< 18 March	20 March >

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

The result was deleted after the real discussion happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airavata Das (2nd nomination). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airavata Das[edit]

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

Vanity BLP. Wikid ^as© 00:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chelpedo punk[edit]

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

Looks like a neologism. DimaG (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Google shows nothing relevant, and the article's garbage. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 07:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything, see Ghits. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk as an example of the usual fate of such articles. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drop me a note when this comes out and I can restore it. Until then, deleted. Tone 20:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once (Diana Vickers song)[edit]

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

Creator repeatedly removes SD tags. Song fails WP:SONG and has not yet been released, failing WP:CRYSTAL. GregJackP (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create it, but i keep undoing the SD tag! The song is due to be released in April! It has references, what is your problem?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LilJackie (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the Youtube link that was placed here - this is a discussion over the possible deletion of an article. It is based on the WP standards of notability and future events. What the song sounds like is immaterial to that discussion. (GregJackP (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Clear failure of WP:NSONG as an unreleased song. No objection to recreation if it charts. I42 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It Doesn't get released to April!! There are many song pages which have less information and less references! I've also just added references from Amazon!--LilJackie (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which is why it also fails WP:CRYSTAL (GregJackP (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSONG, but no objection to recreation if it charts, which will not be until at least 23 April. That's over a month away. anemoneprojectors talk 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL but should it chart then re-create. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's probably likely the song will chart when it is released but until then, why clutter Wikipedia with an article with a yet to be notable song? Adam 94 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE! All you need to add when it charts is the chart positions. It ahs artwork, tarcklsiting, release date! What more do you want! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverL906 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE! I aggree with the comment above, the page has so much infomation on it unlike some of the other April singles. How can you consider this page for deleting when pages like This Ain't a Love Song (Scouting for Girls song) has so much less infomation on it, all you need to add is the chart positions after it charts, alot of pages are upcomming releases and dont have chart positions so why should this be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Lonley Cherry Tree (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC) — A Lonley Cherry Tree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't Delete. This artical shouldn't be deleted, it's out soon, and soon enough your going to re-open it.. a waste of time, you will have to upload single cover again, all the information. I agree with comment abvoe, you only need to add the chart performance.--SitDownOnIt (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid reason for keeping an article which does not conform to policies. I42 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. It has enough information but it needs cleaned up, other then that i would say keep.(CK...... (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The issue is not with the quality or length of the article, but the subject itself. I42 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is just going to have to be made again in a few weeks if it is deleted now so I there's no point deleting it. --Sumeet 92 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it? WP:CRYSTAL addresses just this kind of assumption. I42 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userify, by which I mean, Delete but park it somewhere, until it qualifies as notable by being actually released and hitting the charts. Not only fails the Crystal Ball test, but also the notability test. There are four references, but none qualify as an independent reliable source: one is Twitter, two are Amazon, and one is the singer's own website. A Google search turns up an occasional mainstream mention of the fact that the song is going to be coming out (this for instance) but nothing substantive. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why is it even being considered for deletion, it has just as much a right to have a page as any other artist releasing a song the same day. It's released in just under 4 weeks, why delete it? --Hithere2008 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for all those who said don't delete because it hasn't been released yet, unfortunately and ironically, that's why there's this AFD. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. If possible, recreate once it charts. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No charts, no cover versions, no awards. Fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 17:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annah Moore[edit]

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

Google search turns up only WP:SELFPUB. Has authored one book, but doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP (unsourced for 6 months), no evidence or assertion of notability, reasonable searched for web-based sources produced trivial book listings and little else. Studerby (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Martin (Broadcaster)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google news search of his name and the name of his station finds results [1] from various major news sources about him.

The Sacramento Bee has a number of articles about him, the first one on the list titled Rockin'steady Pat Martin and Monica Lowe have built solid careers as DJs on a strong foundation as a couple[2]
Victoria Advocate mentions how he convinced a very notable band to perform at a Halloween concert. That entire article requires pay to view.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel talks of how he got members of another notable band to meet together to put aside differences. I can only see the summary, and it not mentioning what band.

His actions are notable enough for major newspapers to publish them. That makes him notable. There is more, but this alone should prove it. Dream Focus 05:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Nice work, DF. I appreciate the potential save. ttonyb (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few of the mentions this guy gets. There are pages of this stuff. Why somebody leaves this as "unreferenced", I don't know. Why it get tagged for rescue, but nobody takes 2 minutes to look this guy up. Sure, 1 blog mention might not seem credible, but taken as a whole, with lots of mentions, this guy is apparently a significant character in his fishbowl.Trackinfo (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Braunston[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article states he authored a book, but he's one of five. No other assertions of notability, no WP:RS.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's just an ordinary minister. It's a controversial denomination, so one might expect news results, but there isn't much. This quotation and this story seems to be as good as it gets. StAnselm (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He is pastor of Metropolitan Community Church of Manchester, but that is a redirect to the denomination. Could it be converted to an article on that church? I certainly do not believe this can be kept as a free-standing article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing against Mr Braunston, but not notable. Risker (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iamamiwhoami[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet meme mhking (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be both notable and anything but a mere meme. Google recognizes the keyword and reports about a quarter of a million references and Bing somewhat more. Organizations working this story include not just music sources such as MTV, Billboard, and Variety, but sites interested in puzzles and decryption. It's likely to become an iconic example of viral networking which has spread well beyond its expected audience. Not counting video postings on other sites (Hulu, etc), YouTube alone reports considerably more than a million views in toto. This is an article worth keeping, and if we don't, Wikipedia may be the one place on the web where information about it can't be found. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been treated not only by semi-mainstream sources like MTV and Billboard, but even by the Times Online; I added the reference to the article. Notable enough to pass muster IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This viral campaign has moved a few people in the world (about 1,6 mio), so why shouldn't it be mentioned at wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.237.177.40 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least until the identity of whoever is behind this is revealed. This viral campaign is clearly marketing something, and once we find out who or what that something is, the information should be moved to the appropriate page; until then, keeping the article seems reasonable. The Mach Turtle (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. I'm a new user, but this seems significant to me, a viral phenomenon rather than a 'meme', whatever that means in this context. I notice Google turns up double the hits on iamamiwhoami that it does on some of the likely candidates such as Jonna Lee and about 12 times that of Karin Andersson. Keep. --Leigh 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep per above, and possible snow close. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This campaign is like an artistic/visual/musical project. As said before, it's a viral phenomenon, not a meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.195.108 (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shortland Street. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Worthington[edit]

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

Character has existed for too short a time to achieve notability. No sources beyond promotional and fan-edited sites. Article does not attempt to discuss real-world context - just a plot summary. dramatic (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notability_standards. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability at this stage. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is going to be necessary for the Shortland Street Wikipedia pages as it is involved in this weeks major storyline and is definately going to be involved in alot more. The character is also getting alot of attention from fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclovinst (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can cover that when reliable sources cover the attention (and I don't mean "Throng"). dramatic (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:OUTCOMES, to Shortland Street. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Boy 2[edit]

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

Cannot be verified by reliable sources. Google searches comes up empty. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Deprodded by article creator, AfD'd instead. Jarkeld (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 22:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod rational: Cannot be verified by reliable sources. Google searches comes up empty. —Farix (t | c) 22:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon. Since the Gatchaman (Imagi film project) AfD in the end of January 2010, bad news happened thus strongly precluding the eventuality of a such second Astro Boy movie. --KrebMarkt 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taproot Foundation[edit]

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

I can find no reliable thrird party sources reporting on this organization. Lots of news hits but the are mostly press releases. The few actual news hits are reporting on people who happen to be members of the group not the group itself. Ridernyc (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a few passing mentions as Ridernyc states, also some press releases. Insufficient to establish notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current entry is VERY weak, but organization operates in 6 cities nationally with third party references from time magazine, forbes, msnbc, fast company, new york times, chronicle of philanthropy, etc. organization's "pro bono action tank" and president aaron hurst also reported on by many third party sources Rebecca273747 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will have no problem at all providing us with these independent references that discuss the organization not it's members. Ridernyc (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a few references/websites (and i got rid of a few sentences that were very biased/ unsubstantiated)- do you think this is more on track? i can go in and add more references, but I dont have much experience editing wikipedia articles (or dealing with the wikipedia etiquette) and (full disclosure) I know some of Taproot's New York staff so I didnt want to make any big changes/overstep my bounds. I tired to make it more objective/supported than it was before. thoughts/input? are the types of websites and references I added appropriate/moving in the right direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca273747 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry! not used to the coding for signing either!Rebecca273747 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the time article and found no mention of Taproot, and the other sources seem to be from somewhat questionable sources. Seems this organization is spending a lot of money on PR. Ridernyc (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2010 (UT

They're in the times article but its not a great reference- swapped it out for references from forbes, ny times, and onphilanthropy which i think are a bit stronger- maybe that's helpful? Rebecca273747 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is a passing mention while discussing another person. We need substantial coverage of the organization in reliable sources. Would love to see this non-profits reports and see how much they spend on PR. Ridernyc (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Forbes article is substantial; it's actually about the organization. And Ridernyc, if you want to see how the organization spends its money, just click on the Charity Navigator link, right there in the references. The mere fact that it is rated by Charity Navigator suggests that it is significant. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mundane cyborgs[edit]

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

Possible hoax, article on parent family of cyborgs is nominated for speedy deletion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. I don't know if it's a hoax, but I can't find any Google hits outside of blogs. The "parent" article Intermittent cyborgs came up with a mere seven Ghits (and it was created by the same editor), so I propose we delete it as well. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a group of students are trying to create new vocabulary to expand the traditional use of the term cyborg. Nuujinn (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akimbo Podcast[edit]

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

Podcast of questionable notability. Provided sourced are either primary sources or furm posts - no independent or verifiable third-party sources provided. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't seem terribly notable. I'm sure there are thousands, if not millions, of similar podcasts. Why does this one merit an article? RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable podcast, I was the one who tagged the declined speedy. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:31, 19 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) 01:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GodzHell[edit]

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

Game of questionable notability. Previously deleted under GodzHell.com. Only provided source is a press release from the site - no independent or verifiable third-party sources provided. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game is not notable, and sources are not independent of subject. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:18, 19 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) 01:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my reasons for an earlier (declined) CSD. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - game has not received significant coverage from reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage listed in article, none found in Google search. Apparently not notable yet. DES ^(talk) 15:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ASCII art. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2channel Shift JIS art[edit]

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

This is an article about the ASCII art which is used on, and comes from, a Japanese Forum. Not one reference to demonstrate notability, this entire article is a mass of OR Jac16888 ^Talk 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiBooks for a book on text-mode character based art ("ASCII art") and then merge/redirect to ASCII art (which needs to be renamed anyways, since it's not all ASCII). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect The article contains too much unnecessary information about characters of a long list. Following 70.29.210.242's recommendation, only a single representative character (e.g. Monā) should be included in the article ASCII art. 24.98.201.105 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect/Leave I　think this articles merge The Shiftjis-art.(or leave).--基建吉(MOTOI Kenkichi) (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mentioned on the wthr article, seems enough. Tone 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Calabro[edit]

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

Article on an insufficiently notable local news sportscaster. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Contested PROD, so comes here for deletion. — Satori Son 20:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The given references are either affiliated with the subject or only mention him in passing, and I'm not finding any significant and independent sources via a Google search. It doesn't seem like he's won any broadcasting awards. Overall I can't see how he passes WP:BIO. PDCook (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I love local TV news, this may be a bit too far. Merge anything relevant back to WTHR and put it by his name. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 21:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:CHEAP to WTHR. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Clear consensus on notability and sourcing. As per DGG, disagreeing with a person's position is not grounds for deletion. Mike Cline (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Attwood[edit]

