< 14 March	16 March >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Amarok is clearly notable software and the original nominator has since weighed in with a "keep". I'll treat that as a withdrawn by nominator, and since there are no dissenters ... a close it is. Cyde Weys 04:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amarok (software)[edit]

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

Not noticeable or remarkable product. No one single reliable and independent reference that backs it up. Google-ing it returns mainly references to the Volkswagen pickup truck (not sure if there is a trademark infringement here). Valid references to this product in Google, at first sight, are coming from non-independent sources. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are two independent sources: [1][2]

Probably these two as well: [3][4]. Beyond that it's a popular Linux media player. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling +amarok +kde returns "about 10,600,000" hits; surely that accounts for something. 83.254.69.39 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the main KDE media players, version 2.3 just released[5]. It has it's own Sourceforge page[6] (I'm sure there's a way to get user stats & popularity from Sourceforge). Plus here's another independent source: [7]. Growdigital 17 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Amarok is probably the leading music player for Linux. Without searching too hard, I'd cite the above mentioned Linux.com and Linux Magazine links, as well as somewhat frequent mentions in The Register, like this one. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but serious re-write needed. Given references like Linux.com and Linux Magazine, I think that 'is not remarkable' is out of the question. But the article does not contain one single reference to any of the sources you all have mentioned! Blogs are by definition independent but non-trusted source and in general they are not accepted as references in Wikipedia. The structure of the article, showing too little about the product itself and giving mainly a list features of releases, look to me like Wikipedia is being used as a product's personal blog. Categories are also incorrect, I found it by following an 'iPhone OS' category ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Amarok is undoubtedly the most well-known music player on KDE. I'll add the the long list of reliable and independent refs by linking to Bruce Byfield's article on Amarok on LWN.net. -- simxp (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did you put any real effort into looking for sources? Here's a user-base statistic [8], courtesy of Debian Popcorn, which attests to over 7K user installations, just within their sample set. Resistor (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Almost every X11 user knows Amarok. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'll assume good faith on the submitter's part, but cursory searches of Google News archives gives plenty of independent reliable sources. Everyone should do at least a little research before nominating articles for deletion, they might even be able to improve an article's sourcing instead of nominating it for deletion! —siro χ o 00:47, 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 result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bookbuilders of Boston[edit]

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

Non-notable local organization in my field Orange Mike | Talk 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. The organisation hands out an award, and those who win it are pretty happy to talk about it, but there's no discussion of it (that I can find) from anyone other than winners, and otherwise no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I am not seeing the coverage necessary to establish this organisation as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It sounds like a great group, and I love books, but ... I can't any sources. No hits on Google news. The ten hits on Google Scholar mainly refer to the New England Book Show. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting WP:GNG, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Echo Bearian's sentiments that it sounds like a cool group, but just doensn't guidelines for inclusion here. RadioFan (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Petrolsoft Corporation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory proportionality[edit]

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

This article lacks references and is written like an essay. Also, I feel that it lacks enough notability to stand on its own. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added. Additonally, this terminology is in use in the realm of operations research and current inventory management practice globally; Wikipedia includes many other terms in this realm, but this one has been missing. For these reasons, the entry is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathteacher69 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Interesting topic but has less than 10 real web hits with almost no context. Suggest the contents be merged into Petrolsoft Corporation and other related articles. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one "reference" provided is in fact a dubious link to a software vendor. This seems to be at best a sub-branch of inventory management, which may itself warrant a separate article from inventory generally. Note also that Petrolsoft Corporation may not be a suitable target for merger or redirect; that business seems to have very limited notability if any. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Agree Inventory Management should be its own article and inventory proportionality could be a sub-topic of Inventory Management. The topic should not be deleted as it is a notable practice in operations research, inventory management, supply chain management, and optimization. Mathteacher69 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69[reply]

comment I think that if the creator of the article feels it should be merged, we should userfy it so he can get a chance to work at it and to merge it to an article about inventory management. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Should this article become the new inventory management article with other info taken from inventory? New at this. Mathteacher69 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Mathteacher69[reply]

The result was keep. Black Kite 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viet Blind Children Foundation[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews for 2 alternate names. [9], [10]. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several links on reliable sources added. The organization is notable in the related communities.Ans-mo (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Intelligentsium 00:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - based on the coverage in the Voice of America article. PhilKnight (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No consensus to merge is apparent in this AfD. Further discussions can, of course, take place on the article's talk page. Tim Song (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steinway D-274[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steinway D-274

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

The Steinway piano that this article discusses has no notability outside of being a Steinway concert grand piano, made by Steinway & Sons. No reliable sources exist that establish the piano as distinct from other Steinway pianos. Popular confusion about what constitutes a Steinway concert grand piano, or a Steinway Model D-274, makes it impossible to separate the subject of this article from its parent, the company. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I propose any useful, non-redundant material be employed to expand the article Steinway & Sons, and the page be turned into a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of writing "This article is bullshit." on the talk page for the article, you could write constructive comments about exactly what things you think should be changed. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is exactly what I would have done if there were any hope for the article. However, I stopped and performed my own investigation, and found no sources that talked about this or that model of Steinway piano. To the public, all Steinway grand pianos are the same, and none of the sources helps to differentiate one from another. Without this help, the subject is hopelessly non-notable, per WP:N. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise, but is not. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Nominator themself proposes to merge and redirect, which is an alternative to deletion that is incompatible with deletion. :wimdw: 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimdw (talk • contribs)
Delete. I was involved in an earlier discussion about this topic, which ended with "Steinway D-274" redirecting to Steinway and Sons. This article is not neccesary and does not add anything that isn't in the main Steinway and Sons article. It is not different in any way to other large pianos by Steinway (apart of the size). Most of the references used do not refer to the D274 model directly. I think that redirecting to the main article would be a good option too.--Karljoos (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Steinway concert grand piano with the model name D-274 is probably the best known grand piano worldwide. The references used do refer to the D-274 model directly or to "concert grand piano" which is what D-274 is. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so well known, why are there no reliable sources to establish notability? I cannot find any, and the article does not have any. Nobody seems to know one Steinway grand from another, except for people associated with the company. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Steinway & Sons. There's lots of content here that could be put into that article, but nothing which indicates this Steinway model is particularly notable in its own right. None of the third-party sources provided focus on the D-274 model itself. (I do agree with Wimdw above, though, that the nominator probably should have proposed a merge rather than taking this to AFD.) Robofish (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient material to establish this as a separate article. The truly notable products from major companies--especially a world-leading product from the world-leading company , generally do get individual articles here. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they certainly do, when they are named in reliable sources. The problem here is that the leading concert grand piano model product of Steinway & Sons is not differentiated from any other Steinway grand piano model, in reliable sources, external to Steinway. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet's point is very valid, and no, there isn't enough material for a separated article. Most sources are about Steinway pianos or about Steinway concert piano, but not about model D274.--Karljoos (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Steinway & Sons. As has been pointed out, apart from size, there is no difference between the Model D and other Steinway grand pianos. DGG has pointed out that different products from the same company sometimes get their own page. This is true. But there are significant differences between, say, a Honda Element and Honda Civic that warrant their own articles. This is not the case here.THD3 (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Nominator gets a foul called on him based on him for suggesting merge as an alternative to deletion, I suggest merge as an alternative to "speedy close" and a trip to the free-throw line for a one-and-one, then get on with the game. Mandsford (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Changed my mind per THD3, Mandsford, Robofish and Binksternet.--Karljoos (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose - I don't see why you are so against this page. It is perfectly notable, so I don't know why you have added the tag. There are by far, enough references to make it notable. If you merge it, you will just delete all of the content and not put any in the new page. It is much better than the previous version so why destroy someone's hard work?--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 42 references in the article. The article is pretty. It has a lot of lovely prose and some interesting bits of information. Unfortunately, none of the 42 references that are external to Steinway contains the sequences "D-274", "D274", "D.274", or "Model D". In other words, the subject matter of the article is not known outside of Steinway. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The article is pretty." – Not a reason for deletion or merging. Then you could delete all sub-articles.
    "Unfortunately, none of the 42 references that are external to Steinway contains the sequences "D-274", "D274", "D.274", or "Model D"." – Once again, "D" (in United States) and "D-274" (in Germany and the rest of the world) are the professional names of the concert grand piano manufactured by Steinway. In the references you will often see the words "concert grand piano" used. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Steinway Model C, or C-227, is also a concert grand piano.[11] Normal people do not know the difference. That "Good Morning Texas" co-host did not know the difference when Lola Astanova performed on the show using a non-D model.[12] In general, the Steinway models are not differentiated enough for the reliable sources to comment on them individually. People just know the make. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, the C-227 is not a concert grand piano, but it is – as your reference just above also say – also called the "small concert grand piano" – the word "small" is always used when talking about the C-227. At the official German Steinway website you will see, that there is only the D-274 called "Steinway concert grand piano" (in German: "Steinway Konzertflügel") and the C-227 is not called "Steinway small concert grand piano".[13] "Small concert grand piano" is more just a nickname for the C-227.
        That one host in "Good Morning Texas" makes one mistake does not mean anything. You generalize way too much. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me get this straight: the word "small" applies to the second largest grand piano of the seven models that Steinway makes? No, the word "small" modifies "concert grand"; the smaller of the two concert grands. The Model C "small concert grand" is a Steinway concert grand piano. Proving that the word "small" is always used with the Model C is going to be just as difficult for you as it has been to prove notability of the Model D. The differences that are so clearly delineated in the Steinway catalog have no analog in the rest of the world. Nobody else can tell the difference between concert grands, whether they are the pretty darn big ones that are called "small" or the other ones that are not. The kinds of sources that matter to WP:Notability do not display a clear understanding. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        On the German language de:Steinway & Sons Wikipedia page, the Model C is termed Semi-Konzertflügel, similar to "small concert grand piano" in English. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "The Model C "small concert grand" is a Steinway concert grand piano." – No, the model C-227 is a grand piano with the nickname "Small Concert Grand" (and sometimes the nickname "Half Concert Grand"), like the model B-211 is a grand piano with the nickname "Music Room Grand", like the model A-188 is a grand piano with the nickname "Parlor Grand", like the model O-180 is a grand piano with the nickname "Living Room Grand" and so on.[14] But Steinway's American website is not clear about that like the German website is.[15] (Steinway's factory in America does deliver pianos for the United States only, but Steinway's factory in Germany does deliver pianos for the rest of the world, therefore I often prefer the German website). Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to tell us what makes the D-274 essentially different from other Gran Pianos of the Steinway family (apart of the size).--Karljoos (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We hopefully will make the others in due course. However, the debates that we have had have slowed down this process--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do articles about the other models, if they are essentially the same??--Karljoos (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Admitting that I'm something of a latecomer here, I'd like to offer my .02. I would agree that most Steinway instruments are not entitled to their own articles--there's really no reason I can see to write separately about, say, the Model M or the Model L, admirable home/studio workhorses as they may be and regardless of any corporate efforts to give them airs by slapping "concert" designations on them or other lower-line models. The Model D, on the other hand, strikes me as a different matter, because for decades it has been the predominant instrument at least on American concert stages and the vehicle for performance by most major classical artists. Anent some of the foregoing discussion, yes, you'll very frequently see a simple "Steinway" used as shorthand for the Model D in this context, but to serious concertgoers generally and piano lovers in particular--albeit probably not to those of the public, including local newscasters, for whom every symphony, opera, chamber work, and chorus is a "song"--the usage is precisely that: shorthand for that particular model, not confusion of the model in particular and the brand in general. If someone gave a recital in Carnegie hall on a Model L, or even a B, I guarantee you'd see lots and lots and lots of chatter about the choice of instrument all over the Web and plenty of coverage in the formal media, too. If somebody gives a Carnegie Hall recital on a D, on the other hand, it doesn't draw a lot of specific mention, because that's precisely what's expected. Now, all that said, I also agree that the present article serves the subject poorly, as it is heavily encrusted with information deriving from company promotional literature and such. I've started an effort to correct that. It's slow going, in part because of that "shorthand" issue I mentioned earlier, but I think it can be done, and I think the subject is worth the effort. What I'd suggest, my "vote" if you will, is putting appropriate improvement tags on the article and working to bring it into better alignment with Wikipedia's usual standards of neutrality. Drhoehl (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's difficult to express just how important the Steinway D is modern classical music. Based on my experience working with professional pianists for over two years, almost all serious classical pianists prefer playing on a Steinway D to any other piano. Guitar companies Gibson, Epiphone, Rickenbacker all have separate pages for their historically significant models, so why not the most important piano in classical music today? SugaFace (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.243.110 (talk) [reply]

