced, and the edit summary provided by the article's creator and almost only contributor, when he removed the prod notice, indicates that article is based on original research and the major contributor has a conflict of interest.[10] In addition to this the article is poorly written with significant overlinking, linked years, peacock terms, flagcruft, possible copyvios etc. You name it, it's probably got it, except for citations to prove notability. It requires far too much work to bring to a reasonable standard, especially since most of the article is based on original research and lacks citations. AussieLegend (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not been able to locate any coverage of this club in reliable sources whatsoever. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This article is unsourced, and covers a non-notable subject. It's a clear cut deletion in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it should help WikiProject Football in Australia. "This project is dedicated to improving all aspects of Wikipedia's articles related to association football in Australia."

It Also states its goals as:

Improve and expand articles relating to the history of football in Australia.
Improve and expand coverage of Australia's state league competitions.^[1]

How is this article not helping create football history in Australia? It should not be deleted. Fixed up? Yes. Deleted? No. Juzzi0 (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this doesn't satisfy the requirements for deletion, and this article is an example of why wikipedia itself, is so great. It allows small community teams to have a small share of the internet limelight. It harms nobody having this page here and serves as good piece of history for the club. Everything posted on this page is fact. And can be easily found by looking through the history of the NNWS ID competition. I will go about referencing what I can now. There is no bias presented as it is presenting facts and a recount of events, rather than an opinion for or against anyone, or any object. Keep please. Juzzi0 (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and exists to cover notable topics, not to "allow small community teams to have a small share of the internet limelight". Try MySpace for that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, but this page isn't established so annoying 15 yr old girls can post stupid comments. We have enough of them at our games, and we also have a facebook page to keep players and fans updated with weekly matters within the club. In regard to the policy of deleting teams in England, is there a defined policy within Australia? You have said level 10 in England being a good building block, but where does that lie within Australian boundaries? This team is capable of playing in the Solo State Cup^[2], our ground is fully enclosed and capable of charging an entry fee (however we choose not to), we have a running canteen and alcohol license, and we are capable of being promoted to the NNSW State League if we gained promotion in successive seasons. To say this club is 'too small' or not notable enough is merely your opinion, having played football in lower league England last year, I'd say this club has more notability than clubs over there, except the footballing culture in Europe gives them instant notability, whereas football in Australia apparently makes it harder for notability at lower league levels. Juzzi0 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this has any bearing on Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you really think the subject is notable then you need to show notability. You took great pains to vandalise the article and make personal attacks,[11] if you can't make the same effort to show notability then the subject clearly is not as notable as you think. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if all the creator wants is a "share of the internet limelight" then I would suggest Facebook, not an encyclopedia. No coverage in independent sources to suggest that this football club passes the general notability guidelines. -- Big Dom 07:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another non-notable amateur sports team trying to use Wikipedia as their web host. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promo, fails WP:N.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 21:46, 21 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Schroder[edit]

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

Non-notable squash player, fails WP:ATHLETE; only played at a youth level. Tassedethe (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, not yet notable.--Pink Bull 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Pink.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 21 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) 04:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terra: Formations[edit]

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

It's an article for a not particularly notable video game that was cancelled. Kamasutra (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Kamasutra (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ideas are rarely notable. I have them in abundance but I don't want a page on each of them. Perhaps there was some work done on this game. I also have plenty of projects I start and never finish...Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 14 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) 15:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga written discography[edit]

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

We really don't need a separate article just to state that she has had a part in writing all of her songs. Lady Gaga discography is more than enough for this information. Nymf _hideliho! 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per argument of the nominator. Too much overlap with Lady Gaga discography, no need for a separate article, any relevant info can be included there if it's not already.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. Mister sparky (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline A10. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or speedy redirect to Lady Gaga discography. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling a redirect would be quickly reverted by one of the many sock farms/"post once in a full moon"-users that so evidently trolls all the Lady Gaga related articles. Just look at how my initial PROD was removed without a reason. Nymf _hideliho! 00:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above (this can quite easily be accomodated on Lady Gaga discography). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary, per reasons listed above. Strikerforce (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lady Gaga discography Dew Kane (talk) 03:55, 19 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College Faculty of Natural Sciences[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have its own article. Consider merge to Imperial College London. Airplaneman ^talk 15:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a college. It should be notable enough to have an article if other colleges do. Dew Kane (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, it is a list of faculty from a certain branch of the college. If it indeed is a college, and not an article about its faculty, I'll withdraw. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue with the article may not be whether or not the college is notable, but whether the content in the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. If this is the case, it just needs some editing the change it. Dew Kane (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I understand it, it's not a college, just a division of it. I have suggested a redirect to the college's article. Airplaneman ^talk 16:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However this goes, and I have no strong feelings one way or the other, there are also articles on Imperial's other faculties: Imperial College Faculty of Engineering and Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, all written with the same lack of style. I suggest that all three should be considered for deletion (or not) together. Emeraude (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging them together, and working on improving the single article from there. Dew Kane (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point - there's already a major article on Imperial College? Emeraude (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting all three to the main article would be the best solution, as there is no substantive content in the articles themselves. A one-sentence mention in the main article about the origins of the faculties would suffice. Airplaneman ^talk 21:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you proposed it, and now you want them to redirect, I think you can close it yourself as redirect. I have seen some AfDs in which they were closed by the proposer. Dew Kane (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There is a good deal of confusion in the discussion above. First, "Faculty" is used in the British sense of a division of a university, a collection of academic departments. It is not in the US sense of academic people, professors and the like. Second, Imperial College is now a university in its own right, after being a constituent part of the University of London. Earlier it was one of the first colleges to teach science and technology to degree level in London. Its Faculty of Science is highly notable, as it has has produced several Nobel Prize winners and many Fellows of the Royal Society. For example, its department of chemistry is one of the top departments in the UK, up there with the departments at Oxford and Cambridge. There is no question that it has been noticed and can meet our notability guidelines. It just needs improving. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. First order division of one of the world's great universities. Bduke is correct about the nomenclature. ICI is indeed a separate university. Possibly some of the individual department in it should get articles--very few single departments do, but some here may be qualified. The article of course needs to be expanded to show the notability and include sufficient references. A merge would not be appropriate--we'd just have to unmerge. Merging is suitable for articles that can never be expanded, but not for ones that so easily can be. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Merger is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 20 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett king[edit]

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

Contested prod. Previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett King (2nd nomination). Nothing has changed from that deletion discussion. GregJackP (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous AfD was in 2008. Some of the references in this article are more recent, including one in The Asian Banker Journal, which reportedly called him one of the top 3 most influential thinkers in banking for 2010. Access to the Asian Banker requires registration, but a seven-day trial registration is free. (If you register on the site, you may want to skim article titles there to see if you can create or expand other articles based on the references in the journal.) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to the Asian Banker site, it requires subscription to view the article, and I cannot verify what it says. In the initial AfD, it was shown that King was the author of the article, violating WP:COI and WP:AB, and appearing to be promotional for the sales of his book which is apparently soon to be released in the U.S. - pretty much the same as when it was posted before, right after his book was published in Australia. The creator of the article claimed that I have a bias - no bias, except a general bias against people using Wikipedia for advertisement and puffery. (GregJackP (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - the creator of this article has a WP:COI. As the managing editor of the Asian Banker journal, he is moderating a conference break out session where the speaker is Brett King. The creator has denied any connection with either the journal or King - both of which can be proven to be false. This article is the same as before, with the exception of the Asian Journal reference - and they are sponsoring King as a speaker at their conference in just a few days. They have a vested interest in King's article now - he is one of the draws to the conference they are sponsoring. (GregJackP (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - self-promoting "experts" are not notable. They're rather dirt-common, actually. Rklawton (talk) 14:52, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Lundberg[edit]

