< 2 May	4 May >

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

The result was : Speedily deleted by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs)

Woodland disease

[edit]

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

There are no sources for this article, and, given this, I feel the article is likely to be a hoax. An internet search on the subject turned up nothing, and I feel this article should be deleted. Immunize (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete While the disease really does exist (4 hits from the news link above), but none of those support the claims in this article.--RadioFan (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant hoax/nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. In the news results the phrase "woodland disease" isn't a proper name, but just means "a disease that occurs in the woodlands". And it's a pathogen which attacks trees and obviously can't infect people. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has now added additional false information into this article, which further makes me feel that this article should be deleted. However, should you really have tagged this for speedy deletion when it is already at AfD? Immunize (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An speedy deletion tag can certainly be added to the article. If an admin feels that it meets speedy deletion guidelines, they will close this AFD out when they delete the article.--RadioFan (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - real disease, hoax article. This is available to delete speedily as an incoherent mess and vandalism, which should be re-created later to make a real article. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Pichilemu earthquake

[edit]

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

This article seems be in violation of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:NOTNEWS. Terinjokes (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Justmeagain83 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Being the first to discover a new earthquake is the Wikipedia equivalent of an astronomer being the first to discover a new star or asteroid, whereby one gets the credit and the naming rights. As with an airline incident, there's a template that can be filled out with all the info from the appropriate geological service. However, the measure of a quake on Wikipedia is whether it has historical notability, and on what I'd call the "Wikter scale", this one doesn't register. Mandsford (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Another articel about just another quake.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mandsford; clearly NOTNEWS applies and there is no need for an article for each earthquake. Mike moral ♪♫ 05:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above rationales. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. Olivia Frost

[edit]

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

I would use PROD, but I am on the fence. Does this BLP meet our standards for notability in academics? Tim 1357 ^talk 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not seeing any claim of notability. Article just describes her career, which seems to be heavy on the administrative side of things. Abductive (reasoning) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem notable. Being a dean is not enough to pass WP:PROF, and I don't see much other reason for inclusion; having published a half a dozen articles in its own right is not enough. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - not named professor, but her record barely ranks her as a notable professor at a major university Bearian (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable, and the reasoning given for the prod decline ("full professors at Michigan are essentially always notable") doesn't jibe with wp:prof. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Babalj

[edit]

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

Contested prod with reasoning that youth internationals are notable. This doesn't meet current community standards at WP:Athlete. A good faith search for significant coverage shows mostly trivial mentions and not enough coverage in my opinion to meet the notability guidelines. Camw (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Camw (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - per nominator. Having never played a professional match or for a senior national team means he fails WP:ATHLETE, and the absence of significant coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG - recreate if / when meets either criteria Steve-Ho (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Morton

[edit]

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

Non notable schoolboy footballer. No indication of meeting WP:ATHLETE noq (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never made it in the professional game. Proof positive that success is by no means guaranteed for all these allegedly hyper-talented kids who regularly pop up on the web.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS looking at the history, article is also a very obvious autobiog -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (after 2 edit conflicts :-) per nom. Struway2 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kosack (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. This player clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. copyvio of their myspace page Nancy ^talk 12:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secouer records

[edit]

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

non notable label. Disputed prod. Unsourced, and spammy. noq (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio from [1] -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowoods

[edit]

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

Spam for non-notable direct-to-video C-movie. Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- information - I've had to block, not only the initial spamusername, but a second sockpuppet created by the spammer. (I know, that's not an argument for deletion [or retention]; but I thought folks should know.) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NaviMate

[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable web browser - this search yields < 100 hits, not all of them relevant. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, nothing in a web search to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this browser in any reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot find reliable sources for this one. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all four except Bhanbhro. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanbhro

[edit]

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

These are all pretty much vanity pages created by SPA Rafay Bhanbhro -- well, actually, the first article wasn't created by him/her, but s/he made a great deal of edits on it. In any case, a Google search for the first article resulted in pages that only mention the subject in passing, and the rest of the articles' respective Ghits are only Wikipedia and mirrors. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Bhanbhro. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bhanbhro, delete the others. That one actually seems to have received quite a lot of independent coverage, and while the external links would be better as references they still seem to be just enough to meet WP:GNG. The others aren't even close. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD G7) by Athaenara. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 19:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Grey (footballer)

[edit]

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

Speedy template removed. 17 games in the reserves at Crystal Palace, youth team player, now a scout at Bournemouth-I don't see an assertion of notability or a degree of coverage in reliable sources that meets our general notability guideline or a degree of independent reporting that could allow us to to create a decent, well cited biography of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't see enough to write a biography from. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (That is, from reliable, verifiable, secondary sources.) --Joe Decker (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a start his name has been spelt wrong, Danny makes a good point there are many Footballers on wikipedia who have had the same type of career. I remember Matt Gray Playing at Southampton for Crystal Palace in their first team at a young age. He was considered the new Terry Butcher but injuries etc prevented his development. You could probably write a decent movie about his life from what I gather. R Mackie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.228.39 (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criterion A7. There is no indication that this player meets our notability guidelines. – Pee Jay 10:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peejay what do you have against Danny? R Mackie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.228.39 (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I have anything against any particular editor? My only problem is with articles that fail to meet our notability guidelines, such as this one. – Pee Jay 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATH, the community's most generous inclusion standard. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Faerie Ring

[edit]

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

This is a combined nomination for a book and its author. The book fails WP:BK and the author fails WP:AUTHOR. I can find no independent coverage of either the book or the author. My PROD tag was removed but the issues were not addressed as the only reference added was the author's own website.

Related page (author's) also being nominated:

-- JLaTondre (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both no significant coverage found. book not available on amazon.ca, oddly enough. no prejudice towards recreation if a second, printed book appears with coverage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Michael Honeth's book is published by Honeth Publishing which would indicate it is self-published. I can find no significant coverage about the author or the book in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not an Article Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 747/Image Gallery

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Boeing 747/Image Gallery

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

This orphaned article (only link is to Boeing 747) has no potential for expansion. It is just a collection of pictures. I believe that is what the Commons are for (a link is provided in the 747 article to an array of 747-related images). Furthermore, there are already plenty of images in the 747 article itself. I therefore see no useful purpose for this redundant article. Airplaneman ✈ 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3, as this article has no content other than an image galley. I tagged the article accordingly. It looks like there were attempts in the past to transwiki the page to Commons, but there is already a Boeing 747 page there. –Grondemar 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm not calling for any of the contained images to be deleted, just the article. –Grondemar 22:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Photos are fine and might be of some use, but this just isn't an article -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a category (here or at Commons, not a page. Speedy delete - The Bushranger (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtue of laziness

[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism used by one teacher in their classroom. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedia article either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. (Article has alos COI problemes.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not publish original thought. — Rankiri (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this original thought. Cliff smith ^talk 19:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 New Britain Rock Cats season

[edit]

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

Article was apparently created to highlight the 2008 season of the New Britain Rock Cats, a Minor League Baseball team from Connecticut. However, it was functionally abandoned approximately one-third through the season -- two years ago -- without the results of the rest of the season being imputed. There doesn't appear to be any need for this article about a single, non-notable season of a small Connecticut baseball team. In addition, there does not exist any articles for any of this team's other seasons, so this article about the 2008 season appears to serve no purpose as a standalone when there are none about any other seasons. Major League teams should have season-by-season articles because of their notability and reliable coverage, but not so much for non-noteworthy MiLB teams. Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Also, that page doesn't use the 2008 roster. That's the current 2010 roster. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty well what WP:NOTSTAT is about. Because of the lower bar that's set for fun articles, anyone can make their own personal sports page, but it takes a lot of effort to keep updating the page with each game result. It looks as if there's an entire category of Category:2008 Eastern League season with quite a few similarly incomplete articles. These can be enjoyable during the season, but they're trivia rather than history, and there probably should be a rule that these get folded into the league season article when the season ends. It doesn't take long to go from rah-rah-rah to blah-blah-blah. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto. Nothing to add but I want to be with the in-crowd. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.. And also delete all the other incomplete 2008 Eastern League season pages. Spanneraol (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:BLP1E. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zahia Dehar (call girl)

[edit]