There's already a Steinway and sons article, which includes detailed information about their models. The different models of Steinway Grand Pianos and not so different from one to another (apart of the size). Most of the content of Steinway D-274 is already in the main Steinway article. Also, check the sources of the article and you will notice that most references are about "Steinway grand pianos", "Steinway concer piano" and not about Model 274.--Karljoos (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep withdrawn by nominator. There's no reason to drag this out further. While I remain concerned about notability standards that allow articles where secondary sourcing doesn't exist or hasn't yet been located, this isn't a proper place to have that wider conversation. Further comments should be directed to WT:PROF or my talk. WP:NAC Gigs (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Alberts[edit]

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

PROD was contested on this unsourced BLP. I can't find any third party coverage for this David S Alberts. There are plenty of hits for "David S. Alberts" +NATO, but they are all papers that he himself authored, not any third party coverage. Note that there are several other people with the same name. Gigs (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised at this nom (as I was at the PROD). A quick Google Scholar search, which probably misses some things, finds these citations for his books:

Network centric warfare: 706 + 208 = 914 (different editions)

Power to the edge: 323 + 223 = 546 (different editions)

Understanding information age warfare: 276

THE FUTURE OF COMMAND AND CONTROL: 108

Command arrangements for peace operations: 89

Information age transformation: getting to a 21st century military: 81

The unintended consequences of information age technologies: 71

Planning: complex endeavors: 64

I think the citations for those first few books meet WP:PROF #1. His influence on US Military thinking (see this search) probably also meets #7. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. h-index is about 17, but this is completely swamped by 700 (or 900) citations for his major book. Indeed, the Network-centric warfare article seems to regard him as the key person in the field. StAnselm (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major researcher. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So no one cares that there's no secondary source coverage, and that this article can never really be properly sourced as a result? Gigs (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, StAnselm: he is an extremely well-cited National security scholar, per WP:PROF. Any one of the sources available online could be used as reliable sources. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:BLP requires exclusive use of secondary sources; primary sources and personal sources can supplement those. There is also precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist) for allowing BLP articles to be kept without perfect sourcing. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does require "Sources independent of the subject". I'm definitely not one to insist on perfect sourcing, but I'm very concerned if we base notability on a standard that doesn't require even one independent secondary source. When I searched, I couldn't even find the university-published bio that has been added as a source. That is an improvement, but it should probably be treated as self-published and primary. I see it's flagged for rescue, if someone does find a secondary source, then I'll withdraw this. Let me know on my talk page if that happens and no one has voted delete yet. Gigs (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:PROF, citations are one way of establishing notability. The 2000 or so citations of Alberts' work are 2000 independent sources which together establish notability. Of course, those citations don't establish any facts about the subject, other than the fact that his books have been influential. As Bearian points out though, once notability has been established, university bios etc. are adequate sources for many facts (WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves). No one has !voted "delete" yet because this is not a borderline case: it's a clear "keep" -- although that's not to say that the article couldn't still use some help. -- Radagast3 (talk)

To me, it highlights just how incorrect and broken the application of WP:PROF has become. I don't fault any editor here for applying it this way, apparently this has become the common practice. Gigs (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find WP:Prof to be "incorrect and broken". I find it to be one of the most well-defined and consistent of the criteria for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Clear keep on basis of cites alone, also much else. The nominator states "I can't find any third party coverage". What an extraordinary statement: thousands of cites can be found just by clicking on a link! Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Do any of the citations talk about Alberts in a biographical capacity? If not, then they aren't sources. Gigs (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misunderstanding WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Neither of those require the sources to talk about the subject "in a biographical capacity." They merely require independent, reliable evidence of notability, which we certainly have here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has probably changed on whether it's OK to have biographies of living people when no reliable biographical sources exist (per recent BLP discussions). I've been familiar with WP:PROF for quite a while. What I did not realize that it was being applied in a way to allow the creation of articles regardless of whether independent secondary source coverage exists, in contradiction of WP:N. Since no one has !voted delete, and several primary sources have been added to the article, I'm going to withdraw this AfD rather than drag it out, since there's not a snowball's chance of a delete closure at this point. Gigs (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per above. Ray^Talk 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per searches and sources noted above. COI problems can be dealt with in other ways, the subject appears prima facie notable from the above noted info, so the article should be kept. --Jayron32 05:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator placed the statement that follows on my talk page. Since it refers to the present AfD discussion, I put it here for the record. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC). "I've removed your uncivil comment from Alberts' AfD. Continuing to make such comments would be a bad idea. Gigs (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

The result was merge to List of telecom companies in India. Or to a similar all-India list article. Sandstein 06:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andhra Pradesh telecom companies[edit]

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

Subject is a non-notable directory/list. Article is far too specific to ever be notable or useful. Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Andhra Pradesh is an awfully big place, with a population of 76,210,007 or so, and many of the companies in the list are individually notable. At the same time, many of the companies listed operate throughout India, and there is enough overlap among the telecom company lists in Category:Lists of companies of India that they could be merged into a single List of telecom companies of India. If the majority of the companies listed did not operate throughout India, I would keep the state list. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't realize how many "List of <xxx in India> telecom companies" there were. There are five: Shimoga, Solapur, Andhra Pradesh, Mumbai, and Bangalore. All five of these articles mention Tata Indicom, Reliance infocomm, AirTel, Aircel, BSNL, Tata Docomo, and Idea Cellular. Clearly these are not local lists. If these junk heaps are deemed worth keeping, the five articles should be merged.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)
Delete. there are less than ten telecom (cellular and landline) companies in India and some combination of them exist in all states. No need for separate lists for each Telecom circle. The telephone number information can be transferred to Telephone numbers in India.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:28, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge the five articles mentioned above (that's List of Shimoga Telecom Companies, List of Solapur telecom companies, List of Andhra Pradesh telecom companies, List of Mumbai telecom companies and List of Bangalore telecom companies) into List of telecom companies in India. From what I can see, it's basically the same few companies, with slight variations between states. The slight variations don't justify splitting into five articles, IMO, the one big article would also be easier to manage, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_India --naveenpf (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lewis (singer-songwriter)[edit]

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

There is no indication that the subject artist meets WP:MUSICBIO or meets general notability through another way. Due to the common name, searching is difficult, but the artist's own press page does not seem to reveal anything that would meet MUSICBIO. Novaseminary (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did some comprehensive searching, and the only link I could find was his official website, which hasn't been updated in almost a year. In addition, none of his albums seem to have ever been available (one of them says "coming in 2007"), not even from his own music store. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same here - can't really find anything other than his own site and personal promo stuff like last.fm and ReverbNation. If you try the "Buy CD now" links for any of his albums on his own site, you get a "Product not found" error. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. There is a claim of notability per WP:MUSIC - "Has performed in 40 states across the U.S." But this statement needs to be verified. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Willing to reconsider if RS support for notability can be demonstrated, but don't see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Tim Song (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, article is completely unsourced, contains original research and is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Also follows growing precedent that pricing games are not individually notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Sottolacqua (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect there are many different pricing games that are linked from the List of The Price Is Right pricing games, and have no sources or notability alone. They all need to be merged into that article, and a wikitable needs to be created. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. WP:SNOW -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How To scam for headshots[edit]

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

I'm not even sure what this article is about. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, speedy if possible. We aren't a howto (that's for Wikihow), and moreover, this is blatantly created by somebody who apparently wanted what he saw as a web host - which we are not. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this was a how-to type of site, there is no way this info will ever be useful to a large number of readers or verifiable. —Soap— 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. WP:NOTHOW, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOT#OR. — Rankiri (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title says it all: violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I don't see any reason why this should not be deleted speedily. --Wicked247 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only qualifier I see at this point is WP:SNOW. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO, should be closed per WP:SNOW. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy St. Patrick's Day!} 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- this violates WP:No original research and is probably a violation of the TOS which states you may not "Harass, threaten, embarrass, or cause distress or discomfort upon another user..."Smallman12q (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This needed ((db-nonsense)) not AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try that. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Per WP:NOT. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a mockery of procedure. Speedy Delete, of course.--WaltCip (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom garden[edit]

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

Article lacks any sources that prove this has any notability to get it's own article. I could see it becoming a section in the Victory Garden article, but I feel it has way too much COI as is. Author is using possibly self-published sources (wordpress). Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Gardens Response[edit]

Freedom gardens are a separate idea from victory gardens, in that, they are not a direct marketing campaign to conserve national resources nor is the idea orchestrated by the government like victory gardens were in the First and Second World Wars. Freedom gardens are a means for individual citizens to protect themselves from inflation and possible food scarcities in the event of a national catastrophe; they are not needed as a direct result of the current wars being fought currently like victory gardens were. The only similarity is the fact that they are gardens in public and private plots not normally designated for such use. The actual act of planting and growing vegetables is similar, but the driving idea behind is fear of an internal unknown rather than fear of the external foreign factors.

Free Pinellas (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)— Free Pinellas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This is basically an essay - could also be described as a WP:coatrack for the Pinella project. The term finds some use on the web, but I could not find any WP:RS reliable sources to establish it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability. The sources seem to be from Wikipedia itself. Dew Kane (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Gardens Response (Counterpoints)[edit]

The group is mentioned, in name or reference, minimally and the context does not promote the agenda of the group. I have established references where the term is used by other groups, but there is no origin from what I have found except through the original group agenda I have found and posted. These facts are not from wikipedia, that is why this page was created. The "victory gardens" reference was found through wikipedia, but is a separate and reliable source of 20th century victory gardens.

Comment There have been urban collective gardens for a long time, and people have grown food on their property for even longer. Community gardening and Urban agriculture already have articles on Wikipedia. Furthermore, your group's claim to have originated the movement and/or the term may not hold up to scrutiny. Other groups claim to have come up with the name "Freedom Garden" independently; see, for example, this which traces the origin to Pasadena, California. The book Food Not Lawns, promoting a similar idea, was written in 2006, before your group even formed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is great. I was looking for something earlier than what I had. I have seen the website you referenced, but did not see any statement of a date of origin, which is what I was looking for. As for the book, I will mention it and the year you specified. I will also state that many groups claim originating the term. Also, the point of the article is not that people grow food on their property, but the reason. It is common knowledge that people have gardens and some are used for consumption, but the purpose of today's movement points to globally or politically motivated topics, such as: peak oil, commodity inflation, unsustainable consumption, or catastrophic events like war or famine. People are becoming more aware of the instabilty of the powers that exist and realize the first step is securing the homestead through self-sufficiency.

Free Pinellas (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, this concept does not have a lot of notability, and cannot be traced to any one particular developer. The Urban agriculture article contains most of the concept that is at this article. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Mugambi[edit]

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

Article has no sources or references. His "publication list" is missing, and that makes it seem like he isn't notable. Also, written like an autobiography. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:PROF. This article doesn't seem to contain much more than what is in the Geoffrey William Griffin article (who has questionable notability himself). Also, it looks like some copy-paste action might be going on. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are easy to find using google or google books. Just few examples here: [16][17][18][19][20][21]. Particularly his involvement with climate issues seem to have made him internationally noticeable figure. Also, based on media coverage, being a director of a leading Kenyan schools is a prominent position. The article definitely has quality problems, but they are not to be dealt through afd. Julius Sahara (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep member of his National Academy of Sciences is presumptively notable, as for all national academies. Anyway, the sources above are sufficient in any case. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites give h index about 8, multiple gnews hits, distinguished educator. Publication list can be found on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laleh Bakhtiar[edit]

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

Lack of sources that establish notability Zionlove2 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacks sources and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) 15 March 2010 — Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks OK to me. Please note too: I don't think you can nominate AND cast a !vote separately as well. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "She has translated and written a combination of 25 books about Islam, many dealing with Sufism. She has also authored or co-authored a number of biographical works" sounds notable enough to me. It could do with some more references, and a quick Google suggests that there's plenty of stuff out there. (PS: I hope there's no WP:COI going on here - a whole bunch of Muslim topics nominated for deletion by someone called "Zionlove2"?)-- Boing! said Zebedee 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to Assume Good Faith, I wondered myself about that... Peridon (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also usually wonder about new accounts that launch into AfDs so soon... Peridon (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the notability requirements for an author. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I beg to differ. Does not meet the basic criteria of notability as is stated "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" Zionlove2 (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and that means it needs additional sourcing, not deletion - nomination for deletion should come after it has been established that the article is unsourceable (not just currently insufficiently sourced). Did you do any WP:BEFORE research before nominating this article and have you verified that none of the Google hits is usable? -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chicago Tribune and New York Times sources meet notability requirements - and there are plenty more sources out there (a quick google news search fines BBC and The Times sources as well). Possible speedy keep given that this user has nominated several articles on islamic scholars for deletion (using all three methods) al of which seem to meet our requirements and given the editor's user name I fear a conflict of interest. Dpmuk (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIrrespective of what others may think, this article simply does not meet the notability guidelines that require significant coverage in verifiable sources. If there is material out there then simply add it to the article.Zionlove2 (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems adequately sourced. BTW Zionlove2, your repetition of the same arguments over and over does nothing to further the discussion here - and leads one to wonder whether you are pursuing some kind of agenda. You nominated the article for deletion; you cast an addition vote for deletion; at this point you should stand back and let the community evaluate the article on its merits. "Irrespective of what others may think" is not the way we operate here; we operate by consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh Ha Mim Keller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability is yet to be established and mere passing mention of the subjects name in an article does not suffice Zionlove2 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has yet to be established in over 6 years of listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) 15 March 2010

— Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion may not have been established in the first 5 1/2 years (which, the last time I counted, was not actually over 6 years), but it was established an hour before this nomination was made. I would also note that the nominator's only edits to Wikipedia have been to nominate articles about Islamic subjects for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It looks to me as if there are sufficient sources in the article to support notability - all added a short time before the AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly adequate sourcing for notability. checking the nom's contributions, I think this is a case for what I almost never say, that these do not appear to be in good faith. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We have to ask ourselves whether the sources are "significant coverage" and are "reliable". So far all I have seen is passing mention of the subject in articles that would require "more depth of coverage and quality of the sources" Besides, passing mention in multiple places is not enough to ensure that someone meets the notability criteria for Wiki.Zionlove2 (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be quite a bit out there that is not just "passing mention". Presumably "all you have seen" is a result of your not having done your WP:BEFORE research before nominating the article for deletion? I've added a couple more references now (for his books - the content you removed this morning, which you should just have tagged with ((cn))) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above variously. This is not the first case I've seen of Zionlove2 nominating and then posting an unsigned Delete, but you've probably all noticed already. 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Missed me siggy off - sorry. Peridon (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDGG seems to have voted twice which is not acceptable. Irrespective of what others may think, this article simply does not meet the notability guidelines that require significant coverage in verifiable sources. If there is material out there then simply add it to the article.Zionlove2 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The history of this discussion appears to show only one contribution by DGG. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Siwik[edit]

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

A disputed speedy; a PROD tag was removed without addressing the underlying issues. This biography doesn't seem to meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines in any respect; the article was flagged for rescue but apparently did not interest any potential rescuers. Plenty of time and patience have been applied to this article but there are apparently no reliable sources available to bring it within WP:MUSIC guidelines. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that three single-purpose accounts have edited this article, one its creator. The closing administrator will no doubt take this element into consideration. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are starts of notability, but I see two things: one is a current lack of notability, and the other is that it would appear that a promotion agent is doing the work, which brings in issues of conflict of interest and using us to promote something. Once we get some secondary sources on Chad, I have no problem with him being here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has released stuff on iTunes seems to be the strongest claim for notability, which really isn't notable. No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up some untruths, the strongest claim to notoriety was not having been featured on iTunes. It was (1) having received a considerable amount of views and coverage of a Madonna tribute video featured on many websites with references provided and (2) being included in WeMerge artist magazine, a reliable music publication which did feature and recognize his album Red Flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.71.129 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a previous editor had stated the he was not affiliated with Chad Siwik. This was ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.71.129 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Karam Shah al-Azhari[edit]

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

Only provides one source in the last two years and does not prove notability to meet wiki standards Zionlove2 (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only one reference has been provided in over 2 years which does not prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) 15 March 2010 — Duplicate !vote: Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. — Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "was an eminent Sheykh (Spiritual Master) of tariqa Chistiyya and an Islamic scholar from Pakistan who served as a Judge at the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan and Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan." sounds notable enough to me. It needs additional sources and some of it needs rework, but an article needs to be unsupportable rather than just unsupported in order to to justify deletion. The nominator doesn't seem to have done WP:BEFORE before the AfD, as there are plenty of Google hits (I haven't checked them, but some look notable), and presumably more in Pakistani sources that might not be readily available online. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep apparently not a good faitgh request for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you can contribute to improving the article then do so.Otherwise it is quite obvious from the lack of sources that this article does not meet notability requirements of wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not necessary for other editors to improve an article themselves in order to be allowed to voice their opinions on whether it should be deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a supreme court justice meets WP:POLITICIAN and I consider the Pakistan Postal Service page I added a reliable source in this respect (possibly not strictly independent but here we're just establishing he held a position so it doesn't need to be). Verging on a speedy keep as a possible bad faith nomination - the nominator has nominated several articles for deletion (by all three deletion methods) all of which relate to Islamic scholars. Giving the user name of the nominator I strongly suspect a conflict of interest. Dpmuk (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per DGG and Dpmuk. Peridon (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Looking at the nominator's contributions, I agree this is a bad faith nom per DGG. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Irrespective of what others may think, this article simply does not meet the notability guidelines that require significant coverage in verifiable sources.Zionlove2 (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep meets wikipedia guidelines for notability Alio The Fool 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, being in a youth parliament is not a claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oli Phillips[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Polargeo (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there really a claim to notability here? Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really I was just trying to be nice and not A7 speedy delete this one as there is some stuff that could be followed up but yes likely delete. My WP:PROD tag was refused so I had no other option. Polargeo (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT Can I also add guys, this guy made history in the UKYP house of Commons debates. AND he has been running a campaign for the last year with support from other 40 MP's. [22] follow the link. This guy represented me last year, he is awesome - he has done something with his life, and works extremely hard. He is very notable in my area, he is the voice of the youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olik8 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to you adding some reliable sources on this guy. Please read WP:BIO and come back with some sources that confirm his notability otherwise this will be deleted. Polargeo (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tough mudder[edit]

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

Fails WP:N insufficient 3rd party WP:RS sources covering this organization / events to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should have also included per WP:CRYSTAL as this [23] indicates that its first race will be held on May 16 2nd 2010. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, one source is a PR newswire reprint, others dont seem that much better. Bonewah (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an upcoming event that is not noteworthy yet. All known information originated from their web site; no reliable sources for anything. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I think it's actually a candidate for speedy deletion, as ToughMudder seems to have been deleted already for the same reason. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Also from the looks of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tough_Mudder, someone has already explained to the author what the problems are, and they just resorted to lower-casing the M on this one to bypass that. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The prior deletion was done as a speedy deletion, so it's not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is correct, I looked it up later and I was thinking of deletions after discussions. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Press releases do not take the place of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen A. Martin[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits or GNEWS to support WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and sourcing is awful too. Bonewah (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business Ecosystem Orchestrator[edit]

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

Neologism per [24]. Prod removed by author of article. ttonyb (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its only source is a newsgroup thread? Ugh. Bonewah (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreadable gush that's meant to sell a book: a person who helps organizations and networks find and expand their unique "sweet spots" in order that constituent companies both compete and collaborate to unite disparate contributors to create powerful total solutions or experiences. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Google shows nothing of value. — Rankiri (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism wrapped in an essay nearly every statement of which invites a "citation reqd". AllyD (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed removal by consensus to orchestrate an improved and engaging reading experience through article reduction achieving measurable viewing outcomes for Wikpedia readers. Er, um.... delete. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have found this article's unique sweet spot. We should compete and collaborate to unite disparate deletions. Bonewah (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eksman[edit]

oh well fml

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

I cannot find any relevant discussion in reliable sources of this BLP of a musician. I can verify that he probably exists (see this), but that's it. I went through the article and found nothing but unverifiable claims, plus some IP vandalism. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see event announcements in Birmingham. Possibly some local notability but there's a dearth of coverage in reliables sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to combat IP vandalism on this article, but it was impossible to tell fact from fiction due to the lack a reliable sources. Grim²³ ★ 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to the article therefore it doesn't need to be deleted. 05fallont 09:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - None of the sourcing in the article is what could be deemed reliable. The interview listed is from a site which tells ouy "Anyone can add an article to DontStayIn - click here to add your own!". Discogs is a "user-built database containing information on artists, labels, and their recordings". Rolldabeats is a one man show which is really again a directory/database. Myspace and Facebook being his own sites aren't useful for establishing notability. Nor is that fact that his music is available for sale via download breakbeat notable. Winning the Drum and Bass Awards might be bnotable if it is a be a notable award, but from what I can see, it isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a reference from his booking agents happy? And it does seem a bit ironic that you are telling me anyone can add an article, when anyone can add an article to wikipedia. I think it is enough proof and it is clear of his existance. The only reason there are a lack of sources is because the music is so underground and has not been adopted by the mainstream. And yes the NATIONAL Drum and Bass Awards are the OFFICIAL awards of drum and bass so they are quite clearly reliable and notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.196.45 (talk)

Reply - I don;t know what you mean by getting a reference from his booking agent. And regardless, it's hardly an independent sources. You may be surprised, but yes, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booking agents e.g. the people who you contact to book the artist. 05fallont 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Reply - How is that helpful? We are looking for independent reliable sources covering Eksman. His booking agent is hardly that. -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up with you. How you can get any more reliable than the people who work from day to day with the artist? Your problem is you just won't accept that i'm right. 05fallont 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.10.40 (talk) [reply]

Reply - Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is what is being looked for. There was a link to this guideline earlier, but perhaps you missed it. Wikipedia:Independent sources is an essay which may also help understand what is being requested. I hope this helps you understand the type sourcing being requested. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nuclear Illusion[edit]

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

Although categorized as a book, this is basically a self-published report. Non-notable. Johnfos (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont think papers or reports are eligible for articles unless they are truly ground-breaking, this one is not that. Also, its sources are awful, non-notable. Bonewah (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's quoted here and there, but no coverage really to establish this whitepaper as not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly lacks notability.-Mariordo (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute are notable, but this paper is not. It's just part of an ongoing argument between pro- and anti-nuclear Greens (see for example this article)and isn't sufficiently influential to merit inclusion in its own right. andy (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malena (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Every song on this five-song EP has an article, with the same two (non-inline) sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 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, CTJF83 chat 05:06, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hajde, sanjaj me, sanjaj[edit]

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

Non-notable song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 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, CTJF83 chat 05:06, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenozoik[edit]

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

Non-notable song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 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, CTJF83 chat 05:06, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adams family abuse controversy[edit]

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

There is actually no such thing as the Adams family abuse controversy, the title and article is coatracked onto a one event BLP Liam Adams, for which as one event does not qualify as notable,. Almost all the content is about Liam Adams, with a singe comment about mr Adams, keeping it under this title only because as a one event Liam Adams is not notable is a back door approach to inclusion, content that is relevent to other articles should be transferred there if it is not already and redirects as appropriate. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's debatable whether this article is best kept under this title or moved to Liam Adams, but this issue has attracted quite a bit of attention over the past few months, it is notable. PatGallacher (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You believe and voted as I did to move the article to Liam Adams, there is no such thing as the adams family controversy apart from gerry said in an interview that his father abused members of the family, that is it, everything else is about Liam. There is actually no such thing as the title of this article. Check for yourselves on the find sources template just above and see what you find, the viewing figures on this article are all internal, this title and even this topic doesn't exist in real life and no one is looking for it for that reason. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thirteen references from reputable news sites would suggest the controversy is indeed notable, and we both know that's only scratching the surface of the articles that have been written on this. It may need a better name, but that's a different issue. The other 'controversy' section, as stated in the article's talk page, still needs to be included - what Gerry Adams did or didn't do when the allegations were made, and Liam Adams continuing (or not) involvement in Sinn Féin and youth work. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need a better name, that is scratching the surface, your comments actually support my position, there is no such thing as the title of this article, you have thirteen citations, so what? The truth is you have a single comment that could possibly be related to the topic. thirteen references and a single comment because that is all it is worth. Look at the viewing figures for this article, the views are internal, this is clearly due to the fact that this controversy does not exist except in the minds of a few editors here, I ask all editors considering this issue to have a look at the search results. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References from reputable news sources involving a controversy about Liam Adams (former Sinn Féin member), questions raised about the actions (or lack of action) of Gerry Adams (a notable politician himself). Granted, there are mainly questions about the latter rather than concrete information, but the matter is still ongoing - the extradition case has been postponed to April 2010. The article may need to be renamed at some stage, but as events are still ongoing and a renaming can be done at a future date. (In contrast to, say, the Iris Robinson scandal where both the extramarital affair and the financial irregularities are at least known about, even though there may be further issues for Peter Robinson.)Autarch (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and well referenced controversy. Valenciano (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per the extensive reasoning I'm about to give.