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

Not notable academic whose article only has a single citation. And most of the page consists of what is apparently advertising for his books that are published at "Future Horizons", a source fringe at best. UltraMagnus^speak 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unclear whether this AfD is intended to relate to Tony Attwood the psychologist or Tony Attwood (writer), the direct mail writer? Neither of the pages has been marked with an AfD notice. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the psychologist, his page lists a lot more than the Future Horizons publications, including two books at 2598 & 6451 in Amazon UK sales rankings. They're also available in French, German and Japanese translations. And try typing Tony Attwood into Google Scholar for a massive number of citations in studies on Asbergers. Even if this AfD is properly flagged, it looks doomed to fail. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD wasn't properly formed (step 1 missing). I've fixed this and remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies for that, I guess twinkle malfunctioned and didn't add it to the page, I will check in future that it worked correctly --UltraMagnus^speak 08:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle does that to me sometimes too, no worries :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attwood is a leading writer on Aspergers Syndrome on which subject his books have been translated into many languages. His "Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome" has 644 citations on Google Scholar and is at 1001 in Amazon.com sales, 1938 in amazon.co.uk sales with translations at 5779 in Amazon.de sales and 22606 in amazon.fr sales. His Asperger's Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Professionals has 102 citations on Google Scholar and is at 10233 in Amazon.com sales, also translated into German and French. Also searchable on Amazon Japan. He can also be found cited in major worldwide media such as BBC Washington Post, New York Times and described as "the world's leading expert in Asperger's Syndrome" on ABC. Google Scholar also has large numbers of further citations. Note also that his biography page on English WP is interwikied with 6 other languages, and that his "Frameworks for behavioral interventions" is one of the references on the Asperger syndrome article. AllyD (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology notified. AllyD (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per AllyD --Penbat (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Established authority. GS cites give h index around 17. Passes WP:Prof #1, at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Dr. Attwood is a cultural bigot with a good p.r. machine who uses casual accusations of Asperger's to demean entire groups of people he's never met whose tastes differ from his. He is not an ethical expert in his field. -- Davidkevin (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter whether or not we agree or not with a persons stance on any given subject. What matters is whether or not they are notable according to our guidelines for inclusion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His principal book he complete guide to Asperger's syndrome is in over 21600 WorldCat libraries, an extremely wide distribution. It is not an academic book,but a popular one, and is held primarily by public and college libraries, and some major universities, not predominantly by university and medical libraries. I discount delete !votes from those !voting on the basis that they disagree with his position. DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Current Protocols. Already redirected. Tone 20:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Immunology[edit]

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

This is a textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating).

Collectively, the page is simply a topic listing, and a link. The entry has WP:DIRECTORY issues, largely due to a lack of notability for each. Shadowjams (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Current Protocols, which might be notable itself. COI spam, and not notable. These books individually are pretty analogous to legal reporters; while notable collectively, only a very very few are notable individually, probably just the Federal Reporter and Supreme Court Reporter. The individual state reporters are not separately notable. Studerby (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; the present title, Current Methods in Immunology, is in print format in 187.) As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Current Protocols. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Human Genetics[edit]

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

This is a textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating).

Collectively, the page is simply a topic listing, and a link. The entry has WP:DIRECTORY issues, largely due to a lack of notability for each text. Shadowjams (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NB, I couldn't find any sources to demonstrate notability for this textbook. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Current Protocols, which might be notable itself. COI spam, and not notable. These books individually are pretty analogous to legal reporters; while notable collectively, only a very very few are notable individually, probably just the Federal Reporter and Supreme Court Reporter. The individual state reporters are not separately notable. Studerby (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Current Protocols. Tone 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Cytometry[edit]

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

This is a textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating).

Collectively, the page is simply a topic listing, and a link. The entry has WP:DIRECTORY issues, largely due to a lack of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Current Protocols, which might be notable itself. COI spam, and not notable. These books individually are pretty analogous to legal reporters; while notable collectively, only a very very few are notable individually, probably just the Federal Reporter and Supreme Court Reporter. The individual state reporters are not separately notable. Studerby (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find suitable references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Current Protocols. Tone 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Cell Biology[edit]

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

This is a textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating).

Collectively, the page is simply a topic listing, and a link. The entry has WP:DIRECTORY issues, largely due to a lack of notability for each textbook. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Again, I couldn't find appropriate references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Current Protocols, which might be notable itself. COI spam, and not notable. These books individually are pretty analogous to legal reporters; while notable collectively, only a very very few are notable individually, probably just the Federal Reporter and Supreme Court Reporter. The individual state reporters are not separately notable. Studerby (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Current Protocols. Tone 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Bioinformatics[edit]

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

This is a textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating). Shadowjams (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Current Protocols, which might be notable itself. COI spam, and not notable. These books individually are pretty analogous to legal reporters; while notable collectively, only a very very few are notable individually, probably just the Federal Reporter and Supreme Court Reporter. The individual state reporters are not separately notable. Studerby (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very aware of the content distinctions; the point re: legal reporters is that the series collectively are an information tool in a field, and that the individual titles represent a relatively non-notable segmentation of the information. The might caveat on Current Protocols itself was because I'm unfamiliar with day-to-day practice in the bio-medical sciences and therefore do not know if the Current Protocols series is the only/dominant/leading tool of this type, or a "Johnny-come-lately" with .05% market share that is being flogged heavily by a major publisher, with everybody who's anybody using (to pick a plausible publisher) the similar series by Elsevier. Studerby (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Current Protocols. Tone 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Essential Laboratory Techniques[edit]

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

This is a textbook (0470089938) and aside from listings to buy it, I don't see any indications from a google search why it's uniquely notable to warrant an article. Shadowjams (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Current Protocols, which might be notable itself. COI spam, and not notable. These books individually are pretty analogous to legal reporters; while notable collectively, only a very very few are notable individually, probably just the Federal Reporter and Supreme Court Reporter. The individual state reporters are not separately notable. Studerby (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge (The actual title of this one is Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques, without the of) This is different from the others: its a except intended as a general laboratory reference. It could possibly best be kept separate, but it could be merged as being a selection from the other parts. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Game[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, non-notable topic about a pricing game that appeared on The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) for one month in November 1978. Google search produces zero useful links and no sources other than fansites. Additionally, "telephone game" (no capitalization) redirects to Chinese whispers while only "Telephone Game" (initial caps) links to the article being proposed for deletion. Already adequately covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games and nomination follows growing trend regarding non-notability of similar pricing game articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hi Lo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bump (pricing game)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now....or Then

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Spot (pricing game)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Right Price

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shower Game

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Play (pricing game).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would normally support a merge of these into the Price is Right article, but this one's too confusing with the more obvious usage, which is the game telephone (never heard it called "chinese whispers" before). What we could do is move this to Telephone (Price is Right game), merge it to Price is Right games, and then redirect Telephone Game to Chinese whispers, but it would be unacceptable to have "Telephone Game" and "Telephone game" redirect to different targets. Shadowjams (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:Notability, also I agree this game is already adequately covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games, no need for it to have its own article.--NavyBlue84 02:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E. E. Ramey[edit]

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

Mayor for two weeks of a small town? I know WP:POLITICIAN is fairly permissive, but this is a stretch. Certainly, no significant coverage in reliable sources has been demonstrated (as required by WP:GNG and WP:BURDEN). He's mentioned at Mayor of Ashland, Kentucky (another unnecessary entry, but never mind that), which should be amply sufficient. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:GNG and, more specifically, WP:POLITICIAN. Even though a mayor, this person has clearly not "received significant press coverage." — Satori Son 20:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources to make this local politician notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 07:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Satori. Alio The Fool 19:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayor of Ashland, Kentucky#List of Mayors where he can be seen in the context of the succession of mayors for the town. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kami Merabi[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this individual. fetchcomms☛ 18:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no significant coverage about him as a business person, nor as a male super model. All I can find a are social networking sites and directories such as Facebook and LinkedIn. This may be an autobiography as the initial editor's name is an anagram of Kami Merabi. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tshepang Trust[edit]

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

Previously nominated in a pair with Stop HIV, viewable here. Resubmitting as its own entry. - Vianello (Talk) 17:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A7 is a maybe but reserving judgement. Very noble of them, but they still have to be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete even if Nelson Mandela was involved in it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Blackwood[edit]

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

What good is a disambiguation page when the two pages it attempts to present are nonexistent? Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both entries meet MOS:DABRL and so are valid. This dab helps people find pages which mention these women, both through clicking on 'What links here' and by the blue links on each line. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boleyn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhead2100 (talk • contribs)
Keep - per Boleyn. If one article is created, eventually, then delete the DAB (hatnotes are enough), but it's reasonably useful for now. It provides some information about them, enough to distinguish between the two, which is also helpful, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; fits DAB page "regs" just fine. And neither disambiguated article is likely to remain a redlink for all that long. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- disambiguation entries need to have blue links, but those blue links are allowed to be in the description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong First Division League 1931-32[edit]

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

This article seems to have little, if any, content of value, including exactly one blue link and one red link outside of the navbox. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 17:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs expanding and tidying, but top-level league season pages are numerous on Wikipedia and thus the page should be kept. Eldumpo (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eldumpo. Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For AfD disscussion, an article should be judged on its subject not its content. As mentioned above, top-league season articles definately have a place in Wikipedia, even if this one needs expanding. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11 self-promotion, and arguable g7 author request per one of author's (now-deleted) comments in this AFD. Note that author is now blocked for legal threats. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Estavillo[edit]

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

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

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

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

Poorly sourced, seems to be nothing but COI and coatrack. He was involved in a couple lawsuits, that's about it. Possible BLP violation since it's more about the lawsuits than the man. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think some editors think if they overwhelm us with tons of copy, we won't catch on. But I nominate for deletion definitely because of the coatracking. (I just didn't know how to describe it before; thanks, Hammer^{10 lb.}!) Most sourcing is likely from the creator's own website. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person; self-advertising, with not much substance behind the noise. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my "very informed" friends, the man behind the law@gaming name is me, Erik Estavillo himself. Now, a lot of you are voting for deletion. But before you do, I have to ask, "How many of you wikipedia editors can honestly google your name and get any results like I do?" If anything is a coatrack, it's the fact you all make assumptions about the editor while you yourselves couldn't improve an article significantly if you tried. By the way, I vote for deletion, haha. I'll always be remembered for what I did while you won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.210.152 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google results do not a Wikipedia article make. Jus' sayin'. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-promotion by nonnotable person. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just googled you NawlinWiki, your real name too. Talk about non-notable. Good day sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Law&gaming (talk • contribs) (the article creator).
  - Um, no, "NawlinWiki" is not my real name, oddly enough. And yep, I'm nonnotable -- that's why there's no Wikipedia article about me. Same should apply to you. Also, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Writing Disorder[edit]

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

Was prodded with reason "New magazine, does not yet have any indication of notability. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:N". Prod removed by article creator stating "I object to this article being deleted because it has been substantially updated and referenced - naming many prominent people on your site." However, there still are no sources. The added information consists mainly of name dropping: some information about the people who founded the journal, where they went to school, and who their notable colleagues were. Evidence of notability is still lacking, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no coverage at all. Maybe all these prestigious writers should take to writing about this magazine. Gigs (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. To the extent that anyone involved with this publication is notable, the notability is not inherited by an online literary magazine.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hellflower[edit]