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

WP:COI and probably WP:AUTO by Cmakers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sourced entirely from the subject's own sites, no credible notability, all sources are primarily about Circlemakers not this person. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any justification for the nom. There are plenty of references available on Google Books and Google News for Lundberg, not to mention the existing external links section of the article, e.g. ABC News: "John Lundberg, a world-renowned crop circle architect", a BBC documentary, BBC News, etc. Ty 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by User:Tyrenius that do address the individual. The nom's concern is well founded in that the articles is in great need of cleanup and proper sourcing, as that excessive linkfarm should be turned to citations where possible and removed if not, and cites that go back to any SPS should be removed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources I mentioned, e.g. ABC News, are already in the article in the EL section. If an article needs cleanup and sourcing etc, the solution is to add tags such as ((cleanup)) and ((refimprove)) + ((linkfarm)). Not all the EL need to be removed, and some use of SPS is allowed per WP:SELFPUB. Ty 12:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, seems worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 04:44, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Bolyard[edit]

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

This article may or may not be notable enough. He does have sources and a league championship under his belt, so he's got that going for him. Alex (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet GNG per the sources in the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Hit bull.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be well sourced, so that indicates notability. matt91486 (talk) 18:49, 22 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 withdrawn by nominator. NAC by —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Sick bay[edit]

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

Article is no more than a dicdef, and a pretty poor one at that. It has survived here for over 7 years, and has not improved at all in that time. There have been occasional additions, subsequently removed (e.g. an assertion that sick bays are always in the same place on Royal Navy ships because Nelson so decreed over 200 years ago!), but there has been nothing that suggests that any encyclopedic content could be added to raise this above the dicdef level. Nor has anyone thought fit to mention that the term is used much more widely that the US Navy/Marines. Emeraude (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary, of course, which is what we ought to do with dictionary definitions. Sick bay is a plausible search term, so Wikipedia should point the searcher to useful information. We should certainly not just give the searcher a redlink that encourages them to write a new article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Emeraude (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can just set up the soft redirect per WP:BRD without any further ado; if you're happy to withdraw the nomination, Emeraude, we can close this under WP:SK ground 1 without further discussion?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go for it. Nom. withdrawn. Emeraude (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 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) 04:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted by AfD. Still can't find significant coverage. Tim Song (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Speedy G4 (recreation) since it was recreated by the same user a month after the first AfD ended in deletion. Nifboy (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:N. It's not an identical repost, so no speedy. Marasmusine (talk) 11:11, 18 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) 04:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Powerlifting and Weightlifting Club[edit]

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

blatant fail of WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [12]. google mainly reveals directory listings. any competition achievements should relate to individuals of the club. this article looks like it's written by an over keen member. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A University club for which I see no level of coverage in reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising for non-notable business.--Grahame (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Nom and Mkativerata - just another University club. Codf1977 (talk) 08:48, 18 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Michael Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable football player. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A pointy AFD for a different article was improperly tacked onto this discussion. Since it would've been closed as a speedy keep anyway, I just removed it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Questionable notability and wholly unsourced.--Pink Bull 00:23, 22 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) 04:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Fuentes (DJ Goo)[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources indicating notability of this artist. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:00, 14 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. Significant coverage in reliable sources seems to have been found, demonstrating notability sufficiently for an article. ~ mazca ^talk 22:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dâm-Funk[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly ((db-bio)). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ((db-bio))?? The New York Times published quite substantial article about this artist. For further evidence check the result of searching in the G-News Archives, please. The subject easily passes WP:MUSICBIO. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvančický. NY Times review, Rolling Stone review SFWeekly review = significant coverage. Public Juju ^T · C 21:23, 22 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) 04:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambalathil Devi Temple[edit]

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

Non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable local temple.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources or notability. Wikid ^as© 18:05, 17 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) 04:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Jai Sathya Tour[edit]

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

I had prodded the article saying notability has to be proven through reliable sources. The prod tag was removed without any reasons being added. No references were added either. I haven't been able to find references proving notability. Request AfD delete. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 08:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article of a non notable godperson.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and not covered by inclusion guidelines. An ad. Wikid ^as© 14:43, 17 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. Better referencing is always to be encouraged, but the general consensus here seems to be that this article can be cleaned up and problems rectified without deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of southernmost items[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The World's most northern

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

This article suffers from substantial problems of Original Research, Point of View pushing, lack of Correct citation, and WP:ILIKEIT and has survived a previous deletion discussion despite these being evident.

It is an interesting article, it may even be a useful article, but it also contains nothing but a miscellany of information. In many cases the alleged citations are simply citations to the existence of the item cited. But this is a specialist article. To be valid, the citations must state, in reliable sources that the item is the southernmost of its type.

Yes, it states co-ordinates. But a co-ordinate does not constitute a reference for the southernmost nature of the item. I could, as I have pointed out on the article's talk page, add Nelson's Column to the list with co-ordinates, cite its existence and thus allege that it is the most southerly monument.

If this is an encyclopaedia we are creating then we must apply full rigour to lists such as this. I have cleaned the list up hugely by removing all items with no citations whatsoever, but the citations that remain do not allow this list to stay here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined lists that can be referenced. AfD is not cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not at all clearly defined. As someone said somewhere else, the presence of an "other" section shows how indiscriminate this is. There's no way that this can be anything more than trivia, and generally unreferenceable trivia at that. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into other articles and then Delete. Most of the relevant data is already in Extreme points of Earth and Southernmost settlements. The section called The World's most southern#Geography can be added to Extreme points of Earth (where that data does not already exist). All the rest is trivial/cruft - I doubt that it will be possible to verify most of the information outside of geographical features and settlements. – jaksmata 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of northernmost items, as both should go up or down together one would think.--Milowent (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have now been able to source at least 8 of the entries on the northernmost list already with little effort. These facts are frequently referenced in news reports and thus seem to represent notable information. I think the article can be improved further and should be kept. Non-verifiable entries should be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Jaksmata, valuable infomation here can be sent to other articles. I do would like to see an article about "southernmost things tourism", which is (for me) really interesting. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This is original publishing that shows how one fact relates to another. Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a clearly defined list and it's sourced.--Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — even if the article isn't perfect now, it certainly has potential to be great. And it's already interesting now. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 23:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is interesting encyclopedic information. Little hard to find sources that are not self-published (WP:SELFPUBLISH), but still interesting. Some items are doubtful, but it does not make the entire list doubtful. --BIL (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually a pretty interesting article, and decently sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Needs a strong lead-in to establish inclusion criteria but otherwise a notable list.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 22 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) 04:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prophets Sabella And Valentine[edit]

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

Contested prod about two people (not sure if they're real or fictional) that seems to violate WP:MADEUP. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable hoax. The prophet brothers have no existence on Google except for this article. So vague that the lack of any details seems deliberate. Created by an WP:SPA. --00:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 17:07, 19 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. Better referencing is always to be encouraged, but the general consensus here seems to be that this article can be cleaned up and problems rectified without deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of northernmost items[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The world´s most northern

Articles for deletion/The World's most northern

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

This article suffers from substantial problems of Original Research, Point of View pushing, lack of Correct citation, and WP:ILIKEIT and has survived two previous deletion discussions despite these being evident.