The current article title is a nonsense, including the scope it implies. To the best of my knowledge there are *zero* sources saying there is any controversy about the revelations about Gerry Adams Sr.. The supposed controversy is about Liam Adams and the extent of his relationship with his brother Gerry Adams, Gerry Adams Sr. is nothing to do with it. Attempts to move the article to a title that reflect the actual scale of the supposed controversy are reverted.
The article cannot be moved to Liam Adams as Liam Adams fails WP:BIO and more importantly WP:BLP1E. He's an alleged sex offender who doesn't pass any part of WP:BIO, and notability is not inherited so any arguments about him being the brother of Gerry Adams are irrelevant. If the article were to be moved to Liam Adams he would have to meet WP:BIO under his own steam, and he fails to do so by a considerable margin.
The article doesn't have to exist because Iris Robinson scandal exists, that's an entirely different article that has to be judged on its own merits and has no bearing on whether this article should exist or not.
The article fails WP:NOTNEWS, and more specifically fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) which deals with the notability of news stories. Let's take each of the criteria in turn shall we?

"Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect" - there's clearly no enduring historical significance, and no significant lasting effect. That is unless someone wants to provide evidence of it "act[ing] as a precedent or catalyst for something else"?
"Events are also very likely to be notable if they are have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." - no evidence of national or internation impact (note the word is impact and not coverage) and no evidence of it being "very widely covered in diverse sources", unless people would like to provide it?
"Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event" - we seem to be getting to the relevant ones now.
"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news and stories lacking lasting value, and viral phenomenae) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" - bingo, the relevant one! Being widely reported doesn't make it notable per the notability guidelines in the absence of enduring significance which there is no evidence of. So despite all the "it's notable" keep !votes above they fail to explain exactly how the controversy meets the relevant notability guidelines, whereas I have explained in detail how the controversy fails to meet them.

It's a classic WP:POVFORK, created by an editor with a history of violating BLP in relation to Gerry Adams to sidestep the lack of consensus for inclusion of this tabloid fodder news story that's largely irrelevant to Gerry Adams in his article. There is no scandal or controversy that Liam Adams allegedly abused his daughter, the controversy are the supposed inactions of Gerry Adams in relation to the alleged abuse. Therefore the whole article is a "criticism of Gerry Adams" article, and thus a POV fork.
There is nothing relevant to actually merge to Gerry Adams. I attempted to merge the relevant part of the POV fork back into his article and was spasm reverted. However the only part that's actually relevant to Gerry Adams career is Ian Paisley Jr calling for an investigation into whether Gerry Adams broke Northern Ireland Assembly rules, which I was planning to remove at some point in the future if an investigation never happened. Weeks and weeks later there's no sign of an investigation, so there's nothing to merge.
The matter is not still ongoing. Any criminal charges relating to Liam Adams are a different matter from the actual controversy. Since Gerry Adams handling of the situation started after the alleged abuse had finished, it's extremely unlikely anything relevant will be coming out in the court case since the evidence there will be from when the alleged abuse was happening not after it had finished.
The comments above can be safely ignored as little more than WP:ILIKEIT, or more specifically in the case of three editors WP:IDONTLIKEGERRYADAMS. They fail to provide any evidence that the article isn't a POV fork and that the controversy meets Wikipedia:Notability (events), in fact their bare claims of "it's notable" mean they are seemingly oblivious to the existence of it.

Any attempt to fix the problems with the article such as removing off topic information are reverted (hint: the person being referred to isn't Liam Adams and is someone not directly connected to the Adams family or the actual controversy), moving it to a more accurate title (see above), merging the POV fork back to where it belongs (see above) are blindly reverted by the creator/guardian of the article (you know, the one who has a history of violating BLP when it comes to Gerry Adams). It's a POV fork with BLP issues, it fails WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events), and it should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to reply to some of this.

1. It seems that One Night in Hackney is raising issues of alleged POV forking, inappropriate titles etc., but in reality he objects to this information being presented in any form in any article. Or have I misunderstood something?

2. I did revert the move to "Liam Adams scandal" as this was a controversial move taken without discussion, if some people feel this would be a better title a move request should be raised through the appropriate channels.

3. I might accept this being merged into another larger article if it would be kept there, but is this going to happen?

4. Limited disputes about what is or is not relevant content does not justify deleting a whole article. PatGallacher (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only your point 4 is worthy of addressing. I haven't suggested deleting the article based on limited disputes, I've suggesting deleting it because it fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Notability (events) and WP:POVFORK, all three of which are valid reasons for deleting. Now would anyone who has comented so far like to address those points, or are you operating under the assumption that saying "keep it's notable" without explaining why it meets the relevant notability guidelines is a valid argument? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oops, sorry, perhaps we should allow this to run a couple of extra days to compensate for that, I would also like to see comments from the wider community. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some points:

The title of the article seems appropriate given who is involved - a man accused of very serious offences, his brother - a prominent politician - who was told of said alleged offences circa 1987 and the woman making the complaint - all members of the same family.
WP:Notability (events) states that Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. and It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Given that the politician involved is a senior politician in government in Northern Ireland and his credibility has been questioned, this could well have implications for politics in Northern Ireland - will this result in Sinn Féin losing power? That in itself would be a notable event for which the controversy could be a catalyst.
Regarding the issue of the use of the word controversy, some statements made by some of those involved are disputed by others involved, as are other statements.
The Iris Robinson scandal was mentioned as a contrast (basic facts are settled, even if implications for Peter Robinson are unclear) not WP:OSE. In the case of the subject of this article, there are unanswered questions and events related to it are still unfolding.
While the criminal charges are not the same as the controversy, there is a connection, namely that what was done (or not done) to prevent what is alleged to have happened happening again - public statements made by some have been disputed by others and the trial could well settle some of these parts of the controversy.Autarch (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources saying this may be a catalyst for something else, or is that your own prediction? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that different parties disagree about what has happened it seems reasonable to conclude that a court case would be a catalyst - people have to testify and the court will have to decide on the truth - since some statements are mutually contradictory they cannot all be true. Granted, the extradition case has been adjourned, but as pointed out above, WP:Notability (events) states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Given that the credibility of a senior politician is at stake, it seems reasonable that it would have a lasting effect. Then there's the other matter - who else knew about the allegations? The original reports mentioned the RUC were initially approached but they alleged the RUC tried to recruit the victims mother. This controversy could cause upheavals for organisations other than Sinn Féin.Autarch (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE The references and view are not strong enough to justifiably keep on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.182.56 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What problems are there with the references? What do you mean by view?Autarch (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFree[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFree is notable: It's the highest rated non-linear video editor on sourceforge. Who are you, WikiDan61, to commit someone else's (mine in fact) hard work to deletion because it's not 'notable'? Leave the page alone. It will expand over time to provide information and help to the project's userbase.65.167.42.237 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide free web storage to provide help to FreeFilm's user base. If the product has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, it does not meet notability criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N. The subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See [25]. — Rankiri (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad sources and fails WP:N Bonewah (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only Ghits I found were blogs and a Facebook page. By the way, 65.167.42.237, I see where you're coming from, but the subject has to be notable before it gets an article, not after. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too early. Wikipedia is not for promotion. BTW 93% of 16? I make it that 14.88 people recommend it. Could be wrong... Peridon (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be one of those human-animal hybrids. — Rankiri (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

93.75% to be exact. 15+, 1-. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.42.237 (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Hamilton[edit]

The article on Rich Hamilton on Wikipedia has the UK Parliamentary constituency box for Milton Keynes North taken from Wikipedia itself and has elections contested, at the bottom, which are all verifiable by legitimate reference tags. These are all official UK local election results. There is nothing on this Wikipedia article which warrants deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horseanddoglover (talk • contribs) 2010/03/15 17:23:13

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Milton Keynes North (UK Parliament constituency). WP:POLITICIAN requires redirects as a general rule for candidates in legislative constituencies. The reason for this is that candidates are generally not-notable (almost all coverage is campaign-related and transitive) but we should preserve the content in case the candidate wins election and becomes notable. For completeness, the candidate is from a minor party (BNP) and I can't find any substantial coverage of him in reliable sources (I don't see the sources presented in the article as amounting to either substantial or reliable). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think I'd even bother with a redirect, as there are several over Richard Hamiltons already on Wikipedia. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for all not otherwise notable candidates. Redirect if it must be so. Peridon (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Hamilton, which is a disambiguation page. Place an item on that page stating that this is the name of a candidate, with a link to the constituency provided by Mkativerata. Ray^Talk 03:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable by any measure with little point to any re-direct. - Galloglass 10:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content apart from 1 or 2 stats repeated on the constituency page, Highly unlikly to win and fails: WP:POLITICIAN, for these reasons I feel that there is no pont in a redirect as I would normaly suggest. --Wintonian (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a complete lack of notability --Saalstin (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A NN serial minor party candidate, who has always so far lost every election for which he has stood. In the unlikely result of his being elected, the article can be undeleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Black Belt Federation[edit]

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

Nominated after discussion at Martial Arts project. Fails WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE 2 gbook returns, only 1 provides a paragraph of coverage and it's almost word for word from their website. 7 gnews hits, all are mentions and not coverage of the org itself. Most of the 11K ghits are mentions or non-RS sources. It exists. It is possibly big, but big doesn't mean notable. Not seeing much actual (or significant) coverage of the organization itself. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no independent reliable sourcing about this organization. All of the mentions seem to be of schools associated with the IBBF or speak of awards from the IBBF. I couldn't even verify that they're associated with the WTF. The WTF page says the U.S. member national association is USA Taekwondo, Inc. When I go to their web page I can find no mention of the IBBF. Papaursa (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly a merge to World Taekwondo Federation but not much info. --Nate ^t/_c 09:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have so far been unable to find any substantial and reliable information on this organisation. Janggeom (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The carolina panther wrestler[edit]

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

Delete. Claims notability. Couldn't find anything to back up the notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 as tagged. ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. It's been five days since the award was found, and no-one has disputed its significance. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodline Champions[edit]

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

Unreleased game which lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Award claims are not backed up with references. Even if they are source-able, notability of these awards are questionable considering the game is in beta. RadioFan (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now. According to the article this is still in beta and thus not yet officially released. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 15 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) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If beta is an issue, why doesnt Heroes of Newerth get deleted? And the award claims have been backed up with links to the SGA 2009's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahllen (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment other articles aren't really relevant in this discussion as articles are considered on their own merits and how they might meet guidelines for inclusion. But to answer your question, though that game is in beta, it has significant coverage in 3rd party reliable, verifiable sources, unlike this game.--RadioFan (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm following a number of games in this genre (LoL, HoN, and BLC). There are a number of sources covering BLC, even if they are pretty indy (MOBAgamers.com). A preliminary wiki page on BLC would be quite appropriate in its situation, I feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozrael (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reliability of these "Indy" sources is questionable. MOBAgamers.com in particular appears to be a blog.--RadioFan (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I did a quick Google search, and found that it was indeed the Game of the Year at the Swedish Game Awards in 2009. However, when it comes to any other mainstream coverage, I came up with nothing. I'll keep looking and I'll post it here if I find anything, but winning an award show should give it enough notability to have an article... it's iffy though. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable award win. - hahnch e n 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I'm not quite sure if [26] is reliable, but it did win that award, which does confer some notability here. –MuZemike 00:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hare[edit]

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

Autobiography which lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Contested prod. Similar Digital Lexicography, currently being discussed for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is an unreferenced biography of a living person, apparently an Excel programmer, that fails to state a case for minimal importance; being a government employee or creating models in Excel does not count. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.N.F (J-Com man)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A Japanese stock trader who made a mistake and got interviewed? Even if sources for these interviews could be located and translated, it'd be textbook WP:BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. 1st AfD was a bit of a joke IMO, and nothing has happened since then. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear cut case of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. Information on the event itself already covered at Mizuho Securities. — Satori Son 16:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a classic BLP1E case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Bonewah (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The ja.wiki article has an unusually large number of references -- these should be evaluated before deciding anything. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above sourcing is not the point of contention. Apart from this blip, this is a low-profile individual. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The event is clearly notable; this individual person is not. — Satori Son 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't being clear -- I meant, the ja.wiki references need to be checked for coverage outside this one event. If so, then this would be a keep. If not, then this would be a cover-the-event-not-the-person situation, with a redirect (after selectively merging as needed) being the appropriate outcome. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Bagi[edit]

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

Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league and which fails the general notability guideline. Article was previously PRODed and deleted, but has been re-created without any sourcing. Jogurney (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The player clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've found evidence of him playing for Slovakia's youth team, but nothing about him making any senior club appearances. Until he makes his début at a fully professional level, he fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Player fails GNG and also does not meet the ATHLETE guideline due to not playing in a fully-professional league. -- Big Dom 16:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo films on television[edit]