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

Previously deleted article about a band of questionable notability. With the exception of one news story from this week about recording an album, all provided sources are primary references. No serious indications of notability yet. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be fleshed out. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Jarkeld (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of touring or any other factor for WP:BAND. Will change mind for sources. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not assert notability, I can't believe the speedy was declined... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Chastain[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet the guidelines of professional wrestling related biographies. It lacks several points such as references, a career section, an "in wrestling" section, and the championships need more information such as how many times he won the title and who with for Tag Team Championships. Plus he is not notable enough to warrant an article at this time. WP:N Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After expansion, this article now meets WP:ATHLETE, as he has competed at the top of his profession (he was a regular wrestler for TNA Wrestling) and has been covered in multiple reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still don't see how he is notable. The career section is lacking and doesn't assert notability. It doesn't talk about his training or anything like that. It just says he worked for TNA, then was in a match in which lost thus forcing to retire, and finally wrestled one last match under his real name with the fans chanting "you're a legend" after he won. It doesn't mention about any of the promotions he was a big part of. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article or the sources prove that he actually competed for TNA, just that he was there for one week and attacked Sandman, in 2003 TNA were throwing a lot of stuff at the wall to see what stuck, I am not even sure he actually wrestled a match for them. Even if he wrestled just one match that's hardly enough or we'd have articles on every jobber that appeared on WWF Challenge through out the 1980s and 90s. Article does not assert notability IMO. MPJ -DK 07:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- The first SLAM! Wrestling reference states that he defeated Norman Smiley in TNA. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If that is the case, it's pretty sad that it can't even be incorporated into the article. That is saying something. Plus one match and feud in TNA doesn't assert notability. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:ATHLETE per GaryColemanFan. It is probably also worth pointing out that we don't delete articles because they are incomplete or badly written or missing certain section headers. We also don't discount indicators of notability just because they are not (yet) in the article. Nancy ^talk 17:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been many an article that have been deleted based on notability not being in the article. The article still doesn't assert notability. Plus this article has been around since May 5th, 2009 and nobody bothered to say anything about it. For going on a year, it was just a list of titles he won. It can't believe it was left in that horrible state. Most articles about someone not notable would have been put up for deletion and deleted by now. Why make an exception for this one? Doesn't make sense to me. Even people like Colin Olsen aka Colin Delany in WWE/ECW was put up for deletion and he is more notable then this guy. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, he barely seems to pass WP:ATHLETE for his feud with The Sandman in TNA (which included two ppv matches), but that combined with his other titles and mentions in numerous reliable sources are enough to keep the article around. As for articles being deleted because notability isn't listed in the article...I think you misunderstand. Articles are deleted because the subject isn't notable, no matter if the article is great or poor. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles can be improved. However, when there are no sources available (which is different that them being present in the article), then it is deleted as non-notable. Nikki♥311 03:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is totally untrue. I have come across many articles that are not sourced and still around. Some of the Japanese wrestler articles are not sourced and are still around. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you either strike or refactor the first sentence of your "comment" forthwith. Even if you were right which you were not, calling other editors bold faced liars is unacceptable. Nancy ^talk 15:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nancy ^talk 15:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Nikki♥311 03:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment. Mr. CC, I'm not seeing your logic. You argue that the poor state of an article is reason to delete, because other poorly written articles haven't been deleted? — Gwalla | Talk 16:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed. ~~This isn't an article, and shouldn't be brought to AFD. One can take it to WP:MFD if they like, though there's probably little chance of deletion there. Wily D 19:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)~~ The closing admin was a fucking idiot, and I've gone ahead and deleted the article as A10. So, "closed" is still the correct outcome. Wily D 21:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory

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

Duplicate of Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A10. Duplicate article, nothing to merge, and not a plausible redirect. Tagged accordingly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an article, and thus not a candidate for speedy deletion under A10, which only applies to article. Wily D 19:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church (TV personality)[edit]

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

Promotional and possible autobiographical article for a "personality" of questionable notability. Only sources referenced are either primary or user-submitted - no independent or verifiable third-party sources provided. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who is Church? The article doesn't explain it well. It is very spotty on information and just tells bits and pieces thus lacks the necessary information to assert notability. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - his promotional work for other bands is barely notable, but not for his own band. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellflower. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The only thing that would seem to go some way to establishing notability is the reality show that actually does seem to exist. However, the article is constantly edited by new editors and anonymous IPs that actually seem to be the same person and most likely are the subject himself. This/these editor(s) keep adding irrelevant info that is not or badly sourced. Given the only borderline notability, I think that at this point it is better to delete this article rather than keeping a bio that needs constant supervision by patient editors (my patience ran out a while ago)... --Crusio (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability - Article written like a promotional piece --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep only nominator recommends deletion; no delete votes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Glory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is non-notable. The article consists primarily of advertising. The article was previously deleted after an Afd discussion. Clconway (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to muddy this discussion too much, but I should note that all of the above applies equally well to every one of the articles in Category:Ships of Carnival Cruise Lines. In my opinion, all of these articles should be deleted unless the ship is truly noteworthy (e.g., holds a record of some kind, was involved in a newsworthy incident, etc.). Clconway (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A notice has been made to the associated WikiProject at WT:SHIPS#WikiProject notice of AfD discussion per WP:AFD#Notifying interested people. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could stand a rewrite to make it less adverty, but the article seems to have decent sources. Its arrival prompted an article in the Orlando Sentinel here and USA today did a story on her refit here. At 110,000 tons displacement, the Carnival Glory is larger than any capitol ship that has ever been built. I dont think it really has to break any records to be considered notable, just covered in reliable sources. Bonewah (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cruise ships and ocean liners are inherently notable, regardless of if they are record-breaking or not. If a ship had to be record-breaking to exist than we would not have articles on such famous ships as RMS Mauretania (1938), RMS Britannic (1929), and RMS Adriatic (1907) (none were the largest or fastest when new). Also, this ship was not the largest when new either or now Bonewah, do I have to remind you of MS Oasis of the Seas at 220,000 GT? The newer ships (such as this one) are heavily covered in reliable print and online media when new. While most of our articles on cruise ships could use a once-through to clean-up the advertising that inevitably tends to seep in (I suspect that the cruise lines are IP editing to do this via marketing and promotional companies), that alone is not a reason to mass delete every article on cruise ships we have. Also, see User:Mjroots arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Timothy Bloodworth (2nd nomination): "Ships generally are all notable enough for articles." -MBK₀₀₄ 19:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Capitol ship, I.E. combat ships. My point was that Carnival Glory is huge, bigger than any aircraft carrier or battleship, but you are right, not the biggest ship. Bonewah (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would dispute the assertion that "cruise ships and ocean liners are inherently notable" in the absence of a community consensus to the contrary. We don't have articles for every Airbus A380 or for every train the runs the Northeast Corridor line or for every tram at Disneyworld. These articles reek of indiscriminate information. Note that I did not say a ship has to be record-breaking to be WP:NOTABLE—that's just one potential indicator of notability. The ships you cite are notable because they are historically significant and legitimately famous. Carnival has a fleet of dozens of undistinguished ships of no historical significance whatsoever. Clconway (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that is not true, Carnival Destiny was the first cruise ship to displace over 100,000 tons and also the first modern cruise ship built too large to transit the Panama Canal; Carnival Elation and Carnival Paradise were the first cruise ships to use azipods instead of traditional propellers and shafts, and Paradise was also the first non-smoking ship. Your assertion that Carnival's fleet is undistinguished and of no historical significance is blatantly false. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of the three arguments for deletion: subject is notable - coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject do demonstrate notability per WP:N, personal interpretation of what someone thinks should be required to establish notability do not override the established notability guideline; some parts of the article read somewhat advert-like - but that indicates a need for copy editing, not wholesale deletion; and the prior AfD mentioned does not appear relevant - I can't view the prior deleted version of the article, so perhaps an admin can review and confirm, but based on the comments in the 2005 AfD discussion it appears the original version was someone's personal comments on liking the ship and was considerably different from the present cited version of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Barek, you are completely on-point with the content of the deleted version of this article. They are effectively two completely different articles and the prior AFD should play no part in this since the content is wholly different. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of 10 references in the article, 4 are links to Carnival's website, 2 are reviews at travel sites (should we have a separate article for every Day's Inn?), 1 is a link to a Coast Guard database including every licensed vessel in North America, 2 appear to be lightly reworked press releases about Carnival service changes in the trade press, and 1 is a notice from a local paper in the county where some dry dock work was done (this was a big deal for the county but not so much for world history). This does not, IMHO, clear the WP:NOTABLE bar. Clconway (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per long-established Wikipedia practice. At least one prior deletion proposal on a Carnival vessel has failed, and at least one prior merger proposal has gone nowhere. Vessels of this size are inherently notable. To combine them all into one article would result in an infobox many entries long, and as many passenger ships have multiple careers, information on them would be spread out over many articles. Hundreds of thousands of passengers go on cruises each year; let's not deprive them of an independent source on their vessel (and perhaps they may even learn that gross tonnage is not the same as displacement, and that a launch date is not the date a ship entered service). Kablammo (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If a subject has received significant coverage by reliable sources as this one has, it passes WP:N. An article looking advertising-like on the subject doesn't magically mean it didn't receive significant coverage by reliable sources. It just means the article should to be improved so it looks neutral.--Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing a reason to delete. Could do with some cleanup, but thats not grounds for an axe. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments to delete are wholly unconvincing. 1) Non-notability is disproved by secondary source coverage and a general wiki-wide consensus of the notability of large ships like these. 2) The article being primarily of advertising would require copyediting, not deletion. An article like this would be expected to have detail on relevant specifications and features, just as a warship article would cover details on armour thickness, propulsion, layout of guns, etc. 3) The previous afd is not applicable, bearing in mind that consensus and opinion is always evolving on wikipedia, and especially as the articles may be completely different. Benea (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons above and requesting a close on this AfD based on wp:snowball. --Brad (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, wow seems to be snowy around here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - the ship is clearly notable. WP:V + WP:RS = WP:N. The previous AfD deletion does not mean that an article about the ship cannot be recreated because a really bad article that failed core policies was deleted (yes, I've had a look, as can other admins). Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sicoli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Autobiographical article for a person of questionable notability. No independent or verifiable third-party sources provided. Also a recreation of an article from the same editor deleted in 2006. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any independent reliable sources via a Google search that demonstrate notability. IMDB, Facebook, etc. won't cut it. The article was clearly intended as promotion. If someone can find valid sources, and if the article is appropriately rewritten, I might reconsider. PDCook (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only references I can find are either; passing mentions in regards to some of the TV he's worked on, the bio on his company's website, what looks like copies of that bio contributed to user-generated websites such as IMDB and ShareTV.org. Nothing of significance on a reliable source. This man is either a so far unnoticed underground celebrity, or keen on self promotion. Either way, notability not establish and clear conflict of interest in the major contributor. There's scope for saving this article if something turns up, but otherwise.. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as material has already been properly transwikied to Commons, as indicated. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals´ coats of arms[edit]

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

This is just a gallery of images. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. This belongs in Wikipedia Commons. Also see WP:IG. Kimon^talk 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, great repository. Just it's not needed in an encyclopedia. Buggie111 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to commons for the above reasons. Ensure copying to commons has taken place (if possible) before deletion. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_cardinals — Rankiri (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delete now that transwiki has been done. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Periodic Table (Simon Basher book)[edit]

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

Completing nomination by anon user. The rationale (with my bolding) is Fails notability for books. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) PS - If TenPoundHammer's reading this, it's not just you who fixes up redlinked AfDs. [reply]

Delete, I have failed to find any WP:RS discussing this book, just some listings on publisher and retailer web sites. The author does not have a Wikipedia article so a redirect is not possible at present. Clearly fails notability for books. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has been transformed by Beyond My Ken's excellent work. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notifications concerning this AfD have been left at these WikiProjects: Children's Literature, Education, Elements and Chemistry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book has been favorably reviewed in Publishers Weekly, New Scientist and the website of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and has also been covered in the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books and the Journal of Chemical Education. These links have been added to the article, which has been somewhat expanded with information from these sources and others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to cite point #10 from the section on WP:Articles for deletion called "Before nominating an article for deletion ":

If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

I think this very much applies here.