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

Although the facts of this article are verifiable, I believe that this article would fall under the guidelines of WP:BLP1E, and as the subject was a minor at the time of the event, I believe it is in the best interest of all involved that Wikipedia not be involved in the continuing recriminations from this event. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been in the news for only one event -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside of one event. ALI ^{nom nom} 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely a case of BLP1E.
Keep she ist famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.115.19 (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC) — 77.21.115.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on this scandal. Which should be created. Baiter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Everybody in France knows her. -Harbelser (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC) — Harbelser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ALI ^{nom nom} 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E certainly applies. Most of the article, as it stands, is actually about the one event and Franck Ribéry rather than Mlle. Dehar (Baiter is correct, the event deserves an article). She is only mentioned in one of the listed reliable sources, but none of that information is in the article. gNews search for her name returns articles about the turmoil in the French team, mostly focusing on Ribéry and mentioning her only in passing. Her appearance on some sort of French dating game type thing is non-notable. The title of the article is also a problem, on a number of levels. » scoops “ŧäłķ„ 17:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I've done some more research (en français)and see that Mlle. Dehar has done an interview in Paris Match [2], which may push her closer towards notability. I'm still not sold that she's relevant apart from the scandal, since that is the main focus of the interview, but it does offer us a reliable source about her; one that contradicts pretty much all the information given about her in our article. I'm still leaning towards delete, but if the article is kept, it absolutely needs to be moved to just Zahia Dehar. » scoops “対談„ 16:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one event. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Battlefront III

[edit]

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

fails WP:CRYSTAL Teenage Martyr (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a rumor, but a bunch of reliable sources cover the rumor. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of significant coverage to pass WP:N from several reliable sources. Though I'm usually against having unreleased or canceled games kept, this one passes criteria. Not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - the sources provide veracity. --Teancum (talk)
Keep - even if the game is never to be released, it still would have plenty of reliable sourcing. Enough coverage in relaible secondary sources exists to verify the article's content and establish notability, side-stepping WP:CRYSTAL. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as the nom has been indef blocked for sock puppetry. [3] [4] --Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik (software)

[edit]

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

Non-notable wiki software. Despite its cool logo, there's no evidence that this software achieved any notability during its lifetime (apparently 2007-2009). It's only been used on a handful of (non-notable) wikis, and doesn't seem to have gotten any press mentions. It should be noted that this is not related to the company Sputnik at sputnik.com, which makes some sort of wi-fi hardware. Yaron K. (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any either. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WIthdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Tennessee floods

[edit]

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

The prod was contested. This flood fails WP:EVENT. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand'. Major national coverage throughout the whole weekend - so clearly notable. I might understand that some of the content is in the April-May 2010 tornado outbreak but clearly this event merits its own entry. Though I would be only able to help with the article during the weekend though. --JForget 21:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll close this AfD if someone will add sources to it. And I'm not trying to be a dick by saying that (a name that I have been called multiple times on here). Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added a couple of timely sources and a ((currentEvent)) tag. Hope it helps as this flood will become notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike Cline. I'll withdraw. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted per CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play to extinction

[edit]

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

As the creator of this article I have been contacted on Facebook by the primary source for this expression according to the article, Natasha Schull. She writes to me:

"The article characterizes “play to extinction” as a technique used within the gambling industry, which is inaccurate. I am the sole source for this phrase and I can assure you that I only heard it once or twice, used descriptively (i.e. to describe what happens when players run out of money at slot machines). It definitely isn't a "concept" or "strategy" or "practice" that is used or applied in any concerted way within the gambling industry, and thus makes no sense as a Wikipedia entry. The phrasing has such a sinister ring to it that journalists like to put it up front, but it just creates sensationalism and confusion. To be sure, the industry has plenty of creepy concepts and strategies (like "Time on Device" which is a standard term and would make a great Wikipedia page), but "play to extinction" is not one of them."

Based on this I nominate the article for deletion. meco (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD criteria G7 allows a speedy deletion of a page if the only author requests deletion. I've tagged the page as such. --Darkwind (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portclare

[edit]

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

No established notability. No links to this article... User:Timneu22/moutray — Timneu22 · talk 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A manor such as this has some of the characteristics of a settlement, particularly if the people who worked on the manor also lived there. What was the population? I am inclined to think that the automatic notability of towns might apply here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but WP:ORPHAN ranks highly with me... if no one wants this article, that's my starting point for questionable notability. — Timneu22 · talk 21:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORPHAN is not a criteria for deletion. Just because an article hasn't been linked to very often, which is especially true for new articles, doesn't diminish its notability at all. Silver seren^C 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that's it's not an official reason for deletion, but when you have the same editor posting numerous articles and all are deleted because of the lack of notability, ORPHAN certainly becomes a factor in these articles: they were posted because he wanted them for his mission, not because they are requested or desired by the encyclopedic community. — Timneu22 · talk 22:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of the other articles and their manner of creation, Portclare appears to have been a real settlement/town and as such, should likely not be deleted. See this google search which turns up several sources which discuss it, its boundaries, population, etc. etc. --Jayron32 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Jayron32. NtheP (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - almost all settlements have been kept after deletion discussions, and per my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being in A topographical dictionary of Ireland is a definite plus. It is also covered in Counties Fermangh & Tyrone, and An historical account of the plantation in Ulster at the commencement of the seventeenth century, 1608-1620, and A statistical account, or parochial survey of Ireland: drawn up from the communications of the clergy, Volume 3, and Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, and many others. Historical notability seems quite assured. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wiseman

[edit]

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

CSD tags repeatedly removed. Non-notable person. GregJackP (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unsourced BLP. no indication he is notable and nothing in searches to indicate this 15 year old might be notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, and based on the scant material present, I can find no coverage about this Alex Wiseman. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7, or just plain delete. Hairhorn (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moultrie Courthouse

[edit]

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

Nothing notable about this building. User:Timneu22/moutray — Timneu22 · talk 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources already cited indicated in the article, and a cursory google search, turns up gobs of good info on the courthouse specifically. Regardless of the problems with other articles which may or may not have been created and/or edited by some editors, this one article appears to meet inclusion criteria with flying colors. --Jayron32 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron32. The article creator might have created some dogs for personal reasons, but that doesn't mean we have to delete inclusion-worthy articles like this one too.--Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron32. NtheP (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron 32 and the obvious notability shown by the sources in the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major Federal courthouses are almost always considered notable. In this case, a bad editor can make good edits; for "even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day." Bearian (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per guideline supported arguments toward notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Franek

[edit]

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

Claims of notability in this article cannot be verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, they weren't verified, but lots of claims in the article can be verified, and I've added references that, in my opinion, establish that this is a notable actor. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Drmies has done what I could not in finding sources about this actor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Dan. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jokela High School

[edit]

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

Contested prod. A 2007 school shooting occurred there, but the school just doesn't have enough significance. In short, this school is non-notable. Karppinen (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I could be wrong on this, or consensus may have changed and I'm not aware of it, but as I understand it, high schools are considered to have an inherant notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools).--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the usual outcome. It would have notability even had there been no school shooting, in the same way that the little town (6,000) of Jokela in Finland would be notable. Certain features in places (schools, radio stations, etc.) tend to get articles separate from the town itself. As with Columbine High, there is more to the school than the tragedy that happened there. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are available to meet WP:ORG. Separately, high schools are significant enough in their communities to be kept. TerriersFan (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per long standing consensus, high schools are notable. Edward321 (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Moutray

[edit]

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

Non notable Royal Navy captain of the Revolutionary War period. Only claim to fame is being court martialled. The details of the action which resulted in his court martial are covered in Action of 9 August 1780. NtheP (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author has a history of using WP as his personal genealogy site; a number of his edits are currently under AFD or have already failed. — Timneu22 · talk 19:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Timneu22/moutray

listing of AfD seems to be borne out of personal animus for reasons unspecified and unclear. Removing this, and a whole lot of other pages must also be AfDd too on similar grounds. Perhaps, rather, and more constructively, retain, and suggest author places material on GlobalFamilyTree or suchlike. AfD is uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.117.129 (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — 41.132.117.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply to 41.132.117.129 (talk · contribs): Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator. The reasons for the nomination are neither unspecified nor unclear; the subject of the Moutray2010's contributions has been exclusively limited to his own genealogy, and he has been duly informed of the problem. He is free to post the material on GlobalFamilyTree or any other website that is appropriate for such purposes; that does not alter the need for the material to be deleted from Wikipedia through this AfD process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did start by seeing if there was an article to make out of the amount of material posted but then found there was already an article on the only noteworthy event posted about John Moutray so not it's not borne out of any dubious motive but simply non-notability. NtheP (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the original nomination: The Moultrie Courthouse is independently notable as a the home the the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The biographical information about its namesake has been removed as non-notable, but the building itself remains notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Moultrie Courthouse is notable and should be retained. NtheP (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability as laid out at WP:N and WP:BIO. Text in the article is fleshed out with descriptions of larger events he participated in; but it does not appear that his life itself has been the subject of substantial coverage. --Jayron32 05:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fairly obvious on this one for all the reasons listed above.Rapier (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD at this point in the discussion.