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

Not notable enough to deserve its own topic. If this information (which has just been copied wholesale from imdb anyway) is to remain, it would be best served on each individual film page, or possibly on the film series page. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing that can't be mentioned in the various Rambo films' articles if necessary.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it amounts to a trivia section, or a repost of what can be found in IMDB's "alternate versions" section. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This material belongs in the articles about each Rambo film, if at all. IMDB is not a reliable source, and I imagine much of this article is original research anyways. PDCook (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nearly every movie shown on TV is edited either for content or time. Documenting these changes isn't the job of an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Hard to imagine we need entire articles on edited-for-TV films, particularly considering how many significant US films still lack articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the movie articles have this information within the body of their articles, but I always regard it as fancruft in the first place. This is no different; networks always edit movies for content and time. This is not any different at all. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_29#Films_on_television_--_new_category_needed.3F. StevePrutz (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Information about what's been edited out or edited in to a particular film by TV networks should be part of an article about that film. Important within the context of those films, but not important enough for its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World hip hop[edit]

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

This is a content fork from Hip hop music. I think this article should be deleted for the same reasons (it cannot be salvaged or effectively merged) that American hip hop was deleted in this AfD. Hoppingalong (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and Delete per nom. Tarheel95 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename - I didn't have a !vote at the American hip hop article, but it's insane that there are maybe 20 <COUNTRY> hop hop articles, but no American hip hop article. Perhaps Canadian hip hop should have gone first; sorry if that angers some Canadians. This is an organizing page that is probably notable, but the current name makes it sound like a genre (sort of like "World music") rather than what it is, which is a discussion of the geographical variations of hip-hop.
Hoppingalong: if you're going to nominate the rest of what look to be maybe two dozen articles, then do them either in one AfD, or at least in succession. I think you're going to get adhoc decisions on each one unless people understand they're all connected. Shadowjams (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There really are several "American hip hop" articles, broken down into regions (East Coast hip hop, for example), so it is not like there is nothing there. I do get what you are saying and many of the country articles should be removed on notability grounds (I prodded Bahraini hip hop for just that reason). That is not exactly the same issue as there was with American hip hop and is with World hip hop, though. To summarize the American hip hop AfD, American hip hop was out because it caused a fork; hip hop music is inherently American (similar to if there was an article titled Cuban music & Cuban Cuban music, which would not be ok, though Cuban music in Miami might be ok as a second article, if notable). The World hip hop article seems to create the same fork, if not even worse. So, while I agree that we should only retain the articles for countries that have notably made their own way with hip hop music and all others should be dealt with in one notability AfD, this one shouldn't be part of that AfD. As an aside, the various country specific article titles all seem to confuse Hip hop with Hip hop music (as does World hip hop), too, but I think it safe to say that they refer actually to variations on hip hop music and that can be fixed though renaming the notable ones that remain. Hoppingalong (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love hip hop but all these countries already have their own article. One huge article encasing them all isn't needed. Str8cash (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) --Kyle1278 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 British Columbia avalanche[edit]

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

Non-notable disaster, Wikipedia is not the news. For some time this looked like there may have been many deaths; happily the missing have all been accounted for. Two deaths and four significant injuries (+26 other injured) are not enough to make this a notable event in my opinion. If the result is delete, there is also a redirect at 2010 Revelstoke avalanche. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to potential change/enactment of legislation as a result of the event. Thus, while the avalanche itself isn't what would normally be considered notable, subsequent events seem to have increased its notability. At least we should consider keeping the article until more info is known. Although I am an admin, I'm not going to close this as I'm involoved. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~((CB-delete)) Agree with nom that WP:NOTNEWS applies here.~~ A summary of US avalanches (so not including Canada) indicates avalanches with 1-3 fatalities are unfortunately routine. Ikluft (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ((CB-neutral)) Based on User:HJ Mitchell's comment about debate over possible new regulations of snowmobiling, I found a reference (which I added to the article). I'll back off from the delete position for now since this story seems to be growing legs which could affect its notability. But it hasn't necessarily earned notability yet. I'll observe the development of references today, or lack thereof. Ikluft (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not every avalanche is notable. Very few actually. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOTNEWS applies, this was a minor avalanche. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was created in good faith and it was entirely possible that more fatalities were going to emerge at one point, but they didn't and this event is not notable in itself, unfortunately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The government of British Columbia is reportedly planning stricter regulations for snowmobiles as a result of this incident, suggesting that it may have long-term implications. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on this mention, I found one source for that story. Do you have others? Ikluft (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like this nomination is overly early, since events are still unfolding, like politicians making various noises. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to View Askewniverse. Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mooby the Golden Calf[edit]

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

This character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Neelix (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to View Askewniverse as a key element in the stories therein. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Tarheel95 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This is a recurring character/plot element(!) in kevin smith's View Askewniverse.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Dependere[edit]

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

Non-notable theater company. References refer to local coverage only. Listed awards cannot be verified (I was unable to find any references to the cited festivals) and may amount to nothing more than local theatrical competitions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing the following articles as they relate to the founder of this group, and a theatrical production written by the founder and produced by the group:

- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have only good intentions, not just dissemination of local labor, but for everyone. There are thousands of big and small articles on wikipedia, maybe that one article is not remarkable, but there are others worse than these articles.

We can work together to frame in a great shape.--Itatira (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the references center around a school's use of theater as a teaching method/tool. Looking at WP:CREATIVE and WP:ORG, they would not pass. If these articles were notable, I would expect some non-local coverage about their work, like reviews, but I don't see it. All references for the play are about the bible verse, not the play. I don't see any notability asserted in the play's article either. Clubmarx (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass WP:ORG, no evidence this is any different or more notable than any of countless other similar local groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage by third-part sources.Lechatjaune (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep per Umbralcorax' and Dennis' reasoning. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Honshu earthquake[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Guys, please stop with the earthquake articles creation madness that began afther Chile and Haiti. DAI (Δ) 12:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Earthquake was a 6.6, which I blieve helps edge it past the WP:NOTNEWS threshhold into the encyclopedic area. If this were an article on the minor unfelt earthquakes my old area gets from tiem to time, then yeah, that's pretty minor. This, however, is not. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of precedent to keep major earthquakes; they invariably become notable just from the media coverage alone. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply in this context. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a 6.6 magnitude earthquake, which makes it almost 1000 times stronger than the 3.8 magnitude earthquake in northern Illinois (2010 Illinois earthquake). A 6.6 magnitude earthquake is rather strong. I am the creator of this article. Av9 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Cheema[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Subject is a student who's claim to notability rests on two events. First, she won a high school film festival. Second, she appeared on the local TV news channel as a part of a student news day promo by the station. In my opinion, this fails WP:NOTABILITY. There are not other GHits for her. No verification of any nomination for the Global Young Leaders Conference, however, students make application for this program, and pay approx. $3,000 in tuition to attend. GregJackP (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:N. See [27], [28]. — Rankiri (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
Delete, not notable. Wining "Best Overall Film" at the Surrey High School Film Festival isn't a good claim to notability. Possible G7 speedy delete per this blanking edit. Hairhorn (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and good luck. Vartanza (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland). Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon (Ireland)[edit]

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

There is no Irish variant of Nick, except for local advertising, similar to Nick in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 11:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) already exists. Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 11:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland). Can't see any current need for a separate article for Ireland here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I support your original proposal which you removed from the page, namely that of merging any relevant content into the main Nickelodeon UK & Ireland article. You seem to be mistaken about the local advertising, though - there aren't any local advertising versions for Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc. There is one channel covering England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (Nickelodeon UK) and a separately licensed channel (see http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/1154.htm) for Ireland. The programme content is the same but the Irish channel does exist. That said, as the only difference (currently) between the two is the advertising which is broadcast, I doubt if Nickelodeon Ireland is truly notable enough to have its own article - so for that reason I suggest that the relevant information is merged into the page for Nickelodeon UK. Bonusballs (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland)#Nickelodeon Ireland - there's nothing in the article that can't be placed there. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) per the above proposals. Tarheel95 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland); insufficiently notable on its own account to sustain a separate article. Rodhull andemu 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian national agencies[edit]

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

Incomprehensible. What is this really about? Not sourced, possible WP:OR. Some strange claims, including the notion that Norway competes with the KGB, which had a widespread secret police and spying network. This list has no grounds for existence. Geschichte (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "National agency" is undefined. The introduction lacks focus, and the sentence about lions is clearly original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Kjetil_r 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Some fantastic claims in this article, but all original research. Rettetast (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the whole article twice, and I still don't know what it claims to cover, or how it isn't a bunch of POV and OR. No sources to back up anything either. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maahesian Mimicry[edit]

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

No mentions in scientific literature or standard textbooks. Shyamal (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I've already mentioned elsewhere, it is WP:OR. • Rabo³ • 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, no mention of "Maahesian mimicry" in any articles in Google Scholar, Google books, or PubMed. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only non-Wiki Google hit I could find is on Flickr, here, where it puts it down to "Kermit", not "Sourial". There are some other apparent hits, but the pages don't actually contain the phrase. So yes, it seems like WP:OR at the very least. -- Boing! said Zebedee 01:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Based on User:Amoun-Pinudjem, Kermit may well be a pseudonym of Sourial. • Rabo³ • 02:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Kenaghan[edit]

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

Player fails WP:BIO, specifically WP:ATHLETE having not played at required level, and fails WP:GNG as any coverage is of routine nature such as club profiles and passing mentions in match reports ClubOranje^T 10:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 10:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 10:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Although women footballers are not as well known as men, it doesn't mean that they are any less good at the sport. This female plays for a team that, until last season, were in the premiership equivalent of women's football and she is therefore of higher notiability than certain wiki'ed male players such as: Arron Fray, Kalvin Morath-Gibbs and Brett Darby.

Wikipedia should be aiming to lead the forefront in promoting women's football, and increasing articles on up and coming female players is one of the best ways to achieve this. Deleting this article is against the modern way of wiki.

Peejay's claim is is unfounded to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JVinners (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not Wikipedia's function to promote women's football. Any person is required to meet notability thresholds to have an article. Requirements are same regardless of sex race age or religion.--ClubOranje^T 00:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this player has never played at a professional level. – Pee Jay 11:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. It looks to me like a case of an IP removing a PROD simply because they can. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find any reliable sources covering this athlete in any detail. She doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ATHLETE either. Jogurney (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Player succeeds WP:ATHLETE, "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", the highest level of female football —Preceding unsigned comment added by JVinners (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The highest level of women's football is not fully professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... in England. North American Women's Professional Soccer League is fully professional.--ClubOranje^T 23:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think women footballers would satisfy WP:ATHLETE without playing in a professional league if they played at the highest level internationally (eg FIFA Women's World Cup), but the player in this case hasn't done that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to The Fading. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elad Manor[edit]

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

Not individually notable. The Fading may be notable, but the other acts he's been in aren't. No secondary sources about Manor proper. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 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, CTJF83 chat 04:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no coverage in a search of Google News archives, and none in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion might benefit from extra time, given that the AfD message was removed on 5 March, and put back on 14 March. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:13, 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, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fading, as he is a member of that band. I can find nothing to establish any independent notability for him specifically as a musician. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks references and does not substantiate independent notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Black Kite 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saleyards Creek[edit]

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

there is no WP policy that says all creeks are inherently notable, in any case this one is actually a stormwater drain, and we definitely don't have articles for all of these in the world. so applying WP:GNG, this fails. nothing in gnews [29]. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~((:CB-delete)) agree with nom that WP can't cover all storm drains. This article has no refs anyway.~~ Fails WP:N WP:RS. Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does have refs now. In fact, the article has been expanded since nomination. -- Radagast3 (talk)