There is one other extrinsic point I wish to make. The editor who created this article is a newbie, and, at least it appears to me, is quite possibly a child or a teenager. In the spirit of WP:BITE, I do not think it is a good idea to pounce on such articles when they are benign – as this one clearly was – because it can serve to drive away new contributors from the project. I think I have shown that this book fulfills the requirements of WP:Notability (books), but even before I knew that to be the case, it seemed to me to be a bad idea for the article to be PRODed and then brought to AfD. Even if the book was only of borderline notability, the project is in no way hurt by having an article about it in the encyclopedia, but we can be hurt if we drive away new editors by not helping them and by making editing here an uncomfortable or unpleasant experience. By no means does this mean that every new article written by a new editor should be immune from scrutiny, but in this case, a little bit of common sense should have come into play, at least in my opinion. The editor who created the article did a really decent job at putting it together, and deserved to be rewarded with something other than a deletion hammer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now there are some good reviews. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Book passes due to third party reviews and the article is now in reasonable shape--Plad2 (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough reviews to establish notability. Thanks to Beyond My Ken --Sodabottle (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely established as notable now. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established. Airplaneman ^talk 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good quality references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nishant Rajawat[edit]

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

contested prod for an unreferenced and BLP of an Indian entrepreneur brought here for what seems to be a general lack of reliable 3rd party sources Tikiwont (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BASIC. No evidence this person has "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." — Satori Son 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are two issues here. As pointed out by the nom, there aren't any reliable third-party sources of notability, and the second issue is WP:ATHLETE. The claims to be an "All-American" do not intrinsically pass either tenet of this (especially if he was only named as a second-teamer, which it appears that he was) and linked with the lack of other sourcing means that notability cannot be asserted at this time. Black Kite 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Kassel[edit]

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

I have nothing but respect for Mr. Kassel, but I can't see that he meets our notability guideline at WP:ATHLETE. He had two good seasons for the Black Knights; what the article doesn't tell you is that his senior season was much less successful. At this point, he appears to be out of hockey and is presumably fulfilling his military commitment as an officer in the U.S. Army. While laudable, that's not particularly notable, and I don't think we need this article unless someone can find some reliable third-party sources to bolster alternate claims of notability. Powers ^T 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Powers ^T 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Powers ^T 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Powers ^T 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. I would probably have just prod'd this like we do when junior player articles get created. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something, and I wanted to make sure all was above-board as I'd just had a college-hockey player article kept a few weeks ago. =) Powers ^T 16:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable amateur athlete. Atlantic Hockey All-Star isn't on the same lines as a major junior team, and even those players would fail. Grsz¹¹ 15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Time out here ... this guy was an All-American? That isn't a small conference all-star slot. That's a preeminent NCAA honor and generally deemed notable. What he did in his senior season or what he's doing now is irrelevant ... there are any number of hockey players who weren't any great shakes their final seasons or subsequently. Ravenswing 15:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know a heck of alot about the All-American system. But according to the sources I could find he was only named a second team all american for the east, which according to the All-American article, means he wasn't a full All-American. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe that college hockey names nationwide All-Americans; they're all divided into West and East and have been for many years. Could you point out where in the All-American article it says otherwise or that they aren't "real" All-Americans? I've got the article up right now, and I don't see a single reference to college hockey, which somehow doesn't surprise me. Ravenswing 06:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say it specifically mentioned ice hockey. But it does say "A "unanimous selection" is a player who is listed as a first team All-American by all recognized lists. A "consensus All-American" is a player who is listed as a first team All-American by at least half of the recognized lists." Which implies in order to be called an All-American you would have to be on the first team. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it implies that at all. "unanimous" and "consensus" modify "All-American" to indicate particular degrees, but the absence of them does not negate the "All-American" descriptor. Powers ^T 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Heck yes. Someone named to an All-American team is an All-American. Period. Ravenswing 09:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument to which I might be amenable, and one reason why I did an AfD instead of a prod. Here's the 2007-08 All-Americans: http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,15688/2008DivisionIMensHockeyAllAmericansNamed.html Djsasso is correct that Kassel was the goaltender on the East Second Team, which means he was considered the second-best goalie among those in the CHA, Atlantic Hockey, ECAC Hockey, and Hockey East (excluding Air Force and Bemidji). Is that notable? He was not a Hobey Baker finalist (top 10) that year, and I think only the winner of that award is usually presumed notable. Perhaps this is more of a borderline case than I thought. Powers ^T 15:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd agree that it's borderline, but I doubt it would set a huge precedent to keep him. But the fact is, is that he was an All-American, and in the American College System that's essentially being named First-Team, Second-Team, etc. All-Star on the season, for the entire NCAA. The fact that he was the first hockey player from West Point to achieve that status in 30 years is pretty commendable, and notable in my opinion. I would say that it is a 'light keep', if there is such a thing! :) Captain Courageous (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my eyes a second team selection and no subsequent play at the top elite level in the sport doesnt satisfy my interpretation of wp:athelete. But i respect that others opinions on this differ and their reasining makes this very difficult to clarify as keep/or delete.Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To weigh in my two cents, I've always taken the All-American part, and other amateur All-Star teams, to mean first team selection only. I can't remember the article, but I remember someone who was a second team All-Star in a junior hockey league and the article wasn't kept. I have no real strong opinion either way, however. Patken4 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, no valid deletion rationale remaining, and no delete votes. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of religion in Laos[edit]

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

This is essentially a copied US Government report from 2007. I would have speedy-ed it for copy-vio except the report is public domain. Ham tech person 15:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously could be improved, but provides a decent, factual start for an article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, not a copyright violation; and an integral part of a series of Asia-related topics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivores (band)[edit]

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

This page has been deleted before, and re-introdced to the project. The author has placed a ((hangon)) tag on the article this time (I was browsing through CAT:CSD. I figured the less controversial way to figure out if this page should be deleted or not is to bring it to AFD for discussion. Dusti^SPEAK!! 14:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can tell, they don't meet WP:BAND. Their best claim is through radio play, but it's unclear whether they were placed in rotation on the stations mentioned (which may meet the criteria) or just played (which wouldn't). — Gwalla | Talk 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete repeatedly recreated, still does not meet WP:BAND. Radio play or not, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Park School[edit]

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

As mentioned in the disputed prod, the article lacks any verifiable assertions of notability, and was created by a now banned user for vandalizing the same page. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate page for a high school in Taylor, Michigan, where I attend. All information is either first-hand knowledge we get from teachers who have taught since the schools opening, or from the school's webpage, which was listed until it was removed by another editor. Once again, this is a legitimate page, and will remain such under my guidance, and that of my friends.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.35.242 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 March 2010
Keep - contains a high school. The arguments for keeping high schools are at WP:HS/N. Needs work, but sources are available. TerriersFan (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is irrelevant that this school includes a high school. There is no high school exception to WP:ORG or WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources of this school, so any article about the school will be unreliable. That is the standard that must be applied. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An educational institution that contains a high school. Verifiability is met through the usage of sources such as this and this from National Center for Education Statistics. I note that the article currently cites a National Center for Education Statistics source. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia considers all high schools notable Dew Kane (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the notability guideline to support that? --Mkativerata (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are also no notability guidelines to support the notability of airports, train stations, numbered highways, fauna and flora, named bridges, rivers, high court judges, super-regional malls, occupied settlements, degree-awarding institutions and a whole load of other categories that have been deemed notable through AFDs and the application of common-sense or other than policy wonking. TerriersFan (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thing is, determining consensus here at AfD just needs a majority of the responsible editors, which is not hard to achieve, For a disputed guideline or policy there usually needs to be somewhere between 66 to 75 % agreement--except that typically the strong opposition of only 2 or 3 people is able to prevent a finding of consensus on a policy. But you;re talking as though we were handled the policy from some authority and could not deviate from it. We make our own policy, and we can make whatever exceptions and interpretations to it we please. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I happen to think "significant coverage in reliable sources" is a standard that should apply across the board and I'll put that view across firmly in school-related AfDs. But no-one badgers me for holding that view so I won't badger those who think schools should be held to a lower standard. AfD after all is a forum for community-wide consensus just as much as our policy talk pages. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so "common sense", propose an amendment to WP:ORG and it will achieve consensus. It's not policy wonkery to insist that articles on this encyclopaedia receive significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the criteria stated at WP:HS/N. School's existence is verified, it has plenty of hits in GNews Archives (for sports activities, mainly), the consensus to keep high schools works well, and there is no reason to go against it here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Navassa Island-related articles[edit]

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

Navassa Island, a tiny uninhabited island, does not strike me as a subject for which an alphabetical list of topics is useful. Several of the entries have nothing to do with Navassa (e.g., Great Seal of the United States of America) and the rest are (or ought to be) found in the main article. This list, therefore, serves no useful purpose. Sandstein 13:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Remove all WP:OVERLINK links, WP:OC#SMALL categories and other irrelevant content, and you'll be left with a virtually empty page with no possibility for expansion. — Rankiri (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support keeping this article. A source for consolidating an overview of islands belonging to countries or territories... this aritcle helped me. Wiki is an excellant source of dozens of "index of" subjects, places, countries, and territories... see Category:Indexes of articles by country. These "Index" articles help readers and reseachers understand boundaries, relationships, territories and political influences. LanceBarber (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument for keeping this general type of list, but what's at issue here is whether this type of list makes sense for this topic. Surely you are not arguing that we ought to have a list of this type for every article in Wikipedia? That would violate WP:IINFO, as does this list. Sandstein 08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Navassa Island is a territory occupied by the United States but disputed by Haiti. This territory is of sufficient importance to merit an "Index of" article. I'm not sure how deleting this article would improve Wikipedia. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As much as it pains me to say this: Usefulness is not a reason to keep or delete any article. That said, Navassa Island is Notable, ergo a list of articles related to it is perfectly suitable for WP. This is not an indiscriminate list. Although it can be improved, especially the lead-in, there is nothing here that violates WP:LIST or WP:CLN --Mike Cline (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WSYX. Tone 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wsyx-dt2[edit]

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

As I mentioned in my attempted PROD, the article has no information that justifies a separate page from the main WSYX article. Upon looking at other pages discussing MyTV, all others not only make significant assertions of notability, but they have third party references and a complete history. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no value, and the relevant information is already at WSYX. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tone 20:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School of Inspired Leadership[edit]

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

Delete. Seems to be non notable school and this is the second time has been moved to mainspace. Being used as a advertsing platform. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: ...eco-friendly campus promotes the use of natural light and the entire campus is a smoke-free zone. The classrooms at SOIL are designed to promote peer networking and social interaction. Learning studios and innovative technology allow for the study process to be more interactive and impactful.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:G11, WP:G12. The relevant parts of the page were copied from [3]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 - being in a foreign language is not a reason for speedy deletion, but giving no credible indication of importance or significance is. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Komunitas satu indonesia[edit]

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

After plugging this into a translator, I got the following: "The Indonesian community is a group that formed in the leading networking site Facebook by Willy Christian, this group was formed with the aim of bringing people together who have a sense of concern for Indonesia. Especially the younger generation, because the hands of future generations mudalah Indonesia." It is a Facebook group, and is not notable. A speedy was declined because Not in English is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as A7 and tagged as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu in Aurangabad[edit]

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

Topic is too specific. Content exists in other, more general articles. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (note : the user is also the creator of this article.)