Keep and cleanup, it was easy to find references to the man, he was court marshaled in 1781 and a book of the proceeding has been in multiple printings as late as 1990. The creator of the article just needs more experience in the Wikipedia style of writing --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to Cleanup. Sourcable historical notability is most specially notable enough for en.Wikipedia. The article is sourced and more sources are available.[5] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aware of the rearrangement of the text and new data, but it still does not make him notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how is it now that his being written of in historical tomes does not make him notable? It's not as if he received only a brief mention as a footnote in history... his actions had historical import. And though the events preceding and trial itself received attention at the time, let's not continue a debate that the court martial was the only thing for which history remembers this individual. For example, in Lord Nelson, 1758-1805: A Bibliography, it is related that Nelson himself had a dispute with him, when Moutray was Commissioner of the Navy at Antigua... and this was well before the court martial events. Sourcable and historical notability for at least a 40 year period in the 1700s is still historically notable today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a book called "Court Martial of Captain John Moutray" that has gone through at least three printings, you are ipso facto notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not 'a book'; its the verbatim transcript of his court martial. As such, it's a primary source and not particularly useful in establishing notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of Note : the nominator for deletion has said above , that he did so in a blanket manner . considering the time and effort involved in debating this topic , i consider the nominator has acted in a disruptive manner . 1. i propose that the request for deletion is removed , as it was without merit , and has been supported as Notable , if only for the Notoriety , ie the loss of £1 500 000 over 300 years ago , i think equates to about £5 billion in todays equivalent . it was the biggest loss in Europe at the time , and affected the Economy of Europe for the next 4 years . 2. The fact that it suggests Court Martial , ie that John Moutray was culpable , is misleading , since the History of the Royal Navy , an Authoritative source , contriuted by President Roosevelt , clarifies that this was a Scapegoating measure , to appease the Insurance industry . 3. if John Moutray was some nefarious character , why was he buried in Honour , at Bath Abbey . This doesnt happen to undesirables. i Think its not clear , and i wish to clarify , that the court martial happened when he was in his 30's , Sir John Moutray . He was still offered Honourable placements , indeed that of Commisioner of Antigua , and was a friend of Nelson . The oft quoted head to head with Nelson , when Moutray was the Commisioner , and Nelson was their first encounter . however Moutray didnt argue with Nelson , and complied with his request , and they ended up as friends . In fact , Nelson met Collingwood at Moutrays House in Antigua , and John and Mary Moutray were supportive and remained friends with Nelson and Collingwood throughout their lives , even to the extent that Moutrays Son John , was been looked up favourably by Nelson , who again honoured their son John with a Memorial , after Moutrays son John died in the Siege of Calvi. That so many died throughout the Ages fighting for their country is something notable , and worthy of recognition and inclusion . I am not happy to have this deleted on the basis of Non- Notability , and also presenting the actual facts is not a sign of bias , as its not something that has been dreamt up in my head, but i am providing factual information that is independently verifiable , for anyone who cares to look into the matter in more detail , so finding " the court martial of john Moutray' in a google search , does not represent the final word on John Moutray , who as i said this was in his 30's , he was apparently scapegoated , and if anything redeeded himself via his association and relationship with Nelson , and was ultimately honoured in Bath Abbey . no mean feat ( ie not every sailor was honoured in Bath Abbey .) i am not happy to have anything less stand , to misrepresent this mans life and contribution to our Nations history . Who knows where we would now be if Nelson had ,infact, hung himself?? in Conclusion , respect is called for, for this man , for historical fact , and truth . Hence the wish to provide more information to provide the wider picture and context . how can that be summed up in one sentence , adn to say he was not notable , is absurd . please feel free to edit / add / delete , but to say that he is not worthy of comment is ridiculous, and has no rationale , or basis for support for those who have considered the matter objectively . this request for deletion should be removed . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.194.202 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note previous comment by IP address appears to be written in the style of User:Moutray2010. — Timneu22 · talk 10:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Nominator of this AfD, I would now like to WITHDRAW my nomination. Having studied the revisions made by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) I agree that the necessary standard of notability is achieved for the article to stay. NtheP (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. There are still people posting delete remarks. — Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Withdraw, either way I no longer support my own nomination. NtheP (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet our notability requirements (perhaps it didn't in the past, but it certainly meets those now). An honored naval sailor with a notable history with historical implications seems to meet the minima. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references appear to either refer to this guy in passing or are either primary sources or database-type entries. As such, notability is not established. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The memorial in Bath is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Those are not idle rememberances.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recent improvements make it clear that he is notable after all. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Araujo

[edit]

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

Article fails the general notability guideline as I have been unable to find any coverage of this person in reliable sources. Additionally, it is about a footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league or otherwise has an accomplishment which would be notable. An earlier PROD was contested, without a specific reason being given. Jogurney (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I thought it was a hoax when I did a search. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to show notability in either a WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG sense. Big Dom 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence that this player has ever played professionally or that he even exists for that matter. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible hoax; even if he does exist then he isn't notable by any stretch of the imagination. Giant Snowman 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Criticism of Windows Vista. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vistaster

[edit]

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

Neologism and not a very flattering one at that. — e. ripley\^talk 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another of those made-up words.... Referenced to a blog, and with no other evidence of use, I can't see much future for this. (Having said that, I share the opinion on Vista, but find the word too odd in pronunciation for it to catch on. Besides which, Vista is dying out rapidly, isn't it?) Peridon (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vista is dying out rapidly": how's that relvant here? See WP:NTEMP. Pcap ping 18:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Keep or~~ merge with Windows Vista. Even Forbes uses it: [6]. Click the links above before voting, people! Pcap ping 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that that particularly matters. WP:NOT "a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." WP:NEO gives some wiggle room for neologisms that are widely discussed in reliable sources, which Forbes is, but it's the only one and I don't think that's quite enough. — e. ripley\^talk 18:01, 4 May 2010

I did "click the links". I don't see widespread usage of the term. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your unfamiliar with non-English sources: Jornal de Notícias [7], Rádio e Televisão de Portugal [8], La Nacion [9], The Chosun Ilbo [10], 163.com [11] all used it. I would say that's enough to merge with the Vista article, at the very least. Pcap ping 18:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changed !vote after reading wp:neo again. There's plenty of evidence for use, but not a lot about its origin or who popularized it. Pcap ping 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Criticism of Windows Vista.--Pink Bull 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tickling boots

[edit]

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

Seems an unnotable subject (even with science fiction genre). Article is also unreferenced after all this time. Does anyone care about this?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this possibly WP:HOAX? — Timneu22 · talk 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my searches come up with mirrors to this article, I did not find any significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Obscure trivia; I suspect that the stub includes all of the references available. There might be some minor good to keeping it in case some other author wants to use them and claim there is no possible prior reference, but that's all I can think of. htom (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. Edward321 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Roses Tournament. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Roses Tournament

[edit]

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

Non Notable inter-university sports competition. Receives little or no coverage outside the two competing universities and as such fails WP:GNG. The article is totally un-sourced and as such this article fails the WP:V policy.

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roses Tournament Codf1977 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roses Tournament, an article which I think is less likely to be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. Suggest procedural close of this AFD as it is heavily dependent on the other. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the merge into Roses Tournament, seems sensible Alex Muller 12:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta Brooke-Carter

[edit]

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

Non-notable hoax article lacking GHIt and GNEWS. Should be speedy deleted, but sockpuppet Love1down continues to remove valid ((db-hoax)) tags. ttonyb (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an elaborate hoax article. Clubmarx (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete hoax and fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Melville Amadeus Henry Douglas Heddle de La Caillemotte de Massue, 9th Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval

[edit]

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Java to UML Sequence Diagram

[edit]

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

Very unremarkable software with only a few Google hits, mostly to this article or to the software's website. Article written by the author of the software. Haakon (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article is essentially there to promote the program. Claritas (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious promotion. — Timneu22 · talk 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is Sourceforge. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GregJackP (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And then redirect to Altamira. Sandstein 05:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Mira

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable treatment center. The only news articles mentioning this facility I was able to identify are local interest stories about local opposition to the operation. ^Bongo_matic 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find evidence that this facility passes WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a redirect, per Clarityfiend. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Altamira. The center's gotten a little bit of press coverage,[12][13][14] but not enough IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. A 48-bed rehab center without any significant notability. Thanks for the press links, Clarityfiend, but only one of them is to a reliable source - namely, the Marin Independent article saying that the center was operating without a city permit! And I'm afraid your proposed redirect makes no sense; it only goes to a DAB page, and none of the entries on the DAB page have anything to do with this center or with Sausalito. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the article should be refocused to cover the structure and include converge of the now-defunct hotel, which may be somewhat notable.[15]--Pink Bull 21:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe Store

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NF. Only source listed or found on a web search is IMDB, which is not sufficient to establish notability. Cptmurdok (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was a contested PROD. Cptmurdok (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability, and is horribly written. — Timneu22 · talk 17:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timneu. (GregJackP (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:NF (and what is a "verbal comedy", anyway?). Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. without prejudice to recreate if suitable reliable sources should be found at a future date. If the creator wants it userfied, contact me. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnode.net