OK, I see it does have refs now. It still fails the significant coverage criteria of WP:N. If you want to save the article, that's going in the right direction. Ideally what you'd want to settle this and get the AfD monkey off your back is sources which are specifically about Saleyards Creek. Lacking that, realize that sources which just mention the creek may fail to convince anyone. Get as much material as you can find. I didn't find them when I did a Google search. (Or I'd have added them.) I also found and searched http://www.ga.gov.au/map/names/ which appears to be Australia's equivalent of the USGS GNIS system. If it's in a system like that, that should be enough. But again, I didn't find it there. Ikluft (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In this case, it gets multiple mentions in each of multiple reports dealing with local environmental issues -- reports in which local streams, including this one, are a major topic. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salesyards Creek is not a major topic of these reports. it gets some mention but Powells Creek and Mason Park are treated in depth. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the report on Mason Park is about Mason Park, but it also extensively mentions Salesyards Creek and Powells Creek, which both run adjacent to it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm still sustaining my delete position.~~ Please don't take it personally. I looked at Google Maps' representation of it, having found Airey and Bressington Parks. The waterway is not labeled, meaning the name is not present in Australian commercial map data that the mapping sites use. This agrees with the Australian government geographic names search coming up empty, which is undoubtedly a source for the commercial map data. Under these conditions, the article really would need sources specifically about it in order to be convincingly notable. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise - but it'll need a secondary source specifically about Saleyards Creek. Ikluft (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – if a storm drain can have an article, we might as well have an article for every named piece of water in the world, after all, the article says it is usually little more than a trickle. ^Pepper∙_piggle 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Keep. It is not a stormwater drain, but a natural creek that's been concreted during the 20th century. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's comparable, in fact, to the underground streams of London, such as Counter's Creek, Falconbrook, Stamford Brook, Tyburn (stream), etc. It meets WP:GNG because it's repeatedly mentioned in floodwater studies, environmental reports, and other discussions of the Sydney urban environment. It's a geographical feature. It may have become ugly, but that's an issue of urbanisation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For info, here is a picture. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. the picture shows a straight concrete edge like open air drains. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the photo's location in Bressington Park on a map. Any photo of water in this creek may be missing some context. That's where the last 250m of Saleyards Creek should have water normally only at high tide from the Parramatta River and Sydney Harbour. Ikluft (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed at the detective work. I'm presume that you mean that in dry weather (which it is in that photo) it will only have water at high tide, and that makes sense, since I understand that there are gates permitting tidal water flow into the adjacent tidal wetlands. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:Notability (geography) clearly states that "Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc." This is a named geographic feature (a stream). The fact that it's lined in concrete makes it ugly, but not less notable (makes it more notable in fact, because it generates a discussion about urban ecological issues). The article has several reliable references (and there are other floodwater studies and environmental reports that could have been cited). What more do you want? -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (geography) is an essay and not a guideline. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be an essay, but why do you think it is wrong? In any case, the original nom partly relied on an argument about the nonexistence of other articles about urban streams (which seems to me contra WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and made a valid point about WP:GNG (but that was before the article had refs). The refs in the article now show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," so WP:GNG is satisfied. I repeat, what more do you want? -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's hardly significant coverage, mainly a few local council reports that verify its existence. other streams may exist because they would have substantial third party coverage more than a few council reports. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Named geographic features are generally notable. The proposed concreting of the creek was in the New South Wales Industrial Gazette, Volume 43, 1933, p26. ShipFan (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put that reference in the article. (Ask for help if you need it. But you seem to have the document.) If the actual title of the article includes Saleyards Creek, that will satisfy what a bunch of us have been asking for. Ikluft (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a named geogrpahic feature. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as named geographic feature.Autarch (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being a named geographical feature isn't enough. It should still show evidence of reception in sources (which isn't hard for any geographic feature of but local significance). Them From Space 00:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Whether it is a stormwater drain or a fjord, it needs coverage in reliable sources. But reliability depends on context, and in this context (an uncontroversial geographical feature), I think the sources in the article are reliable enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one doubts that it exists - it's a less than 2km long creek turned into a concrete storm runoff canal. The question (which makes it controversial) is how the article qualifies by Wikipedia's rules for reliable sources and notability. So far, the references added to the article make passing mentions of Saleyards Creek but aren't actually about it. So that isn't convincing considering the geographic names search at the Australian government didn't have a listing either. Ikluft (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to merge to Powells Creek. The quote above from WP:Notability (geography) continues "The amount of sources and notability of the place are still important, however." So WP:WITHIN applies, which says "Don't create a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article". I've created nearly 500 stub articles about mountain ranges in the Western US - all of them included at least a USGS GNIS reference and an infobox from that data. The Australian government has an equivalent geographic names system. But it does not have a listing for Saleyard/Saleyards Creek in Sydney. (It has other creeks by the same name elsewhere in Australia.) So I think there is no saving this article by Wikipedia standards. However, now that more work has gone into the content during this discussion, that content can be saved by merging into Powells Creek, which does have a listing at Geoscience Australia. Do we have a path to consensus with that idea? Ikluft (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good plan - I support this. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the point of merging when this article is twice the length of Powells Creek (so I don't think WP:WITHIN applies). And as to naming, there is documented evidence of the name being used by state and local governments back to 1933. I note that the name doesn't appear in the GA database, and I'm not sure why that is, but there can be no doubt about the use of the name. I'm still saying "keep." -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of this article's sources are actually about Powells Creek with side mentions of Saleyards Creek. They are also all either primary references by the local government or unverifiable. See WP:PRIMARY and the note "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." At least Powells Creek has a listing at Geoscience Australia to establish its notability. All the delete/merge statements here are based on WP policy/guidelines while the keep statements are not - the closing admin will count the statements based on policy/guidelines. So there is no saving this article. Supporting a merge is the only path to consensus which will save the content. I strongly recommend considering that. Ikluft (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cited government reports are in fact secondary sources. Primary sources in this context would be first-hand accounts of flooding, and things of that nature (from WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event... An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident... Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources."). -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jeanne Bathgate[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable high-school principal that fails WP:BIO. A Google search for "jeanne bathgate" and "baulkham" (the name of the school she works at) result in 30 hits (most of which are yellow page listings), and the apparent three references are really all the same link, which doesn't mention her name at all. (If not deleted, the article should be speedily redirected to Baulkham Hills High School.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Recently, you listed the article "Dr. Jeanne Bathgate" for deletion. You said that the school she works at was "baulkham", however, it is "baulkham hills high school". A Google search for the school returned 18,800 results, and a search for "dr jeanne bathgate" returned 291,000 results. If possible, could you please reconsider your deletion listing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRAHSsucks (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand all that, but the problem lies within whether those links are reliable sources, and I don't think they are. And just because the school is notable doesn't mean everyone that works there is notable. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I only Googled for the first word of the school because if that doesn't come back as reliable, I doubt its use in the rest of the phrase will. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, if you go to the end of the Google results, there are only 327 hits for "baulkham hills high school" and 51 hits for "jeanne bathgate". Abductive (reasoning) 07:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect. The subject of the article has no coverage on the internet and absolutely no importance. Any of Bathgate's real information wouldn't even fit into the Baulkham Hills High School article. As a redirect, we can't have every single principal have a redirect to the school in which they work. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 06:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It is possible for the headmaster of a noted school to be notable, but I don;t see how this comes near it. I do point out though that there is no requirement that information be on the internet. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability for this person. Abductive (reasoning) 07:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not at all notable. Complete absence of reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is simply a recitation of where this person has worked and contains no claim of why she might be notable (as Abductive has pointed out already). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. At this time, there is insufficient evidence of non-trivial coverage. — C M B J 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while some notable people have worked as high-school principals, nobody is notable because they worked as a high-school principal, even if the school itself is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:TEACHER. WWGB (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a thoroughly inadequate article with multiple style policy problems. Afterwriting (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see nothing in the article that even comes close to making a case for notability. If the AfD hadn't already gone on plenty long enough I'd suggest an A1 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Kick (album). Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guns in the Sky[edit]

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

Non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kick (album). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't think it's non-notable, but I'm also not sure if the information about the song's video can be fully sourced. If it can, the info can be merged to Kick (album). If not, it's fan trivia so a basic redirect will suffice. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kick (album). Sadly, I'm finding no significant coverage online for this song in reliable sources to warrant an independent article. Gongshow ^Talk 20:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost star productions[edit]

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

This record label seems to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP. The only Ghits I found lead to MySpace and LinkedIn blogs. Also, one of the artists on the label is listed as Billy3bwhite, which is also the article's creator -- thus also failing WP:AUTO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Google shows no reputable third-party sources, and the article creator's affiliation with the subject is a violation of WP:COI. This probably even qualifies to be listed for speedy deletion A7. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 06:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger than Fiction (Pink Floyd album)[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd love to hear Corrosion, but there is no notability to most bootlegs. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM as a bootleg, and I can't see that it gained notability otherwise. PDCook (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Pink Floyd is a highly notable artist. I do not see why one of their albums would not be. Dew Kane (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note to Dew Kane: it's not a real Pink Floyd album. It's an illegal bootleg, and since it's from multiple concerts it's probably a second-hand compilation of previous illegal bootlegs. Note that some bootleg recordings have gained notability on their own (e.g. Led Zeppelin bootleg recordings) but this one has not. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bootlegs are presumed non-notable; Google web & books searches did not turn up any sources to overcome that presumption. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no significant coverage in reliable sources, this bootleg fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 12th Studio Album by the Who[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there was any useful information about The Who's upcoming album, I would vote to keep it. The article can be recreated at a later time when the album's name is released. The title of the article wouldn't even work well as a redirect to anywhere. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The fact that the article contains statements like "details regarding the album are sparse" and "it is also possible that" further fuels my argument. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the article isn't actually about the album itself, rather the fact that it could be their last album due to Pete's tinnitus. As a result, it should be deleted due to both Wp:CRYSTAL and Wp:HAMMER. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of WP:HAMMER--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A9 (album). WP:HAMMER is obvious here. Now, WP:SNOW enters the picture. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:HAMMER of course. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I'm here I might as well chip in, just in case there is any doubt about the consensus. Everybody above is correct. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see A9 as an issue here, since an album by a notable artist is a claim of importance. But WP:CRYSTAL is an issue. Rlendog (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, retitle to parent organisation per DGG - I'll do this shortly.. Black Kite 18:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Vinh Son Montagnard Orphanage[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. mainly directory listings in google. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator (failing WP:ORG), because Google shows nothing more than the organization's official website with no other sources found anywhere except the directory listings and mirror sites. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 05:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organization is rather small but is known in the related communities. I added several links. Vinh Son Orphanage is a well known destination for foreign tourists in Vietnam. And also the organization belongs to the List of non-governmental organizations in Vietnam.Ans-mo (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the references you supplied mainly are for Vinh Son Orphanage not Friends of Vinh Son Montagnard Orphanage. Belonging to List of non-governmental organizations in Vietnam adds zero weight to increasing notability. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More links on reliable sources added.Ans-mo (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and repurpose to an article on the parent organization DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. (nomination withdrawn) —SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sainoj[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Link farm was prodded; prod was removed by article's originator with the edit comment "He was not under treatment for long time... He was admitted to Hospital just two days before..." Disclosure department: I was the editor who seconded the prod when virtually the entire article was external links. B.Wind (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted here before above was posted. This article has been started recently. Please give some time to add more data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DipuSukumaran (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _{Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands-related deletion discussions. _{Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. Even though Wikipedia is not a memorial, we still have plenty of articles about dead people. The article has three reasonably long newspaper articles (two in English) as references which suggests that he passes the general notability guideline. One of the songs he performed is referred to as a "chart buster'. It would be helpful if someone with access to Indian music charts could confirm whether one or more of his songs charted. The links to YouTube should probably be removed because of copyright. The brief ScreenIndia.com obituary at http://www.screenindia.com/news/aika-daajiba-70-per-cent-complete/548526/ (near the bottom of the page) indicates that his death was of sufficient importance to be mentioned in a film industry publication. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obituaries in Asianet, Indian Express, [30], Screen India and nowrunning, show his notability. Article needs to be cleaned up and copy edited. (Image seems to be a copyvio)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination (speedy keep) - now that it is a referenced stub (and not a memorial linkfarm) that demonstrates that the subject qualifies under WP:BIO, the nomination is hereby withdrawn. Thanks to User:Sodabottle who was instrumental to the article's transformation. B.Wind (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Prince William County Public Schools. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gainesville Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school Eeekster (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prince William County Public Schools. The middle school itself isn't notable enough. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, per general precedent regarding schools under high-school level. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Prince William County Public Schools per usual practice; lets move on. TerriersFan (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distributive consciousness[edit]

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

Neologism DimaG (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also original research: the idea of shared consciousness over many individuals. It has been explored in many sci-fi series... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a completely unnecessary WP:OR fork of Collective consciousness. — Rankiri (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Collective consciousness. Perhaps Distributed consciousness should redirect there too, but there may be a distinction between the concepts that I'm unaware of. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly mind the idea, but considering [31], I doubt that it'll be very useful. — Rankiri (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Collective consciousness, Distributive consciousness could add a slightly different view of collective consiousness, if references can be found for the wording. Blackash have a chat 12:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I goggled it [32] Couldn't find reliable sources, the closest was a web site about a church group. Blackash have a chat 09:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Cowgirl (T-Pain Song)[edit]

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

This upcoming single does not meet the notability guideline for songs. –Grondemar 03:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC) *Weak delete. Aside from the fact that the article needs serious work, a Google search does result in a lot of hits, but all of them mention that the song was released and not much else. Maybe this article can be recreated in a few weeks. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a charted single from a notable artist. Template does not fixing, but that is not a reason to delete. Dew Kane (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where has it charted? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it charted at 100 on the R&B charts but some ass hole removed it. It dropped out 2 weeks ago so there are no more sources to confirm it charted. Str8cash (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Uncharted, no awards, no cover versions, so it fails WP:NSONGS. If it actually had an unsourceable one-week blip at position 100 on a genre-chart, my opinion would remain unchanged.—Kww(talk) 06:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's at #76 now. ^[1]Str8cash (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised position.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs?chartDate=2010-03-20&order=gainer#/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs?chartDate=2010-03-20&order=gainer