I think the article highlights the contribution of Aurangabad city to the development of Urdu language and culture. It traces the history of the language in the deccan and since Aurangabad was the capital of the deccan first under the Delhi sultanate and then under the Mughal Empire, its contribution to the development of the language should be recognized.

As it is, there are very few and sketchy articles on Urdu Language, therefore I request the administrators to keep this article as it helps a reader in increasing his knowledge about Urdu language. It also adds to the resource on Urdu language available on wikipedia.

Also many prominent Urdu poet and writers who do not find coverage on wikipedia are covered in this article, like: Balaji Trimbak Naik Zarra, Mirza Daud, Muhammad Mah Mehram, Arifuddin Ajiz, Dargahquli Khan Dargah, Fazli, Sarim, Lala Lachmi-narian Shafiq, Shaikh Chand and Yusuf Nazim. With so many writer and poets (not covered by specific articles) from Aurangabad I think the article does justice to the topic and does not require a deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IXU79 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC) IXU79 (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Creator seems to have a good case for keeping. Aurangabad indeed has a urdu tradition with a number of newspapers, journals and poets. As long as the new content is sourced well i see no problem in keeping this.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article is reasonable and complies with Wikipedia:Notability. It has verifiable sources. I've checked the sources and they are in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (books). Some of the content may be challenged for Wikipedia:Copyright violations, but it can always undergo a copyedit. Nefirious (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn Improve per N..... Mike Cline (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acting under a description[edit]

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

~~Author removed prod. Basically just an essay on "acting under a description". Totally unencyclopedic Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw as it appears it could be improved and that AfD may not be a solution. Thanks and sorry if there are any problems. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an emerging idea in philosophy and references have been provided to two world renowned philosophers who developed the idea. I request that this article be sent to philosophy specialists for review and judgement. I have also linked the entry to two other relevant entries that should help to provide context and scholarly credibiltity. I am a Ph.D student in philosophy and psychology and consider myself suitably qualified to write this entry

Amerywu (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not because I don't believe Amerywu but because I think it veers too close to WP:SYNTH, and will for the foreseeable future. Detailed metaphysics probably need to be discussed in their author's articles until they break out into a separate field themselves (e.g., post-structuralism), or the concept is discussed uniquely (e.g., Dasein). I don't see that happening here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep (see comment below) It does read like an essay to me, and I'd say it does breach WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in its current form, as it includes a lot of personal judgment and opinion, rather than referenced statements made by notable people. Both of the references are links to other Wikipedia articles, neither of which mention the term "Acting under a description" (other than as a link back to this article) - it's perhaps a bit strange that the G. E. M. Anscombe article doesn't mention it. There are Google hits on the term, and I think it is a notable concept and a proper article could probably be written about it, but this one seems to be completely the wrong approach and I think "Delete and start again" would be the only practical way forward, as what we need is an encyclopedic article that describes only what other notable people have said about it, and no actual synthesis - if others haven't written such material, Wikipedia is not the place to start -- Boing! said Zebedee (MA Philosophy) 14:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the light of 96.49.160.240's comment below, I think some time should be allowed for improving the article. The idea is from a notable philosopher, and I think it would be a good result if it could be shown to be sufficiently notable and a well-referenced article written. I'd be happy to offer suggestions, critique, etc, as it develops - just leave me a note on my Talk page. Oh, and I don't think a time limit is needed - I'd suggest just tagging the article as under development. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the thoughts of the reviewer and request one week to redevelop the article.

1) "Acting Under a Description" was G.E.M. Amscombe's most influential idea. One reason for adding this article was because it was missing from the Anscombe article. 2) "Acting Under a Description" has been developed over the last half century by a number of philosophers and is a key strand in the philosophy of intention (see your own article or any other article on intention). Philosophy of Intention is a separate field. 3) The explication of Hacking's work includes one example (the playground) that is not from Hacking. Providing illustrative examples is not uncommon in wikipedia. Nonetheless, I can use an example from Hacking if preferred. Other than that, there is no synthesis. 4) The article probably needs expanding to explicate the roots in Foucault as well as Anscombe.

I will work on it and appreciate any comments that make it more appropriate to the Wikipedia format. I do not write many articles for Wikipedia, but this is an article that should be available. 96.49.160.240 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The general tone of the article needs to be made more encyclopedia-like and more sources provided. However this does seem to be a notabe and worthy subject for an article. Borock (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on the article and seek help from others as well. Amerywu (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs work, but appears very fixable as per User:Borock and User:Boing! said Zebedee. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon coordinator[edit]

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

I may like Pokemon (it's my favorite thing ever),but this is just fancruft. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage by reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a fansite nor is it a collection of everything that exists in a fictional work. —Farix (t | c) 10:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe should get one sentence in some other, of the many, which explain the world of Pokemon. Borock (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unotable fictional term that fails WP:N and WP:NOT. The concept of a "coordinator" can easily be summed up in a single brief phrase, if needed, in the main Pokemon article's. This article is purely fansite type material and WP:OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkletoes[edit]

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

Unremarkable series of books by non-notable people. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So non-notable that Google finds several OTHER book series called Twinkletoes or Twinkle Toes, by other authors - but this series doesn't even appear. --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maashatra11 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

831 Magazine[edit]

This magazine is still in print is focused only in central coast, MalanieN needs to do her research. Coasttocoast: please verify before you post inaccurate information.

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

Local magazine with no signs of notability. It appears to have shut down after only 2 issues. Reads like an advertisement, may be a COI despite article creator claiming to be unbiased. Coasttocoast (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy seems to be focused on the article for this magazine, and I'd salt to make sure it didn't come up again. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. Defunct, freebie magazine (actually it appears there were THREE issues, in 2007 and 2008 - but none since) that didn't make the grade. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Swann[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played at a fully professional level, which means he doesn't meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline. Nothing out of the ordinary to meet notability requirement. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG by a country mile -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's a non-notable player for a non-notable team. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous comments. He's non-notable under WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clear failure of both WP:ATHLETE and more importantly WP:GNG. -- Big Dom 07:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an English footballer to fail WP:ATH is a genuine achievement. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz albums[edit]

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

This list is impossible to maintain and has an inherently POV scope "The following is a list of the most important, notable, historically significant Jazz albums. Consequently, no albums should be in red, only the best articles should appear on this page. Album titles are first." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. —AllyD (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with deletion; if they're notable, they'll have articles and be categorized. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree, it's entirely subjective. It COULD be fixed, though, if people were willing to put in the effort to find a number of sources for them (see List of important operas as a good for instance on how to do it right). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and/or move to "List of notable jazz albums". As an indiscriminate list, it isn't worth keeping. However, with attributions backing up each albums' notability, it is potentially a valuable resource. I had proposed some criteria for inclusion in this list (see Talk:List of jazz albums), and there had been some discussion at WP:JAZZ (see here). Red links have no place on any such list. But I, for one, haven't had the time to put into this effort, and honestly, I am not sure when I would. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - the problem here is the self-imposed criteria for inclusion on this list: "the most important, notable, historically significant Jazz albums." These are subjective measures so this list will become untenable and indiscriminate if many users add albums that think fit the criteria. The list seems like a useful idea but I just don't think it will work out in reality. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom plus WP:POV and WP:OR as it says "only the best albums should be listed. What one person or publication deems "the best" is different from another. Plus if none of are red linked, then they should be categorized already. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to POV concern raised in previous discussions referenced above. AllyD (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just re-scope to "notable jazz albums" if no more selective criteria can be found as for List of important operas. Polarpanda (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective list and of dubious relevance.--Dan8700 (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now This article has been flagged for rescue? Why? So far, there are 6 "delete" vs 3 "keep".--Dan8700 (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not over till it's over. A deletion request doesn't stop time. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a poll. Silver seren^C 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is appropriate. If we can maintain the articles, we can maintain the list. (that we might possibly have more articles than we are properly maintaining is another matter, but removing a list of them won't help things).

Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. It should better be a complete list of those in Wikipedia than this selected list, unless some real criterion can be found. DGG ( talk )

Keep. WP:LIST, WP:CLN. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. The lead sentence was rephrased ([4]), and the list is now a valid complement to Category:Jazz albums. — Rankiri (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Category:Jazz albums was largely depopulated by User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's subcategorization efforts. Last time I looked at it, the category had about 800 entries. Now it only has 360. See User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars#Category:Jazz albums for more info. — Rankiri (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, personally I'm not a fan of big navigational lists (I prefer categories and templates) but some people like them and per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, having one does not preclude the others. Having said that the article should strive to include all Jazz Albums with an article not just those which have been subjectively decided to be the "best" or "most important". Guest9999 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP Great potential for improvement - strengthen criteria, lead-in and improve sourcing. Mike Cline (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albums considered the greatest ever[edit]

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

Almost none of this is about the "greatest album ever", but (e.g.) the greatest album of the 1970s or the greatest British album of all time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of criteria. Considered the greatest by whom? Reputable music publications like Billboard and Rolling Stone? One-off fan surveys? Some dude's blogspot-hosted blog where he asked his friends what they liked? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. Without much more specificity in its design, this list is destined to become unwieldy and indiscriminate if many users start to add albums that think would qualify. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What one publication deems the greatest may not be the same for another. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs expansion. Sources have been cited, however there could be better sources and they are out there. With enough editing, this page could be like Films considered the greatest ever, which cites notable sources. This article is currently poorly done, but it needs to be expanded not deleted. It could easily meet Wikipedia standards if done correctly. If an article is hopeless, it needs to be deleted. This isn't hopeless, and it's obviously a notable subject. Geeky Randy (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs major rewrite, but there are plenty of reliable sources to work from (The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, [5], [6], [7]) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Films considered the greatest ever has been a successful article for years. No reason that this one, with some work, could not be similarly successful. Gamaliel (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the community decided pretty unanimously to keep Films considered the greatest ever, this should be no different. Article needs work but that's no reason to delete it. Jevansen (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's some odd selections in the current version but the article just needs work in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above, especially User:Clarityfiend - certainly needs work, but deletion seems avoidable. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ace of Base unreleased songs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Ace of Base unreleased songs

Articles for deletion/List of Ace of Base songs

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

Unnecessary fork of List of Ace of Base songs, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Koavf. No sources, no notability as unreleased material is extremely hard to source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus you could add them to existing articles like the Ace of Base discography. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of rare AC/DC songs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of rare AC/DC songs

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

Making them "rare" songs is inherently WP:OR and is likely to create a perpetual problem with sources. Either expand to List of AC/DC songs or delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lists need to have clear inclusion criteria. Rare is a term that I doubt can be uniformly defined, and I doubt sources exist that can effectively label a song as rare. Thus this list will inevitably contain OR, as the nom suggests. The AC/DC discography article will suffice and is linked to articles about each album. PDCook (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered in AC/DC discography, or shouldn't be covered at all. No criteria for "rare." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree completely with the above arguments. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'm not condoning the article (I've never been happy with it despite trimming it occasionally), this list is not actually a list of arbitrarily chosen songs, it is basically a list of songs only released in one country, songs subsequently removed from later releases, B-sides, and songs that were not officially released at all. There is no OR. That said, these criteria have never been mentioned at all. Furthermore, the term "rare" is a poorly chosen one, as few of these songs were ever truly hard to find. They were merely harder to find than most AC/DC songs. I would have recommended a simple clarification of the criteria and a change of title but the recent release of the Backtracks album has rendered the majority of these "rare" songs extremely easy to find, and in fact, "common". Removal of these would leave a rag-tag group of bootlegged and pirated songs that would be impossible to source adequately. Incidentally, most of these songs had their own articles until I prodded them all ;) AC/DC have suffered a bit on Wikipedia from utterly trivial article content. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rare is a subjective term. The discography article would be the better place to cover these. Orderinchaos 02:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth reading my above comment. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, but at least it should be deleted for a proper reason. It's not a subjective list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to the subjective nature and seemingly also indiscriminate, of the "rare" qualifier. -- Cirt (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzz Phantoms[edit]