[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure that this article meets the notability criteria required for inclusion set out at WP:WEB and WP:N, although I've been sent an email by the creator setting out several reasons it might be notable. I'd appreciate input from the wider community, as my own mind is undecided and I'm not an expert on the subject. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What makes a page like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MnoGoSearch suitable for Wikipedia, but not arachnode.net? Both are crawlers, but mine is in a different language. What can I do to improve the article so that it may stay? :D 98.232.24.184 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. To the author - the easiest way to get the article to stay is to get people to write about it in notable publications. You're right about MnoGoSearch - that article could be a candidate for deletion as well. Yaron K. (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, thanks for restoring it so I could copy the markup. :) Guess I will work on getting notable links to AN. If by chance, you have a change of heart it would be most appreciated. Mikeanderson12 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

911 nightclub fire

[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article was previously prodded per WP:NOTNEWS and lack of enduring notability. Further search for sources did not reveal anything beyond the coverage of the event itself. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 3, 2010; 15:34 (UTC) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's author: at the time I wrote this, there was never any question of notability for this project. It was at a time hwere disasters were deemed inherently notable. Nowadays that is becoming less and less the case and I will be very interested to watch the debate. Whilst I keep in touch with Wikipedia's internal politics (so that I don't feel uncomfortable retaining my admin bits) another project (Wikinews) needs my main namespace contributions more and so I have lost touch with many of the consensuses relating to articles on various specialities. The subject received plenty of international coverage at the time but I have no idea how much follow-up there was in the media. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should just express an opinion. Consensus is shaped by your opinion, too. Everyking (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is true. Well, in my view it would be notable if there was significant international coverage in the months following (e.g. European, Middle-Eastern, American etc articles on the investigation, or any prosecutions etc) or lasting national impact (such as the example below of new regulations). I simply do not know if either were the case. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of press coverage. The article, which is about an event in Russia, is cited with a reference to BBC News—in other words, it was considered world news. Everyking (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – At this time. Sorry to say, fires of this type are quite common either due to poor safety regulations – carelessness or plain stupidity. The death toll was only nine individuals. While any loss of life, even one individual is tragic, this particular fire does not meet the current notability standards , and falls under One Event or Not News versus situations such as Cocoanut Grove fire or Iroquois Theatre Fire or The Station nightclub fire where notability thresholds were meet by coverage of the situation – outcomes to local and national code standards, based on these particular incidents, and the vast amount of both local and international coverage of the fires because of the death tolls. However, on the other hand, I could see a List collating fires of this type (Nightclub Fires) where this particular incident is mentioned. That is a project for an energetic individual. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So is it your argument that notability is determined by the number of dead ("Only 9 people? Chicken feed. Run that death toll up into triple digits and then we can talk.") or that it is determined by the amount of attention received by the event? Given the fact that this fire was considered world news, I don't see how you can make the latter argument, but the former argument is absurd. Everyking (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ezhiki, but at same time per Shoessss, it could be mentioned in a list of some sorts. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Weak Delete. Appears not to have received any coverage outside of concurrent newspaper articles.--Pink Bull 21:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was in Russia; we don't have access to most of the sources. You don't think there was any follow up about a story like this? Everyking (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, but it assumes Russia has a culture of taking these mishaps seriously to the extent that the story stays notable for more then just the short-term. It's a valid assumption, but I'm not willing to take that jump due to the lack of support for that claim. I'll modify my vote for now pending an expansion of sourcing. --Pink Bull 04:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America

[edit]

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

The lengthy title gives a few clues but its not clear what this article is about. Much of the text was copied from this webpage which might not be a copyvio due to the age of the work but does make make for a coherent article. No claim of notability either. RadioFan (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title of the article appears to reference a book, but the article itself does not talk about the book. Rather it cites various information from the book in a somewhat disorganized manner. Cleanup is possible, but that would only leave an article that duplicates the contents of the book, which is not really a proper encyclopedia article. The book itself does not appear to be notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd been about to propose same, after looking at this new article and also today's edits to the article on the town of Culross. In both cases, what's been added is effectively a genealogical scratchpad of a particular family name. That is useful in its place, but not, I think, for general Wikipedia articles. AllyD (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melville Amadeus Henry Douglas Heddle de La Caillemotte de Massue, 9th Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval, who seems (from what I can make out) to be the author of the book this article seems to be about. The article itself is more like a jumble of genealogical notes and references connected with the Moutray family rather than an encyclopaedia article about the book. Despite reams of apparent references cited, I can't find anything much that deals with the book itself or why it is notable. Ka renjc 15:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what its worth, take a look at the attack left on my talk page by the creator of this article. Doesn't look like they are going to be very open to anything but leaving this article as is, which doesn't really seem like a good option.--RadioFan (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvageable mess. Nsk92 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or redirect. The difficulties in discerning the subject and the apparent lack of notability are reason enough. I've raised this author at WP:COIN Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tag added. This is pure nonsense: delete per CSD G1. — Timneu22 · talk 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as essentially incomprehensible. Claritas (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not incoherent enough for G1 as it does make a certain sense, even though it is somewhat of a gallimaufry as it stands. There are quite a few ghits for 'Moutray', but no seeming indication of notability. Many old families survived by being not very notable. It was a good strategy. There would appear to have been a lot of work done on this family history, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, I'm afraid. Peridon (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gitzabella Lombardo

[edit]

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

The information regarding this person's acting work is apparently false, as no reliable sources can be found online that link her to anything mentioned in the article. It is impossible that someone who has supposedly done this amount of work, even if small roles, has never been credited - Lancini87 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ENT as no reliable sources can be found for her. IMDb has no entry on her and all the series listed in her article do not list her there. Univision has a small blog that probably is a fan edit. --Morenooso (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CopyVio - www.hotelalindahaw.com Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Alindahaw

[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Reads like an advertisement. No secondary sources. Would require a fundamental rewrite to comply with Wikipedia standards. Ithizar (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disputed prod. Only source is to the hotels own website. Per nom reads like an advert. noq (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. — Timneu22 · talk 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Joal Beal (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After further review, I realized that the ENTIRE contents of the article are taken verbatim from the copyrighted web site of the hotel. Therefore, this article qualifies for speedy deletion. I have nominated it as such. I did not know the proper procedure for an article that is violating copyright after it has been posted for an AfD discussion. If this should be handled differently, please let me know. Ithizar (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limit (manga)

[edit]

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

Article does not assert any form of notability. The only reliable sources that comes up are announcements that the series beginning in the November 2009 issue of Bessatsu Friend. That means only 7 chapters have been published so far. However, that does not amount to significant coverage as needed by WP:NOTE for a stand-alone article nor have I've been able to come across any reviews from reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just one volume out in Japan. No ANN but has Ja wiki article. Leaning Delete for now as it's too soon to tell if it will meet either the GNG or WP:BK in the future. --KrebMarkt 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Keiko Suenobu. The creator is notable and the article can be spun out and improved if this work of theirs becomes notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G11 JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Networkers

[edit]

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

Unreferenced article promoting a company. Editor has twice removed speedy delete tags. Xtzou (Talk) 14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: an international team of professional entrepreneurs dedicated to empowering ordinary people to become inspirational leaders.... this team deeply believes in Leadership With A Heart.... they aim to lead many other ordinary people towards achieving extraordinary financial results. Speedy deletion request removed by original author without explanation here or elsewhere [16]. Note also that this business is Founded by Cheanu Chew, and that User:Cheanu is the only contributor of actual text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Non notable; blatant spam. I will retag the article - they were previously invalidly removed. I42 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Most Expensive

Articles for deletion/1 Right Price

Articles for deletion/Triple Play (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Clearance Sale

Articles for deletion/Buy or Sell

Articles for deletion/Trader Bob

Fortune Hunter

[edit]

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Most Expensive

Articles for deletion/1 Right Price

Articles for deletion/Triple Play (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Clearance Sale

Articles for deletion/Buy or Sell

Articles for deletion/Trader Bob

Give or Keep

[edit]

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. As the relevant material is already in the List of The Price Is Right pricing games article, redirecting their seems more useful than deletion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Most Expensive

Articles for deletion/1 Right Price

Articles for deletion/Triple Play (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Clearance Sale

Articles for deletion/Buy or Sell

Articles for deletion/Trader Bob

Hit Me

[edit]

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough, all useful content already in the list. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Most Expensive

Articles for deletion/1 Right Price

Articles for deletion/Triple Play (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Clearance Sale

Articles for deletion/Buy or Sell

Articles for deletion/Trader Bob

Hurdles (pricing game)

[edit]

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sottolacqua said it words, I'll say it in symbols: Hurdles content − List of The Price Is Right pricing games content = trivia. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole "keep" basicaly argues that other articles exist - I am afraid that this is not an argument for keeping this article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PAR Springer-Miller Systems, Inc.