It is an interesting article, it may even be a useful article, but it also contains nothing but a miscellany of information. In many cases the alleged citations are simply citations to the existence of the item cited. But this is a specialist article. To be valid, the citations must state, in reliable sources that the item is the northernmost of its type.

Yes, it states co-ordinates. But a co-ordinate does not constitute a reference for the northernmost nature of the item. I could, as I have pointed out on the article's talk page, add Nelson's Column to the list with co-ordinates, cite its existence and thus allege that it is the most northerly monument.

If this is an encyclopaedia we are creating then we must apply full rigour to lists such as this. I have cleaned the list up hugely by removing all items with no citations whatsoever, but the citations that remain do not allow this list to stay here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced list isn't likely to be able to be sourced properly. Among its errors is the palm tree; when I attended this church for one summer as a child, I was always impressed by the palmetto in its churchyard, and Dervock is significantly farther north than Nice. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into other articles and then Delete. Most of the relevant data is already in Extreme points of Earth and Northernmost settlements. The section called The World's most northern#Geography can be added to Extreme points of Earth (where that data does not already exist). All the rest is trivial/cruft - I doubt that it will be possible to verify most of the information outside of geographical features and settlements. It could be added to various articles (example: in Coral, add "the world's most northern coral reef is off the north coast of Norway"), but I'm not sure it's worth it. – jaksmata 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will have to dig into this one before I opine, as the concept sounds laudable but the question seems to be whether its doable. Found this via Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_southernmost_items.--Milowent (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not on any specific Wikipedia grounds. You people are too busy trying to find reasons to delete articles. I found this to be a useful, informative and well referenced article. You have no business deleting stuff like this, no matter what policy you can find to give yourselves an excuse to delete it. Get a life, quit trying to determine what the rest of the world is allowed to learn.OsamaPJ (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the fact that an article is interesting and informative is not a reason to have it in an encyclopaedia. It must also be notable and verifiable. The references in the article cite the existence of the items listed, but do not cite their 'northernmostness'. So the article that you find interesting and informative is absolutely not authoritative. Since it is not authoritative it is thus also outside the scope of Wikipedia and is useless. Were the references to assert with authority the northernmostness of the items then and only then would this article be properly verifiable. This is not simply a matter of policy, but a matter of good sense first and foremost. If we allow articles that appear to be correct but are really rubbish to remain then the entire encyclopaedia is devalued. If you just want interesting things to read then Wikipedia is the wrong place to come. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must say that the fact that an article is interesting and informative should indeed be a reason to have it on wikipedia, or at the vest least it should not be forbidden for editors to espouse that view. What if the article was limited to entries that could be verified, i.e., a source that confirms its northernmost status?--Milowent (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be a valid entry the source must cite it as ...most of its type. See my Nelson;s Column statement in the nomination. Wrt to interesting, useful, informative etc, all articles should embrace those virtues, but notability and verifiability is vital whether the other virtues are present or absent. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have now been able to source at least 8 of the entries on this list already with little effort. These facts are frequently referenced in news reports and thus seem to represent notable information. I think the article can be improved further and should be kept. Non-verifiable entries should be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This is original publishing that shows how one fact relates to another. Dew Kane (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a valid list and fits withing the guidelines of WP:LIST. It's also sourced.--Oakshade (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — even if the article isn't perfect now, it certainly has potential to be great. And it's already interesting now. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, an interesting article and decently sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 21 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. The demo appears non-notable, and additionally the original author has requested deletion ~ mazca ^talk 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glorification of the Master of Light[edit]

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G7. Jerry teps (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of this demo. By its own terms, not notable. Bearian (talk) 13:00, 22 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) 04:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Postal's 2008 Promo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gone Postal's 2008 Promo

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage of substance, did not chart, etc. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:14, 18 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 Laura Pausini. This isn't even mentioned in her discography. Redirect as is usual in such cases. Black Kite 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sogni di Laura[edit]

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why delete the article. But rules of Wikipedia... James Michael 1 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Olaf Davis (talk) 10:24, 22 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 Neutral Milk Hotel. Never released. Bold redirect would've been fine here. Black Kite 22:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hype City Soundtrack[edit]

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC. Sources are not credible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 14 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) 04:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo One[edit]

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability for a demo album from a group with debatable notability. Malcolma (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 09:30, 17 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) 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damiera EP[edit]

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should have tried WP:Prod first. Abductive (reasoning) 05:40, 22 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) 04:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brit Ha'Orvim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brit Ha'Orvim

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self released album that fails WP:NALBUM -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-charting, self-released, demo album. Am I missing anything here? It needs publicity to rise to the level of "obscure." 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:51, 19 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) 04:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bemoaning of Metatron[edit]

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

Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable demo; band itself barely passes WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 16 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) 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Gonen[edit]

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

Delete Not Notable, book "isn't really about him" Where there is a wheel (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Where there is a wheel[reply]
Keep An interesting topic, easily expandable using reliable sources: Jerusalem Post, New Criminologist, The Jewish Daily Forward etc. In my opinion, both the person and the book are notable for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is virtually news outside of him contributing to a book about organized crime.--יום יפה (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)יום יפה[reply]

Comment No problem, we can merge the content to Blood & Volume: Inside New York's Israeli Mafia, but the information should be kept here, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
Delete. I don't see the requisite indicia of notability in this rather sorry stub.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:04, 21 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 merge to Airline security. Black Kite 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knitting on airplanes[edit]

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

After cracking up over this for about 10 minutes, I'd like to get some opinions: Is this notable??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is definitely notable. It has many sources about it throughout the 2000s especially. It has come into the news a lot all over the world as a security issue. The reason given for deletion is that is sounds "weird" to the proposer. But it doesn't sound weird to me, the creator. Dew Kane (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must admit it sounds "weird," but that was not the point here. Notability is the question as to whether or no it warrants a separate article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to knitting. Worth mentioning but I don't think it deserves its own article. JIP | Talk 08:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge. The page's sources link to routine after-9/11 news reporting (WP:NOTNEWS) and trivial lists of permitted and non-permitted items (WP:NOTGUIDE). At best, the temporary restrictions can be mentioned on Airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks#Restricted items, but I really don't think that the subject is notable in its own right. — Rankiri (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while this is properly sourced, Rankiri has a good point about this being more of a news item. This isn't much more than a now-deleted article (can't remember the exact title) that was basically "List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on subways in Southeast Asia" and consisted of nothing more than the durian. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~^{(duplicate recommendation)} While news items are used as the source, this is not a routine news item. See WP:EVENT for more details. Dew Kane (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.) This is about an issue that has been dealt with in the law, and is therefore ongoing. WP:PERSISTENCE describes this. 2.) This is an international issue. WP:GEOSCOPE goes into this. 3.) Has received coverage in a diverity of sources (WP:DIVERSE).