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

I'd like to see what the consensus is on this one. This band has yet to release a single, let alone an album; but the band members include one notable musician. I'm thinking a redirect/merge to ~~Darren Cordeux~~ Kisschasy may be appropriate here until the band achieves notability, but am interested to see if notability already is or could be established. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BAND gives a pass to groups containing two or more notable musicians, but there's only one here. No albums yet. No significant coverage: Google news gets nothing, and Google proper just brings up social networking, forum posts, etc. — Gwalla | Talk 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet any of the WP:BAND criteria yet. Notability will be fortified significantly if they actually release anything; most "side projects" just dissolve into vapour anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David P. Emrich[edit]

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

Biography of a living person which has been without sources since it was created more than two years ago. I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of the individual by independent, reliable sources which would establish the individual's notability per the general notability guideline. Additionally the individual does not seem to meet any of the specific criteria for entertainers set out in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Guest9999 (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bit-part actor. Might be notable someday but isn't now. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A stand-in for One Tree Hill and Strike the Tent, and his minor role in Find Love don't meet WP:ENT. He did apparently had one significant role... in The 27 Club, but that film has not itself been shown to be notable, and the fellow has no sourcable notability... though a man with the same name received a doctorate in optometry in 1988. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury[edit]

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

unsourced BLP. There is some negative material here, but possibly not enough to categorise it as an attack page. I doubt that sufficient reliable sources can be found to justify an article. Prod removed without sources being added.gadfium 05:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 05:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy enough, he is on tv all the time and is a former Craccum Editor. Notable in my books. Lack of sources is not a problem, I spent less time to find a source than I took to write this "Keep"! (I've add it too) Mathmo ^Talk 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Being a former Craccum editor is hardly notable, otherwise I'd have an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and being a Craccum editor alone is hardly a reason but being one amongst a number of reasons is enough. Mathmo ^Talk 07:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and Keep - The fellow seems to be reasonably notable as a New Zealand media and political figure - if anyone seriously disputes that I'll find specific sources - and therefore it's not an appropriate candidate for a delete. But as a controversial living person it's important his article be appropriately sourced. I don't have time to do it, so failing someone else taking up that task, the correct approach is to delete the unsourced controversial info on a statement-by-statement basis until it's a non-controversial stub and then keep it. I'll do the stubification, if the consensus agrees with me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he is not notable then the whole article is a hoax. Just give us some sources please. Borock (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - not sure what your protocol is on these matters - I'm the chap in question here and would very much enjoy keeping my wikipedia page thanks - the reason there are numerous edits is because I get a bit of grief from the right wing blogging community and that community seem pretty happy to edit things that are simply not true into my profile at times when debate on the blogs gets heated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.91.147 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As fas as I know, none of that is sufficient reason to keep a wiki article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tone 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Elconin[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:COATRACK article — it's nominally about an author, but in truth almost all of the content is actually about his novel, which itself failed a previous AFD. There's also no sourced evidence of notability demonstrated here; none of the "references" are independent sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, "recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". The article is substantially identical to the article Never After which was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur. Clearly WP:COATRACK for deleted content. On the outside chance that reliable sources establishing notability have appeared since that AFD 5 months ago (just before publication), I'd suggest letting it run the full 5 days though. Studerby (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Author has only one published book that itself is not notable. Adding Speedy tag. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost-rival[edit]

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

Also adding

Note: Changed to redirect as article contents are nearly the same. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author removed PROD, non-notable neologism. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP - Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. At the very least, "almost-rival" is a non-notable neologism. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources is provided to satisfy the general notability guidelines and my good faith searches find only one trivial occurrence of the words "almost-rival" being used in the sense described by the article - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the above, there are absolutely no references that the term is actually in use. Seems like it was made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 06:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article contains no sources. Gobonobo ^T ^C 09:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Blitz World Championship[edit]

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

Unremarkable event at a school. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several justifications, while they may be a stretch. First, Dutch Blitz is most commonly associated with the Mennonite church. The packaging contains a poem in Pennsylvania Dutch, which is only spoken by the Old Order Mennonite community, and the game is clearly aiming at this demographic. Therefore, a Mennonite institution declaring a tournament to be a "World Championship" carries more weight than it would if it were another college. Second, while the event is clearly in its infancy (a single year, attended only by the students and faculty of that institution, can hardly be considered a serious event), it was important enough to be prominently reported by the school paper, and it is quite likely that it will become an annual event. I would also refer users who support deletion to the World Pie Eating Championship site. This, aside from having happened for multiple years, hardly seems more notable. Dylanzehr (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then show exactly why it should be kept, as in if it in accordance with WP:NOTABILITY or WP:REFERENCE. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond saying that the organization behind the event, Eastern Mennonite University, is a credible source for the authority of declaring a "world championship" in this particular game, and that there are quite a few world championship pages on Wikipedia, some of which are quite dubious, there isn't a whole lot of justification. As the event is held in the next few years, there will be a much more substantial argument for its inclusion, but currently the argument is philosophical rather than factual. Factually, there's little doubt that the article isn't notable. Dylanzehr (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the article to be kept, first improve the article, find reliable sources, find references, if not, sorry. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It lacks independent coverage. Pcap ping 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm fine with the school paper as a source, but you need one more source and facebook isn't going to cut it. If there isn't one, this event doesn't meet our requirements for notability (see WP:N). Maybe next year... Hobit (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hobit and Pcap above. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Beano. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fat Joe[edit]

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

Non notable character from The Beano DimaG (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Redirect to The Beano, since it is a non-notable character who doesn't deserve an article, though where he is an article is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Beano. Warrah (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Beano. Non-notable. Komodoboy16 12:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move: If it's going to be deleted, make it a subsection of the Lord Snooty article, since Big Fat Joe appeared in that strip from 1950 onwards. Big Fat Joe does have some other notability though, as it was one of the characters in The Beano Comic #1. Digifiend (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that this is a valid use of a disambiguation page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Suzuki[edit]

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

Neither of the articles this page is supposed to disambiguate exists. allen四names 03:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't actually find a policy that supports this deletion reason but common sense says there's no reason to have a disambiguation page if it doesn't provide any meaningful disambiguation service. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is the disambiguation service offered by this page not meaningful? I would have thought that common sense leads to the opposite conclusion, as this page leads to articles with information about two people with this name. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both entries are valid, per MOS:DABRL. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just used this dab page to disambiguate; having redlinks isn't a problem as long as other pages link to the redlinks. Josh Parris 09:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- disambiguation entries need to have blue links, but those blue links are allowed to be in the description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-oversight on my part, one of those days when I meant to start an article then got on something else and forgot. Stubs have been created for both now.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The two articles may not survive a notability challenge but they now exist. I withdraw my nomination. Thank you. – allen四names 14:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bennett[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage from reliable source. Also no evidence of major roles; according to IMDB appearance in Victorious was only for one episode. Author continues to engage in Edit warring. Should have been Speedy under G3 or WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment* (or possibly Keep) IMDB isn't a reliable source, most evident by them claiming he was a guest star, which if you got off your high horse and did research, you'd find he is apart of the main cast, among many other roles he has had. Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ttonyb1. Now that he [the article creator] has finally managed to remove the PROD, after edit warring about the contents, we can still open the question of ((db-person)), although the (false) claim that he stars in an upcoming series might be adequate. (WP:HOAX isn't a speedy criterion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry, meant to say G3 not Hoax. ttonyb (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False claim? Are you that ignorant? Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False; he's scheduled to appear in the series, no evidence of "star". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENT. No significant credits yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article was created in good faith about a legitimate subject, so G3 doesn't apply. I don't think A7 applies, based on his casting in Victorious. The full AfD is the route to go, with the question being, is his role (whatever the sources prove it out to be) enough to make him notable? —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet. For what it's worth, the IMDB entry only has 3 of the 12(?) episodes listed, so appearing only in 1 of those 3 is not hard evidence of being only a bit part. However, we have not seen any evidence that he is a star. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The show Victorious has not yet premiered, Nickelodeon's site says it will do so March 27th. Based on Nick's website layout, subject appears to (at the moment) be the 6th-ish-billed recurring character, not exactly a star; he's at least being promoted like a recurring character. However, he didn't make the IMDB page for the show, and 6 other actors did. It seems that WP:CRYSTAL comes into play on this one; the show's not released yet and we have nothing close reliable sources, except for Nick's website (they appear to be doing a "buzz" rollout rather than a traditional promotion that would leave an RS trail); however, show promotion can lag reality - for all we know, he might be getting cut and the promotion hasn't caught up yet. Futhermore, main editors of the article have confused this 18 year old actor, IMDB ID 3821076 with Matthew Bennett, IMDB ID 0071922, a 42-year notable actor. We might very well have something to base an article on in 2 or 3 weeks, but an article is premature at this point. Studerby (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Schneider, the creator, acknowledges him as a starring role. The show premiering in a week means nothing. His filmography from a reliable source keeps getting removed to make it seem as if he's not notable. Barneystimpleton (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As indicated above, the film list you refer to was not his and was for a 42 year old actor. It listed the actor playing a police officer when he was 4 yrs old. I suggest you re-read the list for clarification. ttonyb (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. If someone wishes to incubate this, go right ahead. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flutter (film)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

No significant independent third party coverage. Fails notability. —Mike Allen 02:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incubate imdb shows a couple of notable cast members, but since this film is in pre-production and there is nothing to show that the production itself is notable, it fails both WP:N and WP:FILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steamroller Assault (talk • contribs)
Incubate for a few weeks. The predictive 2-sentence stub that was first nominated for deletion [8] has now been expanded and sourced to show that the project is no longer in pre-production and has begun principal photography. Now passes WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Involvement of Joe Anderson, Laura Fraser, Luke Evans, Max Brown, Anton Lesser, Billy Zane, Mark Wiliams, and Ricky Tomlinson act as indicators that the current coverage in reliable sources, as now shown in the article, will likely increase as production continues and not diminish. In this instance, incubation serves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw/Incubate: It now passes WP:NCC/Crystal and notability. I did a quick Google search before nominating it, and didn't find anything. Good work, and I support it being moved to incubation. —Mike Allen 21:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep News articles exist about this film. [9] Dream Focus 02:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt TomCat4680 (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgarism[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD; Unsourced, and has been for getting on for three years. Unless the sociological analysis can be expanded to make this a worthy topic, this article should be deleted and any worthwhile content transwikied to Wiktionary. If the contesting editor feels that this article can be any better than the Wktionary version, then it's open to improvement. Rodhull andemu 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems to be on a well known topic which is distinct from other articles, after editing it does not constitute a dictionary definition, as it is on a single well known topic, it is likely to be easy to reference. The topic is notable, but clearly needs expansion; it is simply a stub at present. It does not violate any known policy.- Wolfkeeper 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit into Decorum. A vulgarism is simply a breach of literary decorum, a subject with a millennia-long history that is worth better treatment than Wikipedia is currently giving it. --Wetman (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub, it needs expansion, but it's certainly a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. What we currently have isn't great, but it's better than a redirect to "decorum" or a red link. +An gr 10:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Angr, WP:OUTCOMES - most such articles are kept. WP:BLP does not apply. Decorum is not the same, so a redirect would confuse high school and college students. Bearian (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Profanity. I don't see any source which would justify it being separate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Actually leaning towards a weak keep - but it would be nice over time hopefully to see some more additional source coverage in the article from other secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Intro and the Outro[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONG; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