In that case, speedy keep. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted as copyright violation - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dual TriAmp[edit]

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

Neologism DimaG (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park Grill[edit]

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

This article just appeared as a link in numerous articles that are part of the Millennium Park WP:FT. Before discussing at WP:FTQ, the implications of this article to the integrity of the topic, I want to be sure that there is consensus that this is a notable restaurant. It is conceivable that consensus may be to merge this into another of the topic's articles. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink or Delete. Lonely Planet: Chicago says "stop here if you need a pick-me-up" which I don't count as significant, and mentions in the Post and USA Today are equally brief. All the other coverage seems to be local, although in regional Chicago papers (Sun-Times or Tribune). A small restaurant that has been open less than 10 years and has only minor controversy or attention belongs on a food or business wiki, not an encyclopedia. By all means add sources, but I don't see any sources yet that satisfy WP:ORG. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read all the material and footnotes added in the last 24 hours, and haven't seen anything to change my views. The concession issue was news for a few weeks and is minor in terms of Chicago politics. I will be blunt: the only genuinely encyclopedic thing I read in the article is its great views of the plaza, (good enough to appear in a movie!), which reinforces my view that it should be (and is) a section in the Plaza article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The concession issue was news for a few weeks..." The concession issue was news for more than 4 years. Chicago Sun-Times broke the story February, 2005. A court decision came down in July, 2009. Neutral, verifiable references from multiple reliable sources included. Hugh (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked out all the references given There are either the briefest mention or are press releases type material. Nothing substantial though one can certainly argue that the insubstantial does at least come from a reliable source! So the restaurant is verifiable, but I see nothing to assert notability. Looks very much like a thinly cloaked advert to me. Now keep, but not particulalry enthusiastic about it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks very much like a thinly cloaked advert to me." I agree on your suspicions of the motives of the original editor(s), but we are supposed to assume good faith, and in any case it's more than that now. Let the owners write about the view & their Kobi beef burger and we can write about how they got a tax-exempt restaurant with free gas, water, and garbage pick-up, and maybe some kind of balance is struck.Hugh (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True re the improvement. And what it looked like was with the assumption of good faith! changed my !vote. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sentences about Park Grill in the Millennium Park were already there. Just added the internal links. Lonely Planet: Chicago (as do many of the other sources) also mentions that the outdoor seating for Park Grill becomes the Millennium Park skate rink. So that is not the extent of the mention in Lonely Planet. The Gilfoyle book is a big one that mentions Park Grill several times. Have you guys had a chance to look at it? The lease controversy has been added as well. If the notability of the restaurant in the middle of Millennium Park on which cloud gate sits is in question, then should we have a long look at some of the others under the category of restaurants in Chicago? Being a Chicagoan, the other less notable restaurant entries were what signaled to me that this was an acceptable page. Regardless, this should be (kept..Updated as a result of the Lake House filming)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroothuis (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I nominated this because of what happened with the first incarnation of Schwa (restaurant) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schwa (restaurant). The only other Chicago restaurants I am really familiar with are Rock N Roll McDonald's and Sixteen (Chicago restaurant), of which I am the main editor. You will note that these articles extensively document notability and rise to the standard of WP:GA as a result. For local restaurants, it is probably fairly common for international notability to be at issue. I would suggest greatly expanding this article to be more like the two that I mentioned. Notability might become more clear if you do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - It could link to a ton of links to "related venues" (anything on and in Millennium Park and "critical review" articles like Sixteen (Chicago restaurant) does. Was under the assumption that reviews weren't good sources, though. Is that what this needs? I would be willing to add those others over time if necessary. I was honestly thinking the Trump restaurant is a good comp when I started this. Both young restaurants, both attached to major Chicago attractions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroothuis (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "I would be willing to add those others over time if necessary". In terms of the article passing here. I would add them ASAP. In terms of not causing WP:CHICAGO to lose its only WP:FT, I would also encourage you to pursue beefing the article up towards WP:GA in a manner similar to the other articles I have mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schwa (restaurant) where you said "Is this restaurant mentioned in tour books about the city. I think that is probably were encyclopedic merit would be established. Alternatively, has any pop culture relevance been established. I.E., has a major movie ever had a scene that has been filmed at the restaurant." With the Lake House (film) shoot, this clearly satisfies your threshold at this point, no? Hope you're willing to reconsider your vote! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroothuis (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources included in the article amount to significant coverage in multiple local sources and mentions in other reliable sources geared towards broader audiences. Because the subject of the article is a restaurant in one location alone, I think the general notability guideline is met; WP:COMPANY might be met as well. I see how this is borderline in some ways – to quote the latter guideline, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." However, I think the combination of substantial coverage in local sources and any sort of attention at all from national sources, even if brief, can satisfy the guideline. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I want to point out the new references to filming of The Lake House (film) at Park Grill and the references to the property tax disputes were added at this point.Agroothuis (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ The story of how the owners of Park Grill got their "lease/concession agreement" in Millennium Park is notable in the context of Chicago politics and contracting in the Richard M. Daley adminstration.Hugh (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you need to know about how the City That Works works can be learned by understanding the Park Grill. The Park Grill is every bit as notable a monument to Chicago as the Bean on the roof.Hugh (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Everything you need to know" is why I said that it is minor. Stories like this have come out of Chicago several times a year for perhaps the last 50 years. If many contracts from every city agency are awarded in controversial circumstances, then it is news, but not encyclopedic. This is worth of the order of a million dollars a year to the Park District, which has an annual budget of $390 million. This is why media outside Illinois does not take any notice, and Wikipedia shouldn't either, in my opinion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"media outside Illinois" The Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, Crain's Chicago Business, NBC Chicago are regional media. Hugh (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Stories like this have come out of Chicago several times a year for perhaps the last 50 years." WP:ALLORNOTHING Are you arguing the nothing side wrt contracting in Chicago? Hugh (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I am arguing for the general topic of contracting in that city to be covered, and that we omit articles on minor examples. Perhaps you will permit me to be even more blunt: we document motor vehicle accidents, but we don't, and shouldn't, cover every single one that is in the city newspapers, even when a driver gets a prison term. So yes, the Park Grill contract should get a mention in an article about the Park District, and perhaps the one about the Plaza. But Park Grill should be a redirect to its section in the Plaza article. I appreciate the contract section that you and Off2riorob created - it is a good piece - but its level of detail would fit far better at Wikinews (a website that I love) and not here on Wikipedia. All of the new sources are local, notwithstanding the importance of the Sun-Times and the Tribune. I remain unconvinced of notability to Wikipedia's standard. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Stories like this have come out of Chicago several times a year for perhaps the last 50 years." Please consider joining WP:CHICAGO. We could use more people with the perspective and insight that comes from a commitment to keeping up with the news out of Chicago. One need not reside in Chicago to join. Hugh (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am arguing for the general topic of contracting in that city to be covered, and that we omit articles on minor examples." In your opinion are issues related to contracting in Chicago over or under represented in WP? In my opinion contracting irregularities are a notable aspect of Chicago, currently so under-represented within WP:CHICAGO articles generally as to violate NPOV. Obviously we are not a booster site or a tourism guide. Which in your opinion are the major examples? Hugh (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am arguing ... that we omit articles on minor examples." Are you arguing the the Park Grill story is a minor contracting scandal example in Chicago? Very few contracting scandals in Chicago elicit any response from the Daley administration, but Daley himself addressed this on multiple occasions. The City Law Dept. responded in writing. The County Assessor got involved. No other Daley administration contracting dispute advanced to the appellate courts. I could add more neutral, verifiable, reliable references; would that help in your assessment of the notability of this story? Hugh (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contract didn't go to court, only the property tax. My opinion on its meeting the notability guidelines will be changed if I see a full article in a national paper or magazine. However, I confess that my recommendation to delete won't change unless something dramatic happens, like a Michelin star, multiple resignations, early termination of the contract, or a prosecution. I find nothing compelling in the fact that it has a great view of an interesting (and notable) sculpture, shares territory with an important (and interesting) ice rink, or was once mentioned in statement by the Mayor. Sorry. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The contract didn't go to court, only the property tax." The contract was central to the litigation; a judge was asked to make a determination as to whether the contract was a lease or license. Hugh (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I find nothing compelling in the fact that it has a great view of an interesting (and notable) sculpture, shares territory with an important (and interesting) ice rink, or was once mentioned in statement by the Mayor." I agree, but the restaurant was not just mentioned once, it discussed by the Mayor in several press conferences (I could add a reference for each, would that help?) and covered in the press over a course of years (but I repeat myself). BTW there is no view of any sculpture from the restaurant (the "bean" is on the roof). Hugh (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state as of 2010-03-20. This restaurant is notable largely for the extraordinary relationship between the contractor and awardee and for the backgrounds of the litany of familiar names among the owners and investors. If my fellow editors will not permit these aspects of notability, I vote delete. As currently written up the appropriate treatment of the Park Grill is an approx. one sentence mention in the Millennium Park or McCormick Rink articles. Any number of other restaurants in Chicago are more notable for their food or views. Rather than argue here I plan to be bold and edit the article to improve its notability but should a decision be reached in the mean time please put me down for delete. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The revamped article is beginning to clarify notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever is done to this article, it needs a severe POV-ectomy, which I've only scratched the surface of. I've removed terms like "mobbed up" and "ex-con" which have no bearing on the article itself. Woogee (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"mobbed up" and "ex-con" were taken directly from the references.Hugh (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding titillating tabloid expressions from low grade citations is not policy.Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"titillating tabloid expressions" Can you please be more specific? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"low grade citations" Can you please be more specific? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fair point about the POV. You should read the court case for a more straightforward version of some of the events. Less prone to sensationalism and more accurate with framing, especially of the legal issues in the property tax dispute. The "mobbed up" references, etc. if actually used in those articles, show that the Sun-Times circa 2005 (relied on very, very heavily for the Clout Cafe section) may have been hard after a scoop on this one and may have been pushing the clout angle hard. Not that it's not a legit story, but the way it's framed and what is emphasized may need some thought. Some citations are needed for some statements, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.142.135 (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section relies on multiple neutral, reliable, verifiable sources including the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Reader, Crain's Chicago Business, NBC Chicago, court records, and commentary on the court record from a legal commentary website. Signing, Hugh (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a degree of attack article here, I am not sure why or what but someone doesn't like something about it, if editors want to keep it they should consider it needs and should be trimmed back a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There appears to be a degree of attack article here, I am not sure why or what..." Can you please be more specific? Thanks! Hugh (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: The topic of this page is notability, on which a consensus has developed; the article has a talk page.Hugh (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment- Sorry you are correct there, I have removed the content that I had issues with and am happier with it now, I am neutral about merge or keep. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"am happier with it now" How is this relevant? Hugh (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xyriel Manabay[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews [33]. a few apperances on TV shows doesn't cut it for WP:ENT. nothing in IMDB [34]. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quite alot of bloggers talking about her, but in terms of reliable sources coverage is almost non-existent. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 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, –MuZemike 02:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to find some real sources on this girl, because actresses are inherently notable if they've been on enough shows. But, no such reliable sources exists, and she's only known through a bunch of blogs. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 05:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ephod Clothing[edit]

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

NN company. DimaG (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP, as all the Ghits I found lead to blogs. But there's no point in alerting the creator about this discussion because s/he created the article in May 2006 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CB-delete no refs so fails WP:RS and WP:N. Orphan since 2006 - time to go. Ikluft (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eshenbaugh Guitars[edit]

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

NN company. DimaG (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note moved to "Eshenbaugh Guitars" per founder's name spelling. Dlohcierekim 02:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to establish notability via a Google search for significant coverage by reliable third party sources with verifiable information. This included Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google Web. And both spellings. Dlohcierekim 02:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also found nothing with a Gale search. Dlohcierekim 15:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exposition Boy[edit]

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

Looks like a neologism. DimaG (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CB-delete No refs, and an orphan for 5 years? Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Ikluft (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. Good faith searches fail to establish notability. Appears to be a non-notable neologism. Even TV Tropes hasn't picked it up. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. The only Ghits I found were unsourced wikis. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete Per WP:HOAX. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fekdafonik[edit]

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

Non notable music publishing company. Also, might be a hoax since I can't find anything on Google. DimaG (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC) User:Dloh/afd d Dlohcierekim 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fistounia[edit]

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

Non notable product DimaG (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Slightly notable, but all the Ghits I found are either unsourced wikis or sites that backlink to Wikipedia. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Pieces of Silver[edit]