Merge a trimmed version to knitting. I think this is one of those cases where the subject might well be technically notable by virtue of coverage in reliable sources, but, there's simply not enough actual content to justify a separate article. In other words, our coverage of knitting is best served by a smaller number of longer articles that have been worked on by many different people, than by a larger, more fragmented body of small articles, each watched by a separate editor.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long enough article already that it should be separate from knitting, a very long article. I am still trying to find out the laws in other countries, which will make it grow even longer. Dew Kane (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly merge per Rankiri above. A classic case of the folly that just because sources can be found that talk about something, it requires a separate article. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. There is absolutely no reason for a standalone article on this topic, any more so than there would be for Cigarette lighters on airplanes, Matches on airplanes, Pressurized aerosols on airplanes, not to mention Sleeping on airplanes, Reading on airplanes, and Talking to airplane seatmates. Why on earth people think it's better to have a dozen short articles about closely related topics than one decent-length article that presents similar material together for the reader's convenience, is beyond me. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been articles just about knitting on airplanes, especially after 9/11, when the Wall Street Journal covered it. It meets WP:PERSISTENCE because it has been covered at least from 2001 to 2009. It meets WP:GEOSCOPE because it has been covered in almost every continent. It meets WP:DIVERSE because it has been covered in many separate, independent papers. Dew Kane (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there have been articles about Michelle Obama's arms. And about George Washington's teeth, and the Ford Taurus Ghia, and Saint Protasius. Sometimes a topic just doesn't need a separate article. This is one of those times. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CB-merge to Knitting. Got a good laugh from it. But it's too much of a specialization for its own article. Ikluft (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. Is there an air security restrictions article? If not, then to Airline security. (Hmm... so nailclippers are more dangerous than knitting needles??!!!?) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article title and the lead sentence, one would expect that there has been significant coverage in secondary sources about the subject of knitting on airplanes. Since my grandmother liked to knit, I looked forward to learning about this. How many people knit on airplane? How many stitches are dropped because of air turbulence. Sorry, I digress.
I reviewed the sources given and found that three of the seven different sources given are primary (government sites saying what you can and can't bring). Three are mainly about all of the various object that are or aren't allowed on an airplane (and have an incidental mention of knitting needles). The final reference is about teacher's being banned from knitting in a classroom (and has an incidental reference to the ban of knitting needles on airplanes).
THERE is NOT one article from a secondary source which is primarily about either the subject of knitting on airplanes or the subject of allowing knitting needles on airplanes (such as weighing the pros and cons or lobbying efforts to have the ban lifted). So I must say delete. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did read that there was an article in the Wall Street Journal specifically about knitting on airplanes. I am still trying to find the direct link to it, though direct links are not required for the sources to be used. The article, as far as I know, came out after 9/11, and states how knitters suddenly became outlaws because of the ban. Dew Kane (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to not the article itself, but something that shows the date and title [13] Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Airline security. This is not about knitting per say but this is just one of many objects subject to restrictions on airlines. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual laws are generally considered notable, surely this listing of laws. --Pink Bull 00:27, 22 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) 04:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early Wynn Salter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician. I cannot find any references that his song Carolina Lady ever made the Billboard Hot 100. [14] In the first AfD nomination, the Billboard assertion was removed so it was speedily deleted. I'd like to either have someone find references or have this settled through the AfD process. Clubmarx (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice, and salt This keeps being re-created and the guy is just plain not notable. Continual re-creation is tantamount to vandalism. It's been deleted three times now. No references and not reference-able from WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The date of closing of the previous deletion discussion is 8 March 2010. The result was "delete" as ((A7)). I think the ((g4)) is appropriate now. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any references via Google News search. Nuujinn (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Otherwise, delete for non-notability and unverifiability of the claim to have a charted hit. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whatever the final deletion reason, I just hope it gets salted WP:SALT. I cannot find sources that would make this person notable and the seemingly false Billboard claim makes the speedy deletes get declined. Clubmarx (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I marked this for speedy delete as ((A7)) which I believe was correct as there is no notability. Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. A7 is not applicable here, but neither Allmusic nor Whitburn's Hot 100 book have a listing for Salter, which is pretty damning as far as charting the Hot 100. Looks to me like the author of the page is trying to fake his way into the history books. Chubbles (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a WP:SNOWBALL Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:03, 15 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 no consensus. Consensus seems fairly comprehensively split over whether the coverage provided is enough to demonstrate notability. No consensus therefore arises for deletion, and hence we default to keep. ~ mazca ^talk 22:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New South Hall[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, as it does not have multiple, independent sources. Besides that, the article makes no claim to notability. All of the sources provided are either trivial or from the campus newspaper. An attempt was made to redirect the article to List of Georgetown University buildings but that was reverted. TM 04:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual college dorm, apparently notable for its long hallways, and for its low quality architecture being considered characteristic of its university. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while there are some notable dorms on US college campuses, they're few, and this isn't one of them. Perhaps recreate as a redirect after this is deleted, since the redirect does sound like a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is historic for its architecture and for the means the school used to build it. Campus newspapers have been repeatedly determined to be acceptable sources on Wikipedia. User:Namiba decided to liquidate much of Category:University and college dormitories in the United States without discussion as far as I can tell, and I took issue with how they've gone about blanking pages yesterday and today. I'd like to see a fuller discussion about what campus buildings require for GNG. For example, the one under discussion is an administrative center, performance space, and campus movie theater besides being a dormitory.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it matters, I've added several secondary sources today.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 18:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If college newspapers are considered neutral, third party sources, then something is very wrong. Simply being the residence of a school mascot or being expensive, are not claims to notability. There are still no claims to notability and nothing more than trivial mentions from legitimate sources.--TM 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WikiProject Universities, I've seen the issue come up with each of the Featured Articles, which rely heavily on campus news sources. And each time a university article is up for FAC, those college newspapers are accepted by the the toughest standards on Wikipedia as acceptable neutral third party sources, regardless whether or not something is very wrong.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are in fact accepted for most purposes. The only problem sometimes is negative BLP. The question is whether they are sufficient to prove notability per the GNG,and I do not think they are. Looking at them here, they reference such things as the proposals for reuse of the old cafeteria, and that the President of the college lived there when a student, neither of which are substantial. The one thing that looks like a real ref, USNWR, is a listing about Georgetown dorms in general , and does not mention this one--that it is due to the cost of this particular dorm is WP:Original research. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the McFadden book, and the Washingtonian Magazine are reputable, independent secondary sources sufficient to show the article meets WP:GNG. I agree that the professionalism of student newspapers varies campus by campus. But we don't have to assess the Hoya or the Georgetown Voice here, because we have other independent secondary sources sufficient to establish notability. Racepacket (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket, what is the claim to notability in this article?--TM 02:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has PLENTY of reliable sources. Dew Kane (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but not for notability DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can give some examples of university buildings that are considered notable, because I don't think there's that much difference here.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the vast majority of university buildings are not notable. Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places are obviously notable. Buildings with independent, third party sources which are NOT the university newspaper. Simply being mentioned doesn't make a university building notable either.--TM 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I just feel that if the NRHP or UNESCO is your only barometer of notability, you'll end up with a very empty Wikipedia. Fortunately its not, and there are many ways to confer notability other than federal or international lists.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said that NRHP makes a building obviously notable. Otherwise, are there multiple, independent non-trivial sources which establish notability ala WP:GNG. Simply existing, as you might have us believe, does not make a building notable.--TM 17:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, a lot of references have been supplied, but I don't think they establish notability, which should mean that this somehow stands out among thousands of other University halls of residence. See WP:Existence ≠ Notability and the List of bad article ideas #4. Yes, I know they are "only essays", but citing them saves writing it all out. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It is sourced, but not by sources that would deem the building notable. Perhaps Merge into Campuses of Georgetown University.--Pink Bull 00:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of in depth coverage in reliable and independent sources. Seems pretty WP:Run of the mill to me. PDCook (talk) 00:53, 22 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) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis (songwriter)[edit]