[edit]

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

The subject's notability is questionable at best. While the company is publicly traded, notability is not automatic in this case. Point of Sale articles show up on WP from time to time, and it seems like every little company wants to be listed on here as a way of promotion or advertising. While these companies may be notable within their own little niche market, there appears to be little notability outside it. Google searches for Springer-Miller do indeed get results, but none from reliable third-party sources. It seems more like the results are news feeds with duplicate information from this company's site. I realize that this company has a product base in a couple continents (so the article says), but I also point to WP:ORPHAN (zero incoming links!) and the article's sole editor for reasons why this company is not notable enough to warrant its inclusion on WP. Further, the editor of this article has edited only this page. For the record: I do consider this my weakest candidate for deletion, of all articles I've nominated, but I wanted to get a sense from the community. — Timneu22 · talk 14:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious advertising (Its guest-centric approach allows for all reservations, guest folios, spa appointments, golf tee time bookings, and ownership information to be easily accessible from a single guest record. PAR Springer-Miller Systems services hotels and restaurants of all sizes throughout the world....) I think we can safely say that a company that develops software (property management and point of sale) for the hospitality industry is probably going to get writeups only in media of limited circulation and interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as the notability is concerned: some of the company's competitors have articles (which also appear as advertising), so it is difficult to understand why they have notability and why this company does not. The company's founder was inducted into the International Hospitality Technology Hall of Fame. While I can see your argument about this being a "niche market", nonetheless, he is still a real innovator in his industry. I will continue to diversify the sources (2 additional sources have already been cited). I have deleted a portion of what was requested. The statement "PAR Springer-Miller Systems services hotels and restaurants of all sizes throughout the world" is not an advertisement and therefore I left it in the article. I have also resolved the orphan issue. Redoctober312 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC) RedOctober312.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Choudhary

[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Non-notable person. GregJackP (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. — Timneu22 · talk 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional resume. No notability asserted to meet WP:BIO. The references do not include his name. Clubmarx (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity piece by someone using multiple socks to promote the subject--Sodabottle (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sodabottle pegs this squarely: yet another vanity bio. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Slam dunk snowball delete. MiRroar (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
renominated for speedy delete, not much to discuss. Hairhorn (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Fleming Group

[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Fails WP:ORG. 203 GHits, all either from own site or linkedin, etc. 12 GImage hits, all linkedin. No GNews/Books/Scholar hits of any type. GregJackP (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no coverage whatsoever (not even press releases or blogs!) for "Carter Fleming Group", or it's consituent companies, "Carter Fleming Advisory", and "Carter Fleming Property". -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I had tagged it as such, but the article creator, Johnnorg (talk · contribs) removed the template. I placed it back again, and it was removed again almost immediately by Martijean (talk · contribs), a newly-created single purpose account that smells strongly of meat. No evidence of particular notability in its field and absent some third-party proof that's so far not been forthcoming, it needs to go. — e. ripley\^talk 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to show minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Estonia relations

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Croatia–Estonia relations

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

Tagged for cleanup on the basis of notability for many months, then PRODed, but then contested. Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable CountryX-CountryY article, many of which have been deleted in the past. Embassies, visa agreements, and state visits are routine affairs of state, not article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Croatia's candidacy for the European Union turned into a membership, this would probably qualify without question; however, that hasn't happened. There is some (not much) indication of a developing relationship between the two nations [17]. However, unless someone wants to tackle the development of the article, I'd say that this is info that belongs in the FRO articles. Mandsford (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, even when that happens, that will still mean just one more multilateral agreement signed by both countries, albeit a significant one. It would still not mean much for the encyclopedic value of the topic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the two countries don't even have mutual embassies and there's no obvious reason other than lack of interest, there's little value in documenting their uninteresting relationship. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Finland–Malta relations was deleted. As both have been full members of the European Union since 1995 and 2004 respectively, that doesn't grant notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my book, it's hard to justify keeping County X-Country Y relation articles when neither country has an embassy in the other country (Estonia's is in Budapest and Croatia's is in Helsinki). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to notice the lack of embassies. Joy and Ditzy has a good point on both counts. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides the Presidents meeting twice in the last 4 years, not much else to go on. (you would have to consider that leaders of European countries meet each other very regularly). LibStar (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Liddell

[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Non-notable high school student. GregJackP (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN (designated rep for his school at the local school board), and not notable under WP:GNG. I don't think it's fair to create encyclopedia articles for a person who isn't seeking the limelight, no matter how well-intentioned. If this man didn't request that an article be written (and there's a difference between requesting one and being requested to give the OK for one), it's an invasion of his privacy. Mandsford (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice againsrt recreation should suitable reliable sources be located at a future date -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Till Tantau

[edit]

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

Software developer with no claim of notability and no reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oneiros (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Oneiros (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has created two packages that are among most used LaTeX packages. PGF is even among few LaTeX packages that have an entire website dedicated to collecting the work made using that package, see http://www.texample.net/ (it's down as I write this, but will likely get up soon). --Rivanvx (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show that he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources" (Wikipedia:Notability). Are there any articles on him or other published coverage? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest trying WP:AUTH instead. There are very few articles on authors of free software, even if that software is used by many people.--Oneiros (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple independent sources found by a Google Books search--Oneiros (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind showing which ones have information on Till Tantau (apart from showing that he exists)? Also, see the quote below about the need for sources even if the person is notable. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF, point 7: He is tenured professor, and his Beamer software has made substantial impact outside theoretical IT. The sources are thin but here is a reasonably reliable secondary source where all claims can be verified - the assembly of all German universities teaching IT (a very bold translation of "Fakultätentag Informatik") found it appropriate to put him on a list of top-IT people, along with Konrad Zuse, Ada Lovelace, and Edsger Dijkstra. --Pgallert (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their lack of perspective is disconcerting. It only goes to show that the sources aren't credibly independent from the subject. I could recall an equally inappropriate comparison made at a conference that caused the audience to burst into laughter, but I don't want to clutter this AfD more than I have to. Pcap ping 11:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this remark of "lack of perspective". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the central passage is this one: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability." The three articles you mention all have several reliable, published sources. This article has not a single published source so far, just a web interview. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article on PGF/TikZ, but "Beamer software has made substantial impact", c'mon, we're talking about a TeX slides package here, perhaps the most successful one, but that's hard to confirm, and even if it's so, we're talking of a software used by a small portion of academics. If PGF/Tikz reaches the level of notability of Postscript or even Metafont, then yea, could say that, but right now it's too early to say, and it's your personal judgment, you've not cited any sources that his software has made a significant impact. In fact, I had a fair bit of trouble finding secondary coverage for the software in what passes for wp:rs here. So, I don't think one can say that he automatically qualifies because of the software he authored. I know he wrote a multi-volume math book, but I don't think his research is well-known. Pcap ping 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ due to WP:PROF, point 7 in addition to being a significant mention on more than one standa-alone articles (see [18]). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF argument shredded by Pcap below. Merge and redirect to PGF/TikZ, if not Beamer (LaTeX). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think he passes WP:PROF. Being a tenured professor is not a criteria for inclusion. Never mind that the German academic system is different enough that "tenured" isn't really a good translation for Universitätsprofessor. He never held an assistant professor postion. Being tentured right after getting a Ph.D is a bit strange, don't you think? Even being a full professor is not a criteria for inclusion. He does not appear to have his habilitation, which probably means he cannot lead Ph.D. students yet. His h-index is about 8; his most cited paper has 16 citations. His TeX work may be known to some, but both his TeX packages have a hard time finding independent coverage. They're not included in the usual TeX books. Although I think they have significant technical merit (I created the TikZ article, as I indicated above), that's just my opinion for now. The next thing somebody is going to add to his bio here is his civil union, 'cause that's pretty much all that's in his CV. Expecting "teh gay" vandalism shortly after that. There just isn't enough material here for an encyclopedic entry. (Yes, I know he got a MFCS best student paper award, that he spent a year in Karp's group as visiting scholar or postdoc maybe, can't tell from the telegraphic resume.) Pcap ping 11:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The german university system has changed. He is a full professor (C4); you don't need a habilitation anymore.--Oneiros (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming you're right, (the habilitation article indicates it's true only in some lands), that's even more reason to ignore his title for the purpose of this AfD. Someone practically straight out of Ph.D. becoming de:Besoldungsordnung C 4 is a good reason to ignore such a title. Besides, being a full profesor in itself is not a criteria for inclusion anyway. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tadao_Takaoka for instance. Pcap ping 23:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary—if he's got his Prof this fast, he must be extremly good.--Oneiros (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pcap. The subject is insufficiently notable on purely academic grounds to meet WP:PROF. Notability of a LaTeX package does not automatically confer notability onto its developers, so I find arguments from WP:PROF#7 less than convincing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, here we have the aticle creator of PGF/TikZ, claiming the software is notable but the creator is not. It seems that also in the case of Beamer (LaTeX), the software is notable but the creator is not. And further, we have a misunderstanding of WP:PROF (The nutshell, item 2), three of the German university system (they do not have a position of assistant professor, all professors have a lifetime position, profs at a university, as opposed to a Fachhochschule automatically have the right to conduct examinations, including for PhD), and a blanket accusation that the Fakultätentag Informatik lacks perspective when using Tantau as a face to promote IT. Anything else? --Pgallert (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole discussion about notability is moot if there are no published reliable sources on the guy. No sources = no article, regardless of his possible fame or importance. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Till Tantau" being quite an unusual name you may safely assume all 1800-something Google-hits are his. Now there is a lot of crap among them, but some sources (yes, including the one from the Fakultätentag) are reliable, may they lack perspective or not. BTW, he's currently "Studiendekan", something like Vice Chancellor: Student Affairs check, maybe that adds to his case. --Pgallert (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of independent biographical sources. Sourcing is non-negotiable in biographies. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to complete lack of reliable sources that establish notability. The article may make mention that the subject fulfills one of the criteria of WP:PROF, but there is no reference to support this. As users above have mentioned, an article with one single notability claim must have a source for that claim. --Pump me up 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What would qualify as a source that proves that beamer (or tikz/pgf) is notable package? Links to 20 beamer tutorials? Links to videos that prove that beamer is often used at conferences? In TeX community, afaik, there is no list of "top 10 packages", but there are indeed some that are more frequently used than others. --Rivanvx (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2010 (CET)
- The question here is the article on Till, not those on PGF/TikZ and Beamer.--Oneiros (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns no nontrivial results. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Ska Album