I have to question whether this article is anything more than a mass of WP:OR. Things like "Dan Druff (perhaps a pun on “dandruff”)" and "The recording, which leads off the second side of the original vinyl release, begins with the greeting "Hi there, nice to be with you, happy you could stick around," as if welcoming listeners from the first side of the album to the second. Stanshall first introduces the members of the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, who are credited with their actual instruments, over a vamp that resembles Duke Ellington’s "C-Jam Blues":" are original research. Unless references can be provided, the "verifiable" element of WP:NSONGS is not fulfilled. Ironholds (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned up the OR and added sources. The song meets WP:GNG even if it doesn't meet the traditional criteria for WP:SONG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires multiple reliable sources discussing it in detail. The three sources (in order) 1) not significant detail, it's a passing reference 2) not significant detail, a passing reference and 3) not reliable. It is not a "BBC article": it is the BBC equivalent to Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Aritcle's sources may meet WP:GNG, per User: Panyd. At the very least, merge into Gorilla (Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band album).--Pink Bull 16:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PinkBull: have you looked at the sources in question? The only one which discusses the song in detail is the BBC wikipedia equivalent. Ironholds (talk) 19:3*::7, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The Keep was "Weak." :) Besides, I'm seeing numerous sites behind legal search engine paywalls. The references are also contemporary, which gives credence to the notability of a 43-year old song.--Pink Bull 22:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the (now 4) references, 3 don't discuss the song in anything more than a passing way, and the 4th is unreliable, however. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, delete. One of those songs that runs through my head periodically and that I listen to when feeling nostalgic, but none of that makes a song pass WP:NSONG. The BBC source does appear to be a Wiki-equivalent, so it doesn't pass WP:RS.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:NSONG because there is "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The song is especially suitable for coverage in detail because it lists numerous contemporary personalities such as Horace Batchelor for whom we have articles. See Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire for another similar song for which we have a fine article. It only took a minute to find and cite a source which discusses this song in detail and there are lots more sources out there. In any case, the band and album have sufficient notability that, per WP:NSONG, we would not delete regardless and so this should never have been brought here. The nomination just appears to be forum shopping to make good a bad-tempered and foul-mouthed threat made at the article's talk page, contrary to WP:CIVIL. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Foul-mouthed"? "Forum shopping"? Do you know what those phrases mean? Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Presented here are specific reasons to merge it, specific reasons to keep it, and specific reasons why merging it is specifically a bad idea. The article is clearly not going to be deleted based on this discussion, but I'm wary of pretending there's any real consensus as to what to do with the material. ~ mazca ^talk 13:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World, Our Teacher's Dead[edit]

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

Parody song with no significant cultural impact or notability. The sources listed are to forum posts and personal websites, not reliable sources. Most of the article consists of various lyrics, not prose about the song. I note that a version of this was sung by Nelson Muntz in a Simpsons episode, but not every Simpsons joke needs an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a few sources easily ([10] and [11]) and I'm sure there are others. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The song achieves greater google hits using "Joy to the World, The Teacher's Dead". --Pink Bull 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant and redirect to Joy to the World#Parodies and tributes unless something more significant than lyrics and passing mentions can be added per WP:NOT#LYRICS.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joy to the World#Parodies and tributes. Re Hunter Khan's sources: [12] does not constitute "significant coverage" per WP:N (it's a one-line reference to the relevant Simpsons episode). [13] is a one-line reference in a semi-fictionalised prose-poetry piece by author Nikki Gemmell and is neither significant nor reliable. Plenty of other hits on Google but I can't find any that constitute reliable significant coverage. The lack of consensus on the lyrics of the alleged song, plus the fact that the most widely used version was popularised by the Simpsons, is good evidence that encyclopaedic coverage of this topic in a stand-alone article isn't possible and it would be more appropriately dealt with in the article on the original version. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per the above analyses. --Pink Bull 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A merge may not be necessary ( nothing of value to add of the main article ) As an aside, the entire [[Category:Playground songs]]> seems to have WP:OR issues. Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No merge, no redirect Merging this is about as good an idea as making God Save the Queen (Sex Pistols song) a section of God Save the Queen. It's not the old days where Wikipedia articles had to have a "fun" reference to The Simpsons, Family Guy or Monty Python. It's not a good idea to make this part of an article about the 18th century Christian hymn and popular Christmas carol Joy to the World. I'd rather have an idiotic article called "Joy to the World in popular culture" than an idiotic section in a what should remain a serious article. Mandsford (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - God Save the Queen (Sex Pistols song) has a complete article with more substance than just lyrics (in fact, it doesn't have the lyrics, it doesn't need them) and a couple of trivial tidbits. The article under AfD does not go beyond lyrics and a little trivia, and unless more can be added, it is a case of WP:NOT#LYRICS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you might have misunderstood the "no merge, no redirect" statement, which did not advocate keeping this article, but just pointed out that the worst possible outcome would be to put this piece of trivia (is that a trivium?) in the Joy to the World article. God Save the Queen was probably a bad analogy, as the two songs with that title share nothing but the title, but I agree with my reading of Mandsford's statement, which is that if this is not kept as a separate article then it should be deleted.Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify Redirect to Joy to the World#Parodies and tributes and let the editors of the Joy to the World article decide what, if any, content should be included. Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep Sufficient material for a separate article, though not referenced as well as it should be. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't bold a !vote since right now I don't have time to examine any sources but this song does bring back memories. I remember it being sung when I was in grade school. (early 70s) Though it was more popular on the bus then on the playground. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Mandsford - there seems enough content to call for a separate article. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Trooper[edit]

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

Delete. There was a recent AfD debate about Doom Troopers, a console title, which wound up redirected to this article, which is about a card game. The problem is that I'm unable to determine notability of this actual card game either-- the 3 mentions I found on Google Books search were trivial/passing mentions, part of a long list of other card games. JBsupreme (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mutant Chronicles, which itself is in horrible shape. There needs to be a top-level article that discusses the world of Mutant Chronicles and describes each game in that world (with the notable ones, if any, having their own page linked from the top-level one) and other media (books, etc.). The movie is a part of this setting and is plainly notable [14] and I suspect the books (as a whole at least) and board game are also notable. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous sources which discuss this topic in detail such as Scrye Collectible Card Game Checklist and Price Guide - an encyclopedic reference which covers all the CCG of the 90s. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi CW. Do you know of a specific article in Scyre on this game? If so, I'd !vote to keep. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is [15] a reliable source? Apparently the game is more popular in Germany, so a lot of the potential sources are in German. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Track (British TV series)[edit]

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

Notability and requirement for this to have its own article are in doubt. Cloudbound _{(formerly Wikiwoohoo)} (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would be inclined to Keep as Wikipedia is a very good resource for not-too-well-known BBC programmes. (See The Bubble) SmokingNewton (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and tag stub for expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Fails to establish notability. The BBC channel this show is aired by isn't even available in the BBC's home market. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I wonder why the BBC would create broadcast channels for airing in some places and not in others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 24 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) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fast Track is the BBC's weekly award-winning travel news program, which is broadcast on BBC World News (the BBC's international 24-hour news channel) to a global audience of nearly 300 million households in over 200 countries. Although not shown in its entirety in the UK, individual reports are taken from the show and aired on the BBC News Channel. Needs expansion, but this is a program that keeps international travelers up to date with issues that may impact their trips whether for business or pleasure (e.g., natural disasters, political upheaval, health scares, economic crises, industrial strikes, etc.). Also explores different destinations to give leisure travelers insight and advice on what to do, where to go, how best to take advantage of unique vacation opportunities and what safety precautions to take. --TVinfosource 06:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)TVinfosource 00:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVinfosource (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76 Club[edit]

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

Notability of the venue is not discussed. Article consists largely of a list of performers who have appeared there. No significant coverage of the venue is shown in the references. Frank | talk 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hard to judge the notability of a defunct venue from decades ago, but this link from the references seems significant; it's from the BBC, or a local subsidiary, and it reviews a book which goes into great depth about the club. Also, a notable live album by the Sex Pistols, Anarchy in the UK: Live at the 76 Club, was recorded there. The article's English was halting but I have cleaned it up. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you mean this link...really? ...the visit of the Sex Pistols to a shell shocked, mainly hippy, 76 Club audience in September 1976... constitutes great depth about the club? ~~or implies an album (notable or not) was recorded there?~~ Frank | talk 03:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a book review. It's the book (the one being reviewed) that apparently goes into great depth about the "small, but mighty" 76 Club. Since we don't have the book, we have to rely on the review to tell us what it was about. Here's more, from the author himself, about what impelled him to write the book (namely, he read an article that was "singing the praises of the 76 club"). I'll let you and others judge for yourselves whether this second-hand stuff is enough corrobboration of notability, or not. I have no dog in this fight. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here's what that page says: Though some of the town's most notorious live music events are covered in some detail, for example the visit of the Sex Pistols to a shell shocked, mainly Hippy, 76 Club audience in September 1976, and the town's first encounter with Beatles style 'fan mania' with the visit of the chart topping Kinks in 1964, the emphasis is very much on local groups. 76.182.66.233 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the book is self-published. That makes it questionable as a source, even if it does cover the 76 Club in some detail. Dunncon13 (talk) 13:14, 18 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) 02:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The fact that a nightclub occasionally had concerts by notable bands does not make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources, including one explicitly stating that its a tourist attraction, should satisfy WP:GNG.--Pink Bull 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette club[edit]

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

Notability of the venue is not discussed; this article largely consists of a list of appearances by touring acts. Frank | talk 18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette club:Notability[edit]

It is in detail described in this book Farley, Keith (2001). An Oral History of the Wolverhampton Group Scene of the 1960's. K. Farley. ISBN 0-9541583-0-X.--Andrey! 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette club:Article rework[edit]

I, the author of article. On my talk page it is written:--Andrey! 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough to write articles on the English wikipedia, in my view. --User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk) 10:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