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

This article about a singer-songwriter fails to meet notability through WP:COMPOSER or WP:MUSIC (relevant to COMPOSER #4 is that only award mentioned is for "promising" songwriters according to the award website) or, apparently, any other way. Novaseminary (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~very marginal either way.~~ [see below] I PRODed the article a month or so ago when another article on a different John Francis was up for deletion and this article was mentioned. That article was deleted but I deprodded this article after efforts were made to establish notability. I am not convinced, now, that notability has been established: the Sammy Cahn Award is for "a promising lyricist from The ASCAP Foundation Songwriter Workshop Series" [my emphasis]. Thus, it fails WP:MUSIC as it is for "emerging talent" as noted by the nom. My vote is probably Delete but I'll have to check further before committing. Note also that there are a number of songwriters called John Francis, it would seem, so the Google searches will either need to be further refined or manually checked for mis-hits --Jubilee♫clipman 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are actually only 36 Google hits for the above combination. I even tried without the dab and checked through manually. None of my searches establish notability, indeed I mainly ended up at Wiki-mirrors and social networking sites alongside a few personal sites etc. Google News returns only what appears to be a minor school event and even then only mentions the subject in passing. Definate NN, I would say --Jubilee♫clipman 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jubileeclipman - not yet sufficiently notable to pass our inclusion guidelines. Robofish (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Of the websites used as references, the ASCAP and the UN seem ok, the PJC is okish, and CD Baby is iffy. I'm a bit concenred however, that if there are indeed several singer/songwriters of the same namethat where some of these sites mention just the name John FRancis, are we dealing with the sameone? Is it a questione of the references having been made to fit the article? (this is not an accusation, but we don't know this). Under BLP rules, we can't afford to give the article the benefit of doubt.--Kudpung (talk) 22:24, 17 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Maria (Rossi)[edit]

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

Piece has received no journalistic notice that I can find. ((notability)) tagging has resulted in some very low viewership youtube links being added. I'm sure it's very good, but is it notable? Richfife (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am this article’s primary author. I believe the minimum time for the deletion process is 7 days, is this correct? I am swamped with work and travel this week so please have a little patience with me. I may not have time until later in the week or the weekend to formally respond to your request but I will do so as soon as possible. – Thanks.G8trsrule (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a copy of the article in your personal space here: User:G8trsrule/Ave_Maria_(Rossi) so that article is not lost if the AFD leads to delete. You can maintain it there if you like until better sources appear. - Richfife (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least so far it fails WP:NSONG. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My father's Ave Maria is relatively new yet it has been performed by Susan Neves, an internationally acclaimed NY Metropolitan opera star, it has been performed internationally, legendary arranger Charles Calello has written a musical score for it for a full orchestra, and legendary choral arranger Hawley Ades wrote several choral arrangements for it before he died. Yet, after reading the notability requirements for songs WP:NSONG I find it difficult to argue with your notation that this article does not meet the required standards. This is simply because it has not yet been written about journalistically, accomplishing that is difficult for a religious piece such as this. I appreciate that Richfife has copied the article to my personal space, if the decision is made to delete this article I will maintain the full article there until such time that the Ave Maria article can stand on its own merits with more sources and references and according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks for your consideration. G8trsrule (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 7 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) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Metcalf[edit]

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

Procedural nomination after proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. The proposed deletion concern was "'notability not established". Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per db-person. Looks like a self-promotion piece. Dew Kane (talk) 16:21, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Cruikshank[edit]

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

WP:BIO notability Alan - talk 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lead roles in three major shows is surely enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

she didn't have lead roles in them, she had supporting roles, for a short time. Alan - talk 06:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, I wouldn't have created the article if I didn't think she were notable, and I feel the article is adequately sourced to support this. I think you'll have a hard time making the case that "Brenda" in Movin' Out and "The Girl in the Yellow Dress" in Contact were supporting roles. --Rnickel (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional material to the article, including a 2007 interview ("Movin' Out Stars Talk With David Crabtree") and information on her individual awards. --Rnickel (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs context with verifiable cites proving her notability. The article is barely a stub, I won't even get into quality guidelines. Alan - talk 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Rnickel (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it is now, the article clearly demonstrates notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 20 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Ashe[edit]

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

notability WP:BIO Alan - talk 02:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has to be shown, but a full professor at a flagship state university like Minnesota will have published enough to be clearly a person notable as an authority in her profession under WP:PROF. And so she has : highest citation counts from WoS 558, 412, 403 -- 65 peer-reviewed papers in all, 12 papers that have been cited more than 100 times, and 23 that have been cited 23 times or more. she's the senior investigator in almost all, and they are most of them in the very best journals possible. In addition,she unquestionably meets one of the provisions of WP:PROF by holding a named chair, Edmund Wallace and Anne Marie Tulloch Chairs in Neurology and Neuroscience. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:Prof on criteria #1 and #5. However, more references are needed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the moment the article contains insufficient grounds to pronounce notability. Can review decision if expanded. JFW | T@lk 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Radagast this is a clear pass of WP:PROF #5. It also looks like a pass of #1 — it's a little less clear because the papers on which she's so well-cited have many authors, but in the best-cited of them her name is in the important final position. Google news search turns up sufficiently many independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets # 1, 5 FROM WP:PROF. I'm afraid why this '..have many authors..' comes in between the judgements. It is usually efforts from young Ph.D. student - advisors suggest problems, guide and help to correct mistakes. DGG has analyzed it. thx. --kaeiou (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High GS cites, named chair. Nominator, whose arguments for this AfD are extremly abbreviated and identical to those on other AfD nominations he has created, should concentrate on the doubtful candidates. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Easy Keep. If the Google Scholar results aren't convincing, take a look at the Google News results. Dozens of articles on her discoveries as "lead researcher". Abductive (reasoning) 04:23, 19 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 Boldly redirected per consensus. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 30[edit]

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

The information can be covered in Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) since the two roads have a shared history, and because State Route 30 no longer exists. Rs chen 7754 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as content was already merged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) since the info is there. ---Dough 48 72 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as above, to Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). ^Pepper∙_piggle 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ten Pound Hammer. Article may have been unmerged in bad faith. --Fredddie ™ 03:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I-210/SR-210; what was SR-30 is now I-210/SR-210. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above – Typical method of operation for U.S. Road articles is to have old route numbers redirect to the current route article. This is especially true in cases where a route is renumbered and having two separate articles for the current and former route numbers would be quite redundant, as is the case here. CA SR 30 was already a redirect of this type, and by all accounts should have stayed that way. --LJ (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone else. Dew Kane (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and others. It's standard operating procedure to redirect former routes that were wholly or substantially supplanted by another to the route that now occupies its routing or corridor. – TMF 12:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 14 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) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buffie the Body[edit]