[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original reason (by Ian.thomson) was "Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, also article title is not helpful at all." WP:HAMMERTIME? matt (talk · Cont) 11:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is there any reason other than an anonymous editor's whim to keep the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wp:CRYSTAL, Wp:HAMMER, unhelpfully doesn't reveal the act in question and relies completely on Twitter - which fails Wp:RS - for its information. It may be notable when it comes out, but it isn't now. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In complete violation of Wp:CRYSTAL and Wp:HAMMER. No proper citations, only twitter references. Article can remade when/IF it becomes notable enough. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 06:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see HAMMER STAT- Verse 02:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crystal ball: no title, track list, or release date. WP:HAMMERTIME indeed. Cliff smith ^talk 19:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Ritual in Sport

[edit]

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

Personal essay that is essentially original research. Based on this edit and this one, both cases of vandalism by the article's author, I suspect the author created this article more as a joke than as a serious article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an essay full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and personal analysis -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Boing took the words outta my mouth. — Timneu22 · talk 15:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rambling essay with a history of some edits that were apparently intended to be funny (basebol, superstishus, etc.). I think the general idea is that praying before the big game is a superstitious ritual similar to wearing one's lucky socks. I think a lot of people would agree that the very visible, pointing to the sky, prayer of thanks after a touchdown is not much different than an end zone dance, and I say that as a Christian. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pointing to the sky after scoring isn't necessarily for religious reasons: Frank Lampard dedicates all his goals to his dead mother. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hooliganism can been seen (sic) as a religious ritual in soccer" - what the hell??? Delete as a great steaming pile of original research -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its a big rambling essay which fails Wp:OR and Wp:SYNTH. Also, wtf's with "they are also willing to die for their club" about? (And no-one calls them "the Celtics" or "the Rangers".) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is, the article is OR, but if proven otherwise I'll change my vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The fact that I have spent the better part of an hour looking at the arguments show what an interesting discussion this was - and I would like to thank everyone who took part. Not surprisingly, this AfD is as controversial as the subject matter. I note that a few of the 'keep' contingent appear to do a lot of editing in the race-and-intelligent areas. While this is not a problem in and of itself (we have a lot of editors who focus on one area in which they are knowledgeable and/or interested), in light of this their 'keep's are hardly surprising. The main argument for keeping is that this article has been much-cited and is regarded as important in its field. The main argument for deleting is that it is a POV fork. I feel that those arguing for its deletion have sufficient weight behind their arguments to just push the decision towards a delete. With regard to the claims of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, I see no evidence of this - the majority of the contributors on both side of the debate are accounts which have been around for a while. If you suspect this to be a case of sockpuppeting, please take this to WP:SPI -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to expand on the "POV fork" aspect, so I will do so briefly. Pleae do not comment on this rationale on this page - should you wish to discuss it, then you can do so at the AfD's talk page (or on my talk page) - but please note that as far as I am concerned, the issue is now closed.

The deleted article was not about the controversy arising from the article; the argument for it being a POV fork is partly the fact that criticisms of the article were not present in the article. There is also the fact that it appears to be an offshoot of the content dispute around Race and Intelligence. As Slrubenstein said "[articles on Race and IQ, Jenson and the controversy] are legitimate articles because they are on notable topics. This article is or will be mentioned in each of these articles. It is obvious to me that an article on an article fails the notability test. This is POV pushing." - this very much sums up what I believe to be the "POV fork" argument in a nutshell. Please bear in mind that as the closing admin, my purpose is not to provide my opinion (if I wanted to do that, I would !vote myself) - it is to judge the consensus. In this case, although the arguments for keeping the article were good, I feel that the balance was just in favour of deletion as a POV fork. I hope this explains my reasoning more clearly, and will be helpful should anyone consider re-creating this article in the future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

[edit]

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

This article was created by copy-pasting content added mostly yesterday by me to History of the race and intelligence controversy without any proper discussion. The summary of the paper in the 1995 book by Adrian Wooldridge is essential to the history article. From comments on the talk page of the history article,[19] Distributivejustice (talk · contribs) and Captain Occam (talk · contribs) appear to have created this article as a POV-fork, although so far they have not provided any extra sources or material. Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JNN Hipocrite (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, I didn't create this article; I merely approved of its creation. But more importantly, the reason it doesn't have any information that isn't in the R & I history article is because it was only created a few hours ago. Over the next few days, I intend to add some additional information in order to flesh it out, and DJ probably will also, as long as you don't attempt to prevent us from doing this in order to maximize the chances of it being deleted. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've now added another source (Nyuborg's article) which isn't used by the R & I history article, and can be used to provide more detail about the reactions to Jensen's paper. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Moron admins who don't follow the licensing rules should be criticized as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.190.187.183 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please keep this discussion WP:CIVIL Claritas (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jensen's 1969 HER article How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? is certainly one of the most frequently cited pieces of academic (not "popular science") writing in the field of modern psychometrics; Google Scholar lists 2432 individual citations. It has been extensively analysed and commented upon by a large number of academics. Even those who have railed against its conclusions have described it as "famous" (Sternberg; Wolpert & Richards). I see no credible arguments against notability here. If there is a content conflict between this article and History of the race and intelligence controversy, that can be sorted out through discussion and additional editing. In any event, it doesn't make this article a POV violation. I have no interest in editing the article, but I applaud the effort, and feel confident that, given time to develop, the article will be improved greatly. --Aryaman (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article on an...article? Does not seem like there is any sound rationale being provided for how this meets WP:N. Seems like people are confusing the the subject matter within the article with the article itself. Not exactly the Magna Carta here. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you look through the some of the commentary on this paper provided by a citation search with Google scholar. A large portion of them are discussing the article itself, not just its subject matter, and they include several collective statements by major scientific organizations such as the APA and the AAA. I would venture to say that this paper is one of the ten most heavily-discussed psychology articles of the 20th century. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the WP article on Arthur Jensen, there is a break down of the citations. It's usually mentioned in books as one of the most notorious articles in psychology. It's discussed in his BLP and in the history article, both of which give it context. The current article would only duplicate that material, unless it is a POV-fork, which seems to be the stated intention of the creator(s) in the diff I provided. Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting question this. Do we count articels in the same way we would books? After all if a book is discused and disected at length we would consider it notable.81.158.169.99 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia articles which cover notable books and article are quite common and useful. There are many examples. Should I provide some? I take no position on the current quality of the article or its sourcing. Those looking for a good source should consult Loehlin et al [20]. David.Kane (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete (wow, there is already a super-long coverage in History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy#1960-1980, in the proper context) A scientific article is usually considered "less important" than a book, so it would require good quality sources talking about how important it is. If it's only notable inside a certain field then it should appear inside the article devoted to that field.

papers showing that it was an important event inside the field of Race of Intelligence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jensen's article, "How Much Can We Boost I. Q. and Scholastic Achievement?" created such a furor that the "Review" reprinted it along with critiques by psychologists, theorists of education and a population geneticist under the title "Environment, Heredity and Intelligence." The article first came to my attention when, at no little expense, it was sent to every member of the National Academy of Sciences by the eminent white Anglo-Saxon inventor, William Shockley, as part of his continuing campaign to (...) Race and intelligence Science and Public Affairs, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1970, pp. 2-8 Can education increase an individual's IQ? This has been one of the most incendiary and controversial questions in the social sciences in the past few decades. The greatest firestorm occurred after the publication of Arthur Jensen's 1969 article in the Harvard Education Review "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" (...) Bernie Devlin (1997). Intelligence, genes, and success: scientists respond to The bell curve. Statistics for social science and public policy. Copernicus Series (illustrated ed.). Springer. p. 215. ISBN 0387949860. [Rosenthal's direct reply to Jensen's article] "Pygmalion effects". Educational Researcher. 16 (9): 37–40. 1987. doi:10.3102/0013189X016009037. The publication of Arthur Jensen's (1969) article, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" in the Harvard Educational Review ignited a firestorm in the press over issues of intelligence, race and heredity Peter Conrad (sociologist), "Public eyes and private genes: Historical frames, news constructions, and social problems", Social Problems

papers showing that it was an important event inside the field of Race of Intelligence

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jensen's article, "How Much Can We Boost I. Q. and Scholastic Achievement?" created such a furor that the "Review" reprinted it along with critiques by psychologists, theorists of education and a population geneticist under the title "Environment, Heredity and Intelligence." The article first came to my attention when, at no little expense, it was sent to every member of the National Academy of Sciences by the eminent white Anglo-Saxon inventor, William Shockley, as part of his continuing campaign to (...)