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

Non-notable: fails WP:BAND StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N and WP:BAND. As far as I'm aware "the mp3.com Christian Blues website" is a non-notable chart and they're not signed to any label, let alone a major label. Good faith searches don't appear to return any reliable independent sources although given the generic band name there's a lot of noise drowning out the signal on google. The article itself doesn't provide any help, source-wise. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, use page to redirect to Thirty pieces of silver. --Neutrality^talk 07:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it should redirect to Thirty pieces of silver. In accordance with WP:BRD, I've just made this happen.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, (and I think we've got a consensus) this discussion calls for early closure. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute early closure. The purpose of the seven day AfD is to allow interested parties time to weigh in and find sources, and good sources would be a reason to Keep, if they exist. The article creator or other interested parties might be once-a-week editors, hence the seven days. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I'm with DustFormsWords above. Should the redirect have been done already before the official closure of this AfD? Possible contributors now have to go through many extra steps to find an old version of the article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been two days with no further discussion, so I have de-redirected the page so it will be easier for other users to contribute here if they see fit. I don't think WP:BRD was appropriate for this or any AfD dicussion. The opening paragraph of that guideline says "for identifying objections to edits, breaking deadlocks, keeping discussion moving forward" and "useful when other dispute resolution for a particular wiki is not present, or has currently failed." There was no failed resolution to a hopeless controversy going on in the nomination and first two votes of this AfD. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notwithstanding the procedural stuff above, once someone is able to see the article and do their own research, this band does not meet the notability requirements under WP:BAND. Note that the web search can be made easier if you search for the band's name in addition to one or more members, such as Dale Baty. Nonetheless, they have not achieved any significant coverage in reliable sources; just message board postings, social networking sites (within Christian music) and the like. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to see BRD as a regular feature of AfD discussions either, but in the circumstances I think it was a reasonable judgment call. My logic is that the nomination, and all the "delete" recommendations, are contrary to WP:BEFORE.
Simply put, we can redirect this title to a plausible target, which enables us to avoid deletion; and per WP:BEFORE, since we can avoid deletion, we should.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid shares[edit]

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

Looks like original research DimaG (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable concept coined by a non-notable person. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism, can't find any significant usage outside of the book. Article has some WP:POV issues, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messame dassy[edit]

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

~~Per this [[35]] doesn't appear to be significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn per request. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- You know, not everything is news...you could try doing a regular google search...
- University of North Texas, states on p21 for Stalin: "Messame Dassy supporters of Georgian independence from Russia."

Some other links that mention Messame Dassy are

- http://www.bestlibrary.org/files/pre-war-ussr-1-1.ppt
- Communist Party of Britain(probably not very reliable)Smallman12q (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found the corresponding page on the Russian wikipedia, which has a link to an online encyclopedia (hosted by Yandex that duplicates the "Big Russian Encyclopedia" (from the 1970s). My Russian isn't great so I didn't add much but it's clear that there are lots of sources in Russian, at least. In Britannica it's spelled Mesame Dasi ([36]), so I would suggest it probably be moved there unless someone can find a good counterargument (I've redirected that page here). Rigadoun (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That name also has more google-hits, ones that seem more reliable, and was the spelling already used in two articles on Wikipedia, so I went ahead and moved it. Rigadoun (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *wipes dust off of self from construction work* There you go. One finely tuned, referenced, notable article. Have a nice day. Silver seren^C 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Aranda[edit]

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

At first blush, a well sourced article that asserts meeting WP:Music. But when you click on the source links, you are left with an empty sinking feeling as you realize there is little or no mention of the subject. I'm having trouble supporting the article with sources. This was previously tagged for WP:CSD#A7, but it does assert significance. It does not have a promotional tone, but we come back to WP:V and WP:RS. To me, made up references are tantamount to vandalism. Did I mention that the article says he's Spanish? So it would be possible for an English speaker like me to miss sources in Spanish. Seeking more eyes to be sure of this. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 01:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I created a brief article about Aranda some days ago, telling some things with some sources because I saw him in the world record's biggest lipdub at the same time that I found him in some other places in the internet, so I looked for info about him and put it here, but I didn't created the big article that YankeesGrey did. I would change the article if it's really bad sourced to my original one. I do not know YankeesGrey. I don't have spanish people to ask about him.--BryanCrenw (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article on the same subject and under the same name was first created in December of 2009 and deleted by User:Malik Shabazz who reversed himself to allow time for further work. I deleted the article - A7 -on March 5, 2010 and moved it to userspace for development on March6, 2010. User: Yankees Grey was the primary author at that time. The userfied article, which has seen some work, is located here. There are great similarities between the two articles due in part to Yankees Grey working on both. However the above message is odd. JodyB_talk 11:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for an investigation into the possibility that User:BryanCrenw, User:YankeesGrey and User:Mammamiakey, all authors on this article, are the same user and that they are attempting to game the system by using multiple accounts. My request is [this link here].Users have been notified JodyB_talk 11:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Farmville, Virginia. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farmville fire department[edit]

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

Unremarkable volunteer fire department. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Farmville, Virginia. The fire department is part of the broader subject of municipal services, and would be adequately covered there. Dlohcierekim 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is just not sufficient WP:V to meet WP:GNG. Dlohcierekim 02:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sufficient to meet GNG. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Royal_Bahraini_Air_Force#Incidents_and_accidents. As a compromise, redirected to the article which already mentions the incident. If there is sufficient RS to add information to there, please do Black Kite 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Saleh Sultan Sinan Al Dossary[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial DimaG (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews [37], which is surprising given the claims of the article. unless someone can find coverage in Arabic my vote stays. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arabic names are tricky. There is no standard method for transliterating them. That you found no google hits under "Abdulaziz Saleh Sultan Sinan Al Dossary" does not mean that there are no WP:RS for him, even in English. Perhaps you didn't notice, since they were busted, that the article already cited four WP:RS? As I mentioned below, these reference document not the initial crash, but the inquiry three years later to confirm or refute that al Dossary survived, was picked up by Iranians, who had been secretly holding him over the intervening years. Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possible merge, I am worried a merge to the BDF air force will cause WP:UNDUE - but the incident is already important enough to be mentioned there. Searching F-16+Dossary+Bahrain turns up dozens of results in the news...people need to stop just copy/pasting Wiki article titles into google ;) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

provide actual evidence of non trivial coverage please. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change: Probably we could change this article to a page describing the incident, rather than the person involved in the incident. If thats a bad idea, then i would agree to Delete with DimaG's comment that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Regards to all. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 03:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Compare Colonel Al Dossary with GIs who served in Vietnam, who ended up being listed as missing in action. I am old enough to remember over a decade of heartfelt fringe belief that over a thousand US GIs who remained classified as missing in action actually remained captives in Vietnam. A wikipedia articles about any of those thousand missing in action GIs that could only document that they were officially listed as missing would be an instance of WP:MEMORIAL. But a wikipedia article that could cite articles from an WP:RS that documented the speculation that the GI remained in secret captivity would no longer lapse from WP:MEMORIAL. Responsible WP:RS documented speculation that he was being secretly held in Iran. Maybe this speculation has faded. That is no justification of tossing the documentation of that speculation down the memory hole. Geo Swan (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge brief details to Military of Bahrain as regards the loss of an F-16. Good for keeping track of aircraft crashes, which helps indicate the pilot competency of an air force. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like its already mentioned in Royal Bahraini Air Force... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Bahraini Air Force#Incidents and accidents mentions Al Dossary's loss 2003. It does not mention the 2006 reports that he was being held in secret extrajudicial detention in Iran. So, could those of you who favor a merge please consider (1) The account that Al Dossary was being secretly held by Iran was covered by several (all?) the regions newspapers. Should this portion of the historical record be covered in the wikipedia? (2) Is it appropriate for the speculation he had secretly been held in Iran to be covered in Military of Bahrain or Royal Bahraini Air Force?

In my experience moving this from its own article to a section of one of those two articles would serve as a perenial trigger for edit warring. The English language wikipedia is far larger than the Arabic wikipedia, or those of other languages. Consequently we get internet savvy individuals, who aren't English speakers, checking the English language wikipedia to see what the Anglosphere says about their region. Some of these people are nationalists first, and wikipedia contributors a very distant second. They routinely delete referenced material they don't like WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the basis of "accuracy" -- in violation of WP:VER which says we base our articles on "verifiability, not truth". The current neutrally written and properly referenced coverage of the speculation that he was in secret detention in Iran would serve as a perenial edit-war trigger. Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems a bit one-eventish to me, and the article doesn't provide evidence that this one event sparked a major cultural phenomenon (like, for example, the equally one-eventish Natalie Holloway). But like LibStar above, I may reconsider if sources can be dug up to demonstrate that this event had a bigger cultural impact in Bahrain. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not establish notability outside of the single event. In terms of biography, the subject doesn't fall into any of the categories that would make him notable under WP:MILPEOPLE (although this is not a guideline). Finally, I don't believe there is enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HandsFree Networks[edit]

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

This article about a small software company provides nothing to support notability. The references are to press releases, a patent and a wiki, and searching found no substantial independent coverage (which is not surprising for a 45-person company). Created by an SPA editor who works for the company. Related content was speedy deleted several times at the name Handsfree Networks, but this version is somewhat expanded, so I'm nominating it here. RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CB-delete Fails WP:N, WP:RS. Appears to be WP:SPAM. Ikluft (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very limited coverage on the web, and appearance of WP:COI. Network World Fusion, Channel Web twice, an American Express B2B promotion site. No indication of WP-level notability in the article itself. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advertising as well: ...a global provider of software and services that automate the resolution of technology problems. HandsFree Networks support automation software platform has provided the ability to precisely identify, diagnose and resolve technical problems via proactive, assisted or traditional support automation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Rohan. No prejudice against changing the target to a section heading or to List of minor Middle-earth characters if it's created. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wulf (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

Another minor Lord of the Rings character. Ridernyc (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Middle-earth- Very minor, shouldn't need a whole article. Dog poster 00:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notability. Too minor for redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Rohan 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Rohan for now until there's a better article to redirect the namespace/content to. As of now the Middle-earth Wikiproject has marked several for merging, see talk page. This would definitely qualify. 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). Also redlinks are ugly. Uthanc (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be searched 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) 12:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO many of the LOTR redirects we have now should be deleted they are a mess, many of them point to sections of articles that have to nothing to do with the character. Endlessly merging and redirecting this type of stuff is not the answer. Ridernyc (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've read and re-read The trilogy, the Hobbit, Silmarillion, etc...dozens of times over the last 30 years and even I had no idea who "Wulf" was til clicking on the link. Not a useful redir Tarc (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Every named tolkien character should be included, at least as a redirect. There's no possible reason why a redirect would be harmful. it will help some people. Redirect are an easy compromise in situations like this. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Redirect either to Rohan#history or to an as-yet nonexistent List of minor Middle-earth characters - my preference. We've a number of these types of articles laying around, and such a link would be useful for the characters that don't fall into an explicit category [[e.g. Kings of Rohan. I don't think they deserve whole articles, but they do deserve mention. –The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Rohan per Uthanc. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Gondor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vidumavi[edit]

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

Another minor Lord of the Rings character. Ridernyc (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to House of Anárion, Rhovanion, Valacar, Eldacar and Gondor, redirect to either Valacar (as wife) or Eldacar (as mother). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to um, Gondor. The various kings don't need all those individual articles and we at the Middle-earth project are discussing where to put them. Perhaps Gondor can contain a king list and any backstory plot points can be mentioned in Gondor's fictional history. Uthanc (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Every named tolkien character, even in the backstory, should be included, at least as a redirect. There's no possible reason why a redirect would be harmful. it will help some people. Redirect are an easy compromise in situations like this. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Redirect to Gondor. De728631 (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Gondor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vidugavia[edit]

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

Another minor Lord of the Rings character. Ridernyc (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to House of Anárion, Rhovanion, Valacar, Eldacar and Gondor, redirect to either Valacar (as father-in-law) or Eldacar (as grandfather). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Gondor because it's part of Gondor's fictional history. As far as I know, most of the kings of Gondor themselves are planned to be merged by WP: RINGS anyway. 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) 06:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we should add it to the countless Tolkien redirects that lead to articles that make 0 mention of the search term. There is nothing to merge or redirect here sorry. Ridernyc (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect at least very named tolkien character, even in the backstory, should be included, at least as a redirect. There's no possible reason why a redirect would be harmful. it will help some people. Redirect are an easy compromise in situations like this; if the information is not in the suitable article already, add it--that makes it a merge, not a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gondor. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Rhovanion. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marhari[edit]

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

A Lord of the Rings character that is so minor the article has been an orphan for four years. Ridernyc (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast out beyond the walls of the world this refugee from an appendix. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Rhovanion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rhovanion. 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) 06:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect at least very named tolkien character, even in the backstory, should be included, at least as a redirect. There's no possible reason why a redirect would be harmful. it will help some people. Redirect are an easy compromise in situations like this; if the information is not in the suitable article already, add it--that makes it a merge, not a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]