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

Subject is not notable, article has no references aside from a link to her website Nuujinn (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Platform as a Service[edit]

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

Subject not verifiably notable. Of the 3 references provided, one is the author's commercial site, one does not even appear to refer to the subject specifically and one is a passing reference in a ~1,000 page book. Article apparently written under WP:COI by subject (a WP:SPA who already has a colorful past, as well as a number of IP editors) and most of the edits are problematic (typically de-prodding, removing templates, re-adding removed categories, etc.). WikiScrubber (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and lacking in significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust as a service. --Bejnar (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Platform as a Service has almost 40,000,000 results at Google and 56,800 as an exact phrase. Therefore it is obviously verifiably notable and should keep its entry in Wikipedia. Further, the first claim that one of the references in a major book is not speaking directly of Open Platform as a Service is false as there is only one Open Platform as a Service (it is a trademark). It would be like claiming someone mentioned Java in a technology context, but is not talking about Sun Microsystems programming language. To the same, any mention of Open Platform as a Service is referring to the one and only Open Platform as a Service. The second attempt to dismiss yet another mention in another major book is not valid as it is far more than "passing." In fact the book uses it's highest form of recommendation (a Bulls Eye Tip) to highlight and heavily recommend its readers use Platform as a Service if they are getting into Cloud Computing. How many times does a book have to say something is good for it to be be valid? Should we question Dickens when he said "it was the best of times it was the worst of times" in his novel Tale of Two Cities because he only said it once? Is an album in Rolling Stone not "awesome" because the writer only said it was awesome once in the review? Do we not really have the freedoms in the US Constitution because they are only mentioned once? Lets rejoice in the power of word to only have to say something once and not go down a slippery slope. 68.84.243.232 (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if google hits were a valid AfD metric (they're not) then I can't help but to notice that many of them are someone (you?) spamming articles with comments (not to mention things like this), interviews with the developer(s), press releases, etc. Then there's that other company who have chosen to go to market with the same (generic) name, so many of those hits may not even be about the subject (so much for "there is only one"). Incidentally the "highest form of recommendation" would have been more than a passing reference - perhaps an entire section or passage (and that's assuming the book is even considered a reliable source, which I doubt). WikiScrubber (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that notability hasn't been demonstrated (and probably can't be demonstrated) but please don't exaggerate the case for deletion by calling contesting a WP:PROD tag "problematic" and casting doubt on the reliability of a book published by John Wiley and Sons. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree, but contesting a prod is problematic when you do so without so much as an edit summary (and take out an ((article issues)) template for good measure) and reliable source or not, it was a passing reference. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically an advertisement for a new technology created by the article creator. JIP | Talk 08:46, 14 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) 00:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRB VKZ[edit]

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

A search for PRB VKZ, a type of martial arts, does not produce any results in Google News, Books or Scholar. User:Koala rm who created the article appears to be affiliated with RealMir, the organization that promote this sport. Disclosure: 2 months ago I moved the article to the main space per move request tag. Sole Soul (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find no independent reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage by independent sources to pass WP:MANOTE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 15 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 withdrawn by nominator, implicitly if not strictly explicitly. Also the nominator has accepted a proposal to merge, and there are no other "delete" opinions to consider, so technically this falls under WP:SK ground 1. NAC by—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Summer Enrichment Program (University of Virginia)[edit]

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

Individual minor preparatory academic program in an individual college. Only non trivial 3rd party link is [15] Previously Deprodded DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found several references from the Washington Post and the New York Times, just to mention two, as shown here [16]. I believe the program generated enough third party - independent - verifiable interest to be a stand alone piece. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them before I listed this, and I consider them all trivial mentions. It's as if we listed each college's scholarship program or orientation program as a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Borderline case...I can probably synopsis the piece into a paragraph or two and merge into the University of Virginia piece and just do a redirect. Best of both worlds. What do you think? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 11:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge would be fine,. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thanks for your help. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((CB-merge)) Showing support for the merge which is already done so you can close this. Ikluft (talk) 11:35, 14 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. Failure by those in favour of keeping this article to assert their claims of notability with reliable sources. Arguments like "it was in promotion of her Christmas tour" don't cut it. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Be Home for Christmas – EP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'll Be Home for Christmas – EP

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

No secondary sources found. Sara Evans is notable, RCA Records is notable. This is a four-song EP which did not chart, was not reviewed professionally, and is available only through digital retailers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it can be added to the article that it was in promotion of her Christmas tour. CloversMallRat (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of her discography-the rest of which have their own pages-and should be kept, at the very least, for the sake of completion. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM. Neither a tour tie-in nor satisfying completionists are valid reasons for keeping this article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply fails WP:NALBUM. None of the above reasons to keep are valid to per Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Rehevkor ✉ 14:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clovers added two sources, both blogs. Blogs for networks like CMT and GAC are fine in association with other sources, but here there are no other sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:10, 14 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) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fab Shield 8 Band[edit]