Race and intelligence Science and Public Affairs, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1970, pp. 2-8

Can education increase an individual's IQ? This has been one of the most incendiary and controversial questions in the social sciences in the past few decades. The greatest firestorm occurred after the publication of Arthur Jensen's 1969 article in the Harvard Education Review "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" (...)

Bernie Devlin (1997). Intelligence, genes, and success: scientists respond to The bell curve. Statistics for social science and public policy. Copernicus Series (illustrated ed.). Springer. p. 215. ISBN 0387949860.

[Rosenthal's direct reply to Jensen's article] "Pygmalion effects". Educational Researcher. 16 (9): 37–40. 1987. doi:10.3102/0013189X016009037.

The publication of Arthur Jensen's (1969) article, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and
Scholastic Achievement?" in the Harvard Educational Review ignited a firestorm
in the press over issues of intelligence, race and heredity Peter Conrad (sociologist), "Public eyes and private genes: Historical frames, news constructions, and social problems", Social Problems

For Albert Einstein, if you look at Category:Works by Albert Einstein, then you will see that the only paper with its own article is very long German title, which was a field-changing paper.

I think that the sources sort of show that Jensen's paper changed the field beyond being a controversy-causing field that raised public awareness. And I think that there are sources that actually enter into discussing the gory details of the article itself and its significance into the context of the field like [21] and [22]. In other words, there is enough material to make a neutral and balanced article on the paper (which means, please include also the criticisms and explain how and when his theories were invalidated/superseded by later research. Please don't make an acritical article that recounts the excellences of jensen's article, because that would be a POV fork to avoid criticism and it would have to deleted/merged back into the main article). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, the dispute over this paper is well chronicled in books and in fact on wikipedia. History of the race and intelligence controversy describes the paper carefully and lists the numerous problems that were pointed out with it. It is a notorious paper which has not changed science; instead it has sparked more controversy than any other paper in psychology. That is why it is only appropriate to discuss in a more general context, with prior history and subsequent events. There are plenty of groundbreaking papers in which do not have their own article and are not based on notoriously flawed data (Cyril Burt). The appropriate place to discuss this paper is where the original content was created (the history article) and Arthur Jensen's BLP. Reading the book of Wooldridge might give you a clearer idea. As far as I can tell Jensen's article has had almost no positive impact on academic research. Mathsci (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork arising from Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy. Creation appears to have been a tactic in the long-running content dispute related to Race and Intelligence, subject of a very large currently active ANI thread which is proposing to topic-ban quite a few of this AfD's "keep" proponents as agenda-driven single purpose accounts. ~~They are trying to spread~~This has the effect of spreading the drama to more venues. I have some sympathy with Enric Naval's "weak keep" argument since the Jensen article is very widely cited. We may be able to have an acceptable neutral article about it some day, depending on due-weight considerations raised by creating special prominence for this one topic by putting it in a separate article in a group of several closely related articles without justifying the splitting by WP:SIZE of existing articles. However, there is no deadline and the battleground issues surrounding this article make us better off without it for the moment even if it's a valid topic. Its content can be saved to a sandbox for later re-use if that looks helpful. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to DJ and Captain Occam: 1) I edited my above comment slightly to improve its AGF. 2) The problem with this article is it creates a fait accompli in the middle of the edit dispute, so that opponents now have to battle over yet another article if they want to bring it towards neutrality (article was created by proponents of what mediation determined was a minority view). Mathsci (the AfD nominator) made an error of judgment in the earlier talkpage in agreeing to this article's creation while at the same time predicting that it would be a POV fork.[23] It's just not helpful from a drama-containment perspective. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep First -- so much for WP:AGF. As far as I'm concerned creating this article was a good faith effort to fix a problem that had tacit approval from multiple editors. Second -- the body of this article was growing into a massive paragraph at History of the race and intelligence controversy. Discussion of its content was overloading the main article. The historical discussion was getting lost while at the same time it wasn't possible to really explain what this paper said. Re: Enric Naval's comment: Race and intelligence would be the most appropriate place for a full discussion of what the contemporary views on this topic are. But I believe this paper is a lot like The Bell Curve, and an article about it could be similar situated. --DJ (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per DJ. Claritas (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guys, this is simple and I ask all the weak keepers to reconsider. Look: we will have an article on Jensen. We willl have an article on Race and IQ, and we will have an article on the history of the controversy. These are legitimate articles because they are on notable topics. This article is or will be mentioned in each of these articles. It is obvious to me that an article on an article fails the notability test. This is POV pushing. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the same argument apply to The Bell Curve? What about Snyderman and Rothman (study) or Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns? I think that Jensen's article is every bit as notable as these entries. David.Kane (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bell Curve is a book, I have always felt notable books merit their own articles. You mention another article and yes I would apply the same criteria: to what extent are or should those article be used prominently in other articles? If it is relied on extensively as a source in other article, I would vote to delete it too. I think major statements from profssional organizations as a rule are more notable than journal articles, so I would be less likely to vote to delete the statement. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on cold fusion. Yet there are no separate wikipedia articles on the original papers of Fleischmann and Pons. The present situation - a questionable paper by Jensen relying on questionable data (Burt) with an ensuing unresolved controversy - seems quite similar. Mathsci (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per 69.228 and Slrubenstein. POV fork and copyvio. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio ? It was copied from wikipedia, which is Creative Commons, so no copyright applies here. Claritas (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas, you know very well that wikipedia articles are not written by copying and pasting from other wikipedia articles. If that is the basis on which you act as a recent changes patroller, perhaps you should look for a mentor. Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas, when you edit any page, you'll see below the edit box the words "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." What this means is that material on Wikipedia canbe used by anyone, as long as attribution to the original contributors is given. This material was moved here by copying-and-pasting without reference to the contributors who originally added it, hence it is a copyright violation, albeit an internal one, not an external one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t this problem relatively easy to fix without deleting the whole article? I imagine that most or all of the text that’s currently borrowed from the other article will be replaced soon as this article is expanded. (Remember, it’s still less than a day old at this point.) If it’s not acceptable to wait that long, we could also include an attribution of some sort until then. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously do not understand Wikipedia policy. All content on Wikipedia can be "edited, used and redeistrubted at will", and this includes its use on other Wikipedia articles. Attribution is not relevant here, because the same legal entity (Wikimedia foundation) owns the copyright for all articles. As for copy and paste, although an article which is only a copy and paste of other Wikipedia content can be speedily deleted (see WP:CSD), this article has already been developed beyond that, and there is obvious scope for further development. I suggest you read the relevant guidelines. Claritas (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to attribute the content to the original author of the text. To make a long story short: the content is still copyrighted by its original authors, who have simply released it on a series of conditions outlined in those licenses, one of those conditions being that the original author is credited when you copy the text.