But I am ready to help the facts and links.--Andrey! 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have grave doubts as to whehter the fact that a night club occasionally attracts notable bands for concerts makes it notable: notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MXW Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I recently wrote a completely revised article concerning MXW Pro Wrestling at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demanufactured/MXW_Pro_Wrestling_(revised). If this revision satisfies WP:CORP standards regarding sources, I'll go ahead and edit the current article to reflect these changes. Demanufactured (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources can be considered reliable or secondary except the two SLAM! Wrestling sources. However, MXW is only mentioned very trivially within those sources, so none of the sources help establish notability per WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 04:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The newspaper article in the Albany Times Union wasn't sufficient? Is this particular article being held to a higher standard than the majority of pro wrestling entries? Have you seen the references section of the Jersey All Pro Wrestling article? Fifteen out of sixteen references cite their website. Is that considered an unbiased verifiable secondary source? Demanufactured (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't really comment too much on the Albany Times article as it requires a subscription to access. In regards to Jersey All Pro Wrestling, a simple Google search proves that there are reliable secondary sources available, whether or not they are in the article. Nikki♥311 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand that some of the references I used may be considered tertiary sources, however, is the burden of proof on me as the editor to provide a hard copy of the newspaper? MXW was mentioned twice in the 2006-11-10 edition, but the Times Union only maintains an archive dating back to late 2009 on their website. Current references aside, I want to point out that the primary reason I started this article is because the promotion recently returned from a lengthy hiatus. Their next show is approximately two months away and I'm fairly confident that it will generate a sizable amount of new satisfactory references in the immediate future. MXW is arguably more notable now than it has been for the past three years, during which time the notability of the previous iteration of their article was uncontested. Demanufactured (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You don't have to provide a hard copy...if that was the case, quite a few articles would have to have references removed. I meant that I can't tell if the reference is trivial or not because I'm not willing to sign up for the website. However, if it was only mentioned twice, as you state, it probably is. As for it having more coverage in the future, see WP:CRYSTAL. If it does become notable, the article can be recreated, but the creation of articles can't be based on what may or may not happen in the future. Nikki♥311 00:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        For what it's worth, I was incorrect about the Times Union database. When I said that MXW was mentioned twice, I should have specified that I meant there were two separate columns regarding it in that day's edition. I recently found direct links (through the Times Union itself, not a news archive site) to the two articles in question and updated the references accordingly. I also added an external link to the MXW entry at The Internet Wrestling Database, which I thought was worth including even though it may not be considered a reliable source. Demanufactured (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        KEEP: It seems notable enough to me, since a simple Google search brings up results that are considered reliable by professional wrestling fans. It seems Nikki311 is basing what is and isn't credible based on her own interpretation and unwillingness to research (ie: signing up).70.109.185.218 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've seen several Wikipedia articles that cite newspapers and don't bother using any links whatsoever to verify the claim that they were actually published. I assumed that using a third party news archive site would be enough to prove that the articles in question did in fact run on the date I cited in the references. When that was challenged, I provided links to the full text of both articles through the newspaper's archive site itself. I realize that some of the references I used may be considered trivial, but I would hope that providing a direct link to the full articles would be enough to verify the claim that MXW is notable enough to warrant coverage in a major news source. Demanufactured (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        To IP: It may seem notable to you, but how is it notable per Wikipedia policy? What a wrestling fan and what Wikipedia policy considers reliable are two different things. I'm basing what I think is credible per WP:RS. As for the article that requires registration, another copy of it was provided, and I have already talked about that below. Nikki♥311 23:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I query the compliance with WP:N here. How is this promotion notable? Joel Gertner owning it isn't enough IMO. Get Dumb 03:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable not only because it's Joel Gertner's current project, but also because it has been referenced numerous times by talent that performed on the shows (both in interviews and on their respective websites), several independent pro wrestling sites (including two major ones that I didn't even attempt to cite due to their "questionable credibility"), and at least one major news source. It's one of the biggest independent wrestling promotions in this area and arguably the most "buzzworthy" promotion in Connecticut. All of that aside, if you consider the fact that Joel Gertner operating it is notable, why would you vote to delete it rather than merge it with his article? Demanufactured (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"KEEP PAGE THE WAY IT IS" I don't really understand why this page is being targeted when there are thousands of pages that link back to some of the company or talent's own web site. This page has detailed information, which is not available anywhere else and should be kept the way that it is. I believe deletion is wrong. SE1009 (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)SE1009[reply]
- — SE1009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Barely passes WP:RS requirements. Warrah (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How? "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third party secondary sources." Which sources satisfy this? Nikki♥311 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The two articles in the Times Union? The MXW sections on Indy Wrestling News and The Internet Wrestling Database? There's also a sizable amount of coverage on the Declaration of Independents website, but I didn't even bother citing any of it because the entire site has been blacklisted for some reason. Demanufactured (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first Times Union article reads like a "what is happening this weekend" deal, which doesn't assert notability. The second one, I'll give you because it gives a little more info, but barely because it is along the same lines as the other and it can hardly be considered "significant". Indy Wrestling News, the Internet Wrestling Database, and the Declaration of the Independents are not considered reliable, which is probably why the latter is blacklisted. Nikki♥311 20:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can understand why DOI would be blacklisted (even though I'm fairly certain it's due to the content of their message board and not the content of the main site itself) but why aren't Indy Wrestling News or the Internet Wrestling Database regarded as credible? What makes them any different from Obsessed With Wrestling / Online World of Wrestling which has been cited countless times in articles regarding independent wrestling? Demanufactured (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Online World of Wrestling/Obsessed with Wrestling aren't reliable sources either. They cannot be uses to assert notability, but it isn't a big deal if they are sourcing non-contentious information like who won a match (although a reliable source is obviously preferable). A source is considered reliable if it is scholarly, not self-published, there is a proven fact-checking system, and/or a proven reliable source gives it a good review (like a positive book review). See WP:RS for more info. Nikki♥311 23:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannis[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:BAND. A few links to Facebook/ Blogspot etc. Wintonian (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist is a songwriter as per WP:COMPOSER. Links refer to compositions of note. mikesterpa 11:41, 19 March 2010 (PST) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you wish contribute to the discussion particularly as the author of the article, but please be aware of WP:COI conflict of interests should really be declared. Could you possibly expand on why you think it meets WP:COMPOSER? --Wintonian (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please have a look at WP:CITE, WP:N and you can ask questions on anything you are not sure about at WP:NUH. Thank you again for contributing :-). --Wintonian (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no indication of notability. Fails WP:BAND (and WP:COMPOSER, for that matter). See also WP:Vanispamcruftisement. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One guy's bedroom project. He's recorded one self-released album. Fails WP:BAND by a long shot. Fails WP:COMPOSER too: not credited with any notable compositions, his works have won no awards and have not been used in other notable works, and he's not an influence on anyone. — Gwalla | Talk 23:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SM Supercenter Commonwealth[edit]

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

Blatant advertising. I tagged it for speedy deletion under G11, but the admin who reviewed it disagreed and suggested that I bring the article here or PROD it. I decided to bring it here. If kept, it needs a total rewrite. The "See Also" section is entirely about the supercenter itself, and makes my argument that this article is blatant advertising that much stronger. Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:SOAP no refs just realy a list of stores within the shopping center, and no links apart from those to other Wiki pages about the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airavata Das[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete seems to me as per nom, but there might be some foreign language sources that could support this article. Article needs some cleaning up, but without sources it appears like a vanity piece DRosin (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 05:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChessV[edit]

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

Unverified for over two years. I haven't been able to find any reliable, independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 14:48, 11 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) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 21:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Delete. Could be kept if there were some independent sources. I wish the software was better known and in a later version (not yet 1.0). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is notable, though I agree that it requires some secondary sources. Grand Mattster 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible secondary sources (correct me if I'm wrong): [16] | [17] | [18] Grand Mattster 16:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]

The first is a wikipedia mirror I believe, so no love there. The second seems to be in a (specialized) WP:RS. One more reliable source and I'd !vote to keep. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – It certainly looks like an article we should keep but such a long time without much in the way of sources, which seem to be difficult to find. I agree 1 or 2 more reliable sources and it is a definite keep. Is there another article we could merge it with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources given only mention it in relation to the "2004 Gothic Chess Computer World Championship". If we were to include ChessV in our encyclopedia anywhere, it would be in an article on that championship. Marasmusine (talk) 10:50, 19 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) 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/weak keep I think this is an interesting article, definitely needs better sources though DRosin (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Bushell[edit]

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

A credited writer he may be, but I have been unable to find any WP:RS indicating he meets our WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a quick google search brings up lots of pages about the things he has written. The big thing keeping me from voting delete is that he has won two notable awards, which makes him notable under WP:BIO. However, these two awards are unsourced, and I cannot find anything that shows he won the award, only that The Bernie Mac Show won the awards. I think this article just needs proper sourcing, not deleting. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we can verify his share in a Peabody, I'll gladly withdraw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His career as a writer on award-winning shows and films Drawn Together, What I Like About You, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, The Bernie Mac Show, & MADtv would seem to indicate that his asserted Peabody Award and Television Critics Award are out there somewhere. Searches would have to be for either in 2002 or 2003. If I find it, I'll be back to go Keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a look for the Peabody, could not find a good website with it relating to Jeffrey Bushell... tricky as I think he probably did get it, just finding a good source seems to be difficult DRosin (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few (rather weak) references to the article, so at least it is no longer unreferenced. I think he makes it as notable because he created the story and co-wrote the screenplay for Beverly Hills Chihuahua. --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne Classical Ensemble[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Has been marked with ((notability)) for quite some time. The only third-party mentions I was able to find on the internet are articles in local German newspapers, which do not suffice to constitute notability. Carabinieri (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the coverage is certainly in local and regional newspapers, however taken together they are covering the whole area of Western Germany including Aachen, Cologne, Dortmund, Bonn, Koblenz. Also, there is a recension of their album in Neue Musikzeitung, the leading German magazine covering all styles of music. Finally, they have two recordings on a major label (Sony). Seems to be enough for basic notability. PanchoS (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BAND, "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" don't prove notability. All newspaper mentionings I was able to find merely announce the ensemble's concert dates, so that definately falls under "trivial coverage". As far as I'm able to tell, they have only released one album with Sony. That only leaves the album review in Neue Musikzeitung, which surely isn't enough to establish notability.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough notability here. Removed notability tag and changed to expand, which will be necessary if this escapes AfD. avs5221 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling us why this topic is notable?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I originally voted keep per this WP:BAND criteria: "Has released two or more albums on a major label." I did more digging on this and their "second" CD per PanchoS is a compilation CD on which CCE only has one song. With that taken into consideration, they do not meet WP:MUSIC. My apologies, Carabinieri. avs5221 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to beat a dead horse...while I think Carabinieri has a point to the publishing clause of WP:MUSIC, I also think PanchoS has a claim to "non-trivial published works." See: here, here, here, here, here, cd review, cd review, and here. There are many more on the CCE website. I hate contradicting myself, but I'd rather get it right. avs5221 (talk) 23:56, 10 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) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided are adequate for our purpose. No useful purpose is served by continually relisting this as there is clearly no consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O Outro Lado Da Porta[edit]

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

as a musical DVD compilation, WP:NALBUMS apply. clearly fails this. gets passing mentions in third party coverage [19]. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is rather a DVD compilation, but is within the pre-arranged by Wikipedia, and even meets the standards of WP:NALBUMS. All your references help make true existence.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Chi Psi[edit]

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

A local fraternity with no evidence of anything that might be notable, lacking the sources to meet WP:ORG P98dez (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local organizations are presumed to be non-notable. No assertion in the article suggests otherwise, and the article does not cite any secondary sources. Accordingly, it fails both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom and C.Fred. Codf1977 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khan (pathan)[edit]

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

This seems to be defining a word/ term in a way that would be better suited to a dictionary. Wintonian (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also delete this page: Khan (Pathan) created by the same user who is currently blocked User talk:Ihsanss86 --Wintonian (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 05:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 05:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a dictionary. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Khan, a disambiguation page where some of this can be added in a more coherent manner. Dew Kane (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch Reality[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no references to support any kind of notability Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google only turns up it's website, and it basically fails the WP:GNG Buggie111 (talk)

Delete. Article is unclear on what the show will actually be - the youtube link was more informative. The article also indicates that the show premieres in July 2010 - in which case, absent coverage in reliable sources, this article is quite premature. When the series becomes notable, if it becomes notable, an article may be appropriate, but not yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the crystal ball test. The show hasn't aired yet, the premiere date of July 2010 seems more hopeful than definite, no indication of who is actually going to broadcast the show, lots of "TBD" and "TBA" in the information. Also, no mainstream sourcing. I suppose it could be userfied back to the author, to be updated and reposted when/if the show actually goes on the air. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Actors[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no references to support any kind of notability Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search yields no external coverage of this supposed "Internet TV series", so this fails notability guideline for Internet content. Not to mention that the creator of this article is a suspected sock puppet. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article contains no sources and does not demonstrate its subject's notability. Gobonobo ^T ^C 09:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure crystal-ball stuff. Vaguely defined show "in development" for an unsourced 2010 launch. No mainstream sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, withdrawal of nomination. Deletion of user pages generally needs to go through WP:Miscellany for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rolling Hills Prep[edit]

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

Not notable unless Wiki does allow articals about schools generally, also seems to be a bit like an advert. The artical was writtern by the school it's self. Wintonian (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just relised this is in the users own space, my appoligies for listing the artical and I withdraw the request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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