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

Unsourced and hasn't credibly established notability Eeekster (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and I can find no reliable sources writing about this band. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 14 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. Now the articles has been tidied up significantly and references added, the consensus seems to be to keep the article. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans D. Baumann[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP from 2007 encountered during CAT:BLP cleanup. A Google search (for "Hans D. Baumann" inventor, to filter out the better-known German author of the same name) yields no substantial coverage of him, only two or three mentions in the Palm Beach Daily News, apparently a small-town newspaper. I do not know, but doubt, whether his claimed publications and awards allow him to pass WP:BIO. Sandstein 21:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This verifies the claim to being on the top 50 innovators list from Intech. However, I'm not decided on whether notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of Keeps. There doesn't appear to eb a lot to go on, but doing a google book search qualified like [17] or like this draw up hits for him. This refers to him as "one of the best people in the profession". I suspect that sourcing would be available in specialised publications, and I just don't know what they are, and they don't appear to be easily accessible online. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article [18] in the Palm Beach Daily confirms that he's an honorary member of the International Society of Automation, which is that organization's highest honor. Anybody have any idea how prominent ISA is in its field? Ray^Talk 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep added some refs, but the self promotion is off putting. Pohick2 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few GS cites, his book on Hitler is regarded by some as eccentric (to be charitable) [19]. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. change position – see below. WoS shows 24 peer-reviewed articles plus some editorials and such (far short of the >100 claimed by the article), but some of these could be false-positives due to the commonality of the surname. Nevertheless, the whole list indicates an h-index of only 3, which is far short of what are normally considered to be required. His book is self-published and not taken seriously by the history community, as one of the references in the article actually reports. Much assertion, but no real evidence. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Agricola44 makes a clear case that he doesn't pass WP:PROF #1, but it looks like he does pass #3 by virtue of the ASME fellowship. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I could tell, the ASME fellows directory does not lend itself to easily verifying an individual fellow and the article does not give a link to any WP:RS from ASME. (It seems you have to manually browse each year and the article does not specify an induction year.) I agree with David's point entirely and will be glad to change my position if any documentation is forthcoming. Might anyone who's more familiar with ASME or its website be able to furnish a reference or a link? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Does not pass (intersect) WP:PROF, but may well pass WP:GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein. Agricola, fyi, I had no luck finding him in the directory listing (which appears to be incomplete), but there are links from ASME publications that refer to him as a Fellow: [20], [21], [22]. Ray^Talk 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. How prestigous is the ASME? Does fellowship of it it satisfy WP criteria for automatic notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (changed position from above). ASME is one of the main professional organizations in engineering and achieving fellow rank is notable. I'm a little uncomfortable that WP:RS can't be found officially from ASME itself, but the publication author lists found by Ray that call him a fellow seem to me to be acceptable as evidence. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 22 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. Black Kite 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silicone Power Battery[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Declined speedy/contested proposed deletion. Wider discussion seems needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. English-language sources seem at least carelessly translated and at worst actively misleading. Product appears to be only a brand of gel-cell, not otherwise notable. Descriptions are trying to make it look as if this is a fundamentally different cell from a lead-acid battery, when it is not. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SILENCE Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((CB-delete)) Inadequate refs. Content not ready for prime time. Name appears to be an asian-only brand. Similar name silicon battery redirects to battery (electric). Fails notability. Ikluft (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: I am not an expert on batteries, but if this cannot have an article of its own, I could see it being a part of an article on another type of battery. Dew Kane (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Merge to more general article appears to be a notable topic and not a hoax, even though the article is in poor shape. It does indeed appear to be fundamentally different from lead-acid, since it does not use an acid electrolyte. [23] for example uses these. Gigs (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That referred Web page doesn't mention the electrolyte and does not usefully describe the battery. While tracking down references last week, the patent claims describe a gel cell with some weird magnetic treatment of the electrolyte...but it's still a lead-acid gel cell. It would be very nice if vendors selling this battery could agree on "silicone" or "silicon", for that matter...but that's far from the murkiest language associated with this brand; neither the element nor the family of rubbery compounds seems to have anything to do with the electrochemistry. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. I have done a lot of reading. The patent does describe a weird, probably psuedoscientific process of magnetizing the sodium silicate solution. That said, it does appear that this is a unique electrochemistry that was used in some scooters and by some EV hobbyists. They seem to universally report poor performance, worse than a normal lead acid battery in their applications. I will change to merge, only because of the unfortunate problem that none of the good information about the poor performance of these batteries is published in what would be considered a reliable source, it's all in EV forums and blogs. So all we will have verifiable is the patent and the marketing materials, which would make for a very lopsided article similar to what we already have. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero evidence of notability. The sources provided in the article are either trivial mentions or not independent of the subject. Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 23 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 merge to Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Johnson-Odom[edit]

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

Non-notable college basketball player. Fails WP:ATHLETE, not played at a professional level. No reliable 3rd party source that discuss the person in detail, fails WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball. Bearian (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball.Edward321 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. Clearly doesn't meet WP:ATH or WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article in its current shape is not indicative of the notability of the subject. Johnson-Odom has received significant individual media coverage. See: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. matt91486 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. Sources given about are either blogs or local coverage. Abductive (reasoning) 07:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due fairness, if they're blogs, they're not personal blogs, they're run by major newspapers. matt91486 (talk) 18:43, 22 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 no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Tours[edit]

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

You know, Yes is a damn good band. I think they're great. However, a list of their tours as they have happened throughout the US does not belong here on Wikipedia. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See other wiki articles such as "The Rolling Stones Tours" or "Deep Purple World tours"!

An article about Yes' tours throughout the last 4 decades is relevant! They made history !

Lurulu (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I could see a listing of all their tours. In its current state, I can understand the request for deletion. However, I have always been told "..deletion is the last resort". If an article can be fixed through editing and it is notable, it should be kept. As Lurulu pointed out, "...An article about Yes' tours throughout the last 4 decades is relevant! They made history !". Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In principle, an article of this type seems fine, but what's currently there isn't remotely enough even for a stub. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author just started the article a little less than 6 Hours ago. I am more than willing to see how it develops, at least for a couple of days. Who knows, they may get some help. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is appropriate. The content is beyond skimpy at this point, but every article has to start somewhere. Rlendog (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comment. I was going to try to do some work on this article to improve it. There are some very good online resources of Yes's touring history -- notably Yesgigs and Forgotten Yesterdays -- but then I realised that there is little WP:RS to support a gig-by-gig level of detail (although a book entitled "Yes—A Live Guide 1968-1979" by Garry Freeman is expected). While I can see that reliable sources exist for, say, The Beatles or the Stones, I don't see enough material extant to support a Wikipedia page at the level of individual tour dates. An article at a tour leg by tour leg level appears more appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, I fail to see how this page is more than WP:FANCRUFT. It's completely unsourced and has no extra info other than a list of venues and updates. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think this article violates that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've expanded this page somewhat to show how it might work. My earlier comments about reliable sources stand. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and someone else has further expanded this page. It's substantially changed since the initial opinions expressed above, although some of the same issues remain. 128.40.182.50 (talk) 18:20, 22 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) 00:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Cheng[edit]

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

Previously speedy deleted and recreated by original editor. References show that he exists as a businessman but nothing independent to back up the article itself. No verified claim to notability. noq (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume.Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reference essential just establish that he is a businessman involved in a department store who is also on the board of directors of Philippine Airlines. The references tend to mention Enrique Cheng in passing; they're not really about him. And they don't support the extensive facts and praise in the article. Also, the article seems like it could an autobiography or written by a relative/friend, rather than something created by legitimate third-party editor interest. It's written with very strong praise not consistent with an encyclopedic tone. --JamesAM (talk) 01:55, 14 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) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nivelu' 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nivelu' 4

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

Article was CSD'd under A7 3 separate times on 6-MAR, and subsequently deleted. This 4th iteration is not much different. Fails WP:MUSIC, however, creator appears to wish to see community discussion towards deletion. Wholly non-notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Of the two references that aren't the bands social networking links, one is from blogspot and one is just a concert listing. There are two unlinked references that look like books. I highly doubt they've been mentioned in books if there is no reliable coverage on the internet. Doesn't pass anything in WP:MUSIC. Clubmarx (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 14 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) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PVT Pro[edit]

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

Non notable software product. No third party references and little coverage on google. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: a Windows-based software application designed for modeling the phase behavior and properties of reservoir fluids..... This software also provides a tool for asphaltene precipitation prediction. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 14 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 no consensus with a leaning toward keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avalanch[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Simply having members of the irrefutably notable WarCry does not mean that this band is notable. Searches in English and Spanish turned up nothing. Albums appear to be on non-notable labels. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. :They are most certainly notable. It's obvious you did not do a thorough search in Spanish sources. This Google News search (in Spanish) yields many pages of newspaper articles, including touring information, album reviews, awards, band developments, etc. Below are links to major newspaper articles about Avalanch.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Google search? Almost everything seems trivial. The first is a notice about them appearing in concert with info such as when the concert is, how much it costs, etc. Next is them winning a non-notable award. The third? Maybe. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it with fire. In total agreement with the nominator. Band guidelines state they must have had major coverage in national or international media, airplay etc... The sources and news articles do not look useful in proving notability, I say bin it and come back when there's more info. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 22:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Has had substantial coverage in Mexican newspapers, a strong indicator of notability for a band from Spain. Just now I have added several sources as a sampling of the coverage that exists. The subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1 and criterion #4, at least. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:57, 16 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marci Geller[edit]

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

Sources aren't enough. No non-trivial coverage found; label links to a cartoon instead of a label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a number of sources. She appears to be very notable. Silver seren^C 01:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I moved those to the talk page for possible use.- Sinneed 03:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they have to be moved? They're fine where they are. If we decide that some of them are not notable, then they can be taken out, but they should be left in the article until then. Silver seren^C 03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have wp:EL.- Sinneed 07:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that comment was made before I fixed it. Now there's only six EL, which isn't a ridiculous number. Is that good enough or do I need to do more work? Silver seren^C 08:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets WP:MUSICBIO with coverage in multiple sources. I added a citation to The New York Times which confirms that she "toured the United States and Europe, has gotten her songs onto the soundtracks of many TV shows." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Paul.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, 21 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham 6 (band)[edit]

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

Although they have dalliances with other notable bands, notability is not inherited, and without any independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, this band fails the guidelines for inclusion. A major contributor has no other edits apart from this article, and is called, erm, Birmingham6, so conflict of interest issues too, which although not proving unnotability certainly doesn't help its case. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources showing notability can be added to the article. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC#5 - two or more releases on a notable indie label (Cleopatra records in this case), as per their Discogs page. Lugnuts (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five albums on Cleopatra Records, decent Allmusic bio, and Allmusic reviews.--Michig (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig; I also added a quote cited to an American newspaper in 1997, that they were "among industrial music's most compelling bands". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:58, 16 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 no consensus. –MuZemike 00:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuichi Murata[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable. Has not fought in two years; does not appear to have ever fought against a notable person and has not fought as part of a notable promotion most of his career. Google search shows little evidence of additional material. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSubject fails WP:MANOTE. Contrary to the article, http://judomma.com/murata.html shows that his last fight was in June of 2008 and he was knocked out in 33 seconds. Pride FC website shows him with a first round submission loss in his only fight with them (2005). Search revealed another man by same name who's Deputy President of the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. Papaursa (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm changing my original vote. I still believe he's non-notable in MMA, but I believe he does qualify as a judoka. The article needs work (and should emphasize his judo results), but it has been improved since this discussion started. Papaursa (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources, there you go. Silver seren^C 01:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 sources and they both just give fight records. Where is the "significant" coverage? Having a record at Sherdog doesn't make one notable. The judo site also just gives his record and shows no world or Olympic medals or national championships. Papaursa (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a hurrendous stub of an article. If you're going to create an MMA fighter article, at least do it properly and write about some of the fights as well as including an MMA record. That's the least of the problems anyway. Biggest problem is per everyone else's opinion. Keep Paralympiakos (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is a three time finalist in various tournaments, which means that he does pass notability. Silver seren^C 08:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just being a finalist in tournaments doesn't get you past notability for WP:ATHLETE or WP:MANOTE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um..."Finalist, especially a repeated one, in another significant event;- (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)" Silver seren^C 18:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said finalist in tournaments, plural. No need to correct me about plurality. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No, what I meant by quoting that is that he meets the criteria for notability for both WP:ATHLETE and WP:MANOTE. Silver seren^C 18:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." He did that too, World Cup. Silver seren^C 18:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that his judo accomplishments allow him to pass WP:MANOTE. Being a 3 time medal winner at the Japanese national judo championships and having successfully competed internationally seems sufficient to me. However, World Cup events are not the same as World Championships. In every sport I'm aware of with World Cup events, there are multiple World Cup events during the year but only 1 world championship event. Thanks to the latest edit by TreyGeek this article looks pretty good. Papaursa (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWP:MANOTE where did you find that one. please stick to policies. WP:MANOTE is not even a guideline. Ridernyc (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, not sure why people keep quoting a failed out of date essay. Ridernyc (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"failed out of date essay" how exactly? It's a project essay! Not having been edited just implies it's stable. --Nate ^t/_c 09:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability." I would guess people quote it because "it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion." I wasn't aware it was "out of date". How did you determine its expiration date? Papaursa (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time the essays serve as valid guidelines for notability and are encouraged to be made for this reason. This makes sense in terms of martial arts and other such fighting sports because they are radically different than most other sports. The guidelines on WP:MANOTE are generally considered to be valid and can be considered policy for that reason. Can you please define in what manner the article is non-notable? Silver seren^C 02:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are meaningless and are not encouraged to be used, anyone on their own can write an essay. You need consensus for something to mater, a guideline with no consensus is an essay. Not sure where you are both getting this information but it is plain and simply wrong. Ridernyc (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Essays regarding notability that are used on specific Wikiprojects are generally considered consensus for that subject. In this case, at least, it is. It has just not been made "official policy", as many things aren't, but are considered to be so by consensus anyways. Silver seren^C 03:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again not sure where you are getting your information from but you are wrong, no other way to say it. Ridernyc (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. :/ Silver seren^C 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Judo World Cup exactly? Geschichte (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find the page for the world cup and it's very aggravating. There are news articles for people having competed in the MMA world cup, but I can't seem to find a page that explicitly describes it. Bot, as for world cups, here, have a look. Silver seren^C 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The International Judo Federation (http://www.intjudo.eu/index.php?lang_id=2) sanctions these events. They're important tournaments, but not as important as the Olympics, World Championships, or continental championships. Papaursa (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ATHLETE states Competing not winning. Competed in Pride (generally considered top level professional before it was bought out but the UFC) and competed in high level judo, don't konw if you can be a professional judoka but it can't be assumed the whole sport is amateur. Both these claims to notability are sourced. --Nate ^t/_c 10:34, 18 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Fire[edit]

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

Band itself does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Can't find any references to just the band. Sources on the page are either concert listings or just talk about the group's "Eternal Christmas" installation. Looking for opinions on this one. avs5221 (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puffy writing, no non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete C6541 (T↔C) 00:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced by multiple sources, including the New York Times. Dew Kane (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject (not just a band, but an artist collective) has had sufficient coverage of its work to meet the general notability guideline, including articles in The New York Times, Vice, and I also added a feature article about them from the Omaha World-Herald. Furthermore, the article I added which was carried on the newswire Religion News Service was reprinted in the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Times-Picayune, and the Regina Leader-Post. The World-Herald article states that the group's illustrated Bible project has had "worldwide" interest. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per typical, excellent work by Paul (better for noms to do it, and avoid this entire process next time).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 21 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) 00:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victim Comes Alive[edit]

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

Non-notable album by marginally notable band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NALBUM. The article is unsourced and Google ([35]) shows no signs of significant coverage by reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 06:06, 14 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 no consensus. Three weeks of being open to debate have yielded no comments whatsoever. No prejudice towards an immediate re-nomination. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squatta's Paradise[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Squatta's Paradise

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

Non-notable EP by marginally notable band. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 14 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) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock the 40 Oz.[edit]

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

Possibly notable band, but this album doesn't seem to match up, as it was on a non-notable label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, same. Shadowjams (talk) 10:47, 16 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.