(that being said, this could be solved by saying "text copied from [diff of article before extraction of the text]" because then people can check the author list of the other article). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Please read the edit summary of the article, where such a statement was made. Claritas (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure there's no violation, we could also add a copyright note to the top of the talk page, like the one here. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added one. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork and redirect to Arthur Jensen. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In response to the complaints that this article only duplicates information that’s also in History of the race and intelligence controversy, I've expanded the description of the reactions to Jensen's paper in order to cover them in more depth than the R & I history article does, using a source that isn't used by the other article. People who voted "delete" based on the fact that this article only contained information that was already in another article might want to reconsider their opinion based on the changes I've made. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material added so far by Captain Occam seems to confirm that this is a POV-fork. There is no detailed discussion at all of academic criticisms of the paper: eg Cyril Burt's name is not mentioned, even though his flawed twin study was the main source for Jensen's statements on heritability. (Captain Occam also removed some of that material from the history article on the grounds that it was non-neutral and because the 4 page summary in Wooldridge was too short to be used as a source.) The new source is by Helmuth Nyborg, a controversial figure himself, briefly suspended from his academic post as professor of psychology in Denmark in 2006 and subsequently reprimanded for gross negligent conduct.[24][25] The source, from a tribute to Jensen, is problematic - it is written by a known polemicist and could be expected to be one-sided - and is at odds with most other accounts in standard textbooks on the history of psychology. The extra paragraphs and additional cherry-picked comments in the article give the appearance that Jensen's critics, even from professional bodies in pyschology and anthropology, were objecting to Jensen's research purely on ideological grounds, i.e. on the grounds that it was racist. That is a misrepresentation of the academic world and of the bulk of scholarly criticism: it is not borne out by any textbooks. The 1973 petition was in fact an October 1973 letter "A Resolution against Racism" in the New York Times organised by Students for a Democratic Society. There is a lot of POV-pushing here: most significantly the pushing of the view of Jensen and his followers that the reaction to his paper was a form of Neo-Lysenkoism, the demonization of Jensen (Nyborg's own term). The article in its present form seems now to be at odds with the BLP of Arthur Jensen. That article states that the paper is so often cited because of its notoriety, not because of any academic merit. Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Mathsci) Hum, it's still out of context. No mention of the racial debate at that time, for example. It says that he was called a racist, but it doesn't say why he was called a racist (because of arguing that racial minorities should be taught in a different way, because there would be learning differences between blacks and whites, if I read this correctly. In other words, blacks are dumber / blacks use a more primitive thought process, somewhat similar to Jung's ideas of primitive tribes). No mention of the propaganda campaign by Pioneer Fund. No mention of being fired from Berkeley because of the paper. No mention of being at the same time as the "Burt Affair". All these things are in the history article but not in this article. Additionally, the words "black" and "white" only appear in the "summary" section, and there was no link to the article that details the history of the controversy! (I just added one in the See Also section). Race and intelligence should be linked in the lead. Still looks like a POV fork, and if it was complete then it would repeat tons of content from the history article. (I see that Mathsci found similar problems). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Blacks are dumber"? Um... no. Jensen favours an individualistic approach, which would include taking each child's strengths and weaknesses into account. Saying that "associative learning" is for "dumb people" - a commonly held opinion among practising educators - is exactly the kind of thing Jensen was trying to correct. The study showed that by rewarding cognitive learning only, the educational system is systematically discriminating against individuals who do not excel in cognitive learning but who may excel in associative learning. In other words, the educational system is not taking variations in learning strategies into account and, as learning strategies do not distribute evenly among racial groups, thus enforcing racial disparities in educational outcomes rather than mitigating them, as it should.

Why do people take such pleasure in misunderstanding this man? I guess it's easier to hate the guy than it is to actually read his work. Enjoy. --Aryaman (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, Mathsci: the reason this article is missing certain things is because it’s only existed for a few days. I’ve been adding stuff to it as best I can, but I’m sure there’s still a lot more to add. If you think it’s missing things that it ought to cover, why don’t you work on actually improving it, rather than just complaining and trying to get it deleted? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, the parts of the article that are carefully sourced were written by me, and were copy-pasted from the history article. The large amount of extra content added later from Nyborg is WP:UNDUE and fails WP:NPOV. If this is the intended stable form of the new article, then it is fairly evidently just a POV-fork, pushing a very particular point of view. Since it doesn't add any useful extra content to wikipedia, the only way I can think of improving this article at the moment is by making it into a redirect to Arthur Jensen. Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t want this to be the finished stable form of the article, then it doesn’t have to be. Nothing at Wikipedia is ever “finished”. The important thing is just that the detailed reactions to Jensen’s paper (including statements from the APA and the AAA, among other organizations) are notable enough that they ought to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia.

The reason the article relies so heavily on Nyborg for this is because it was one of the few possible sources for it that you didn’t reject out of hand, as you did for all six of the sources that VA suggested here, as well as the additional sources proposed by him and DJ later in the discussion. When you refuse to accept the vast majority of sources that discuss certain notable pieces of information, our options for how to describe them are kind of limited. If you can find another source discussing the reactions to Jensen’s paper that you want to add in order to balance the Nyborg material, though, you’re welcome to do so. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD discussion. It is not the talk page of either History of the race and intelligence controversy or How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?, which I do not edit. Please don't try to divert this discussion off-topic. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The contents of this article is a subject of great interest mainly to the SPA race editors (see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy), and the article is simply a POV fork allowing those SPA editors to yet again unduly focus on Jensen's dubious claims. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's obvious from reading many of the comments here that most are ignorant of Jensen's views and his impact on the field. That to me screams that a balanced article on this is needed. You'd be hard pressed to find another single article or book (i.e., scholarly contribution) that has had more impact on psychology over the last 50 years. One criterion for a good scientific contribution is that it be "fruitful" (generate lots of interest which then contributes to the *peer reviewed* literature). No doubt this article did that, which to me makes it wiki-worthy. -Bpesta22 (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Tarc, I can see from the edit history that this unsigned small-text comment about Bpesta22 is from you. Why is it necessary to make anonymous disparaging remarks about the other editors in an AFD discussion? If the arguments being presented in favor of deletion hold water, shouldn’t efforts like this to diminish the impact of the “keep” votes not be necessary?

Considering that several of the delete votes are also from SPAs (i.e. Wapondaponda), as well as from anonymous IPs (one of which has no prior contributions outside of this AFD discussion), it’s hard for me to assume good faith about your needing to point this out specifically in Bpesta22’s case. For the record, the reason he’s an SPA is because he’s a cognitive psychologist who’s published peer-reviewed research about IQ, and who was enlisted to help us with the race and intelligence article because it was tagged as needing attention from an expert. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect that some abuse of sockpuppets/meatpuppets has been going on here. Claritas (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD G11) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Spellerberg

[edit]

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

Probably a little iffy, but I'm not sure if he's a notable enough I guess sculpturer or businessman or whatever, as it seems at best passing mentions (he created this, he created that) rather than significant coverage. And no, I'm not including "Public Nuisance" which does have sources. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11: self-promoting autobiography seeking to advertise http://www.bronzeking.com/ -- Rrburke (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) scoring statistics

[edit]

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

Proposed deletion contested without comments or improvements. Proposed deletion reason was: "WP:NOT for lists of statistics. The show is obviously notable, but a rehash of it in statistical form is not the way to go." Fram (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I only created the article because of the ridiculous amount of space this information took up in the main article. Sottolacqua (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT#STATS, and express continuing displeasure at our PROD policy that allows an anon IP, with no justification whatsoever, to throw a wrench in the process. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; agree with WP:NOT. This information is only relevant to a fraction of the people who watch the show, and that's only a fraction of the general WP audience. This stuff belongs on a Dancing with the Stars wiki, not on here. — Timneu22 · talk 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fancruft at its most trivially useless. If somebody tries to reinsert all of this crud in the main article, please refer them to this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this excessive listing of statistics. Cliff smith ^talk 19:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of University of Florida buildings. While the consensus is to delete, I find that TerriersFan's suggestion to redirect is a fair compromise - I will however remove the link to this article from the list -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver Hall (Gainesville, Florida)

[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets the general notability guide; being a building on a notable campus does not make a structure notable, as notability is not inherited. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination reasoning. Quite a few buildings on the University of Florida campus are presumably notable, but adding an individual article for this dormitory is too much. If there is consensus to delete this article, then quite a few other UF building articles (see List of University of Florida buildings) should be deleted for the same reasons. EMBaero (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps a mass nomination is in order? They can be tricky things though. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking further at the building list, it appears most of the dormitories are national historic landmarks so I suppose they should remain. Most of the newer buildings on that list actually link to articles for different UF colleges and research centers. Therefore I think it is the list article that needs a lot of improvement. Weaver Hall is not one of the national historic landmarks so I still think the page should be deleted.EMBaero (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of University of Florida buildings. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Drinkall

[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Does not meet notability guidelines of WP:BIO - not a particularly successful entrepreneur, and has won no relevant awards for experienced businessmen: Shell LiveWIRE is for promise. Claritas (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does meet the criteria for living persons biographies and was approved December 2009. The complaint is therefore unjustified and wasting valuable time. My page is therefore returned to normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancashirehotpot (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 May 2010

This isn't a complaint, it's a legitimate discussion on whether Robin Drinkall should have a Wikipedia article, created because an editor (myself) is concerned about the notability of the individual. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Claritas (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no substance in this complaint. A new reference citing the popularity of Robin Drinkall has been placed in the reference section 2 May 2010. Please would Claritas be more clear with the complaint and whether or not it is well founded. Livewire is a top national award for British Entrepreneurs and Robin Drinkall was a national award winner (runner-up) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancashirehotpot (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, this is not a complaint. It is a discussion. Claritas (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please would Claritas explain what is the precise nature of the complaint of which is vigorously disputed. The page has received many credits from people in the United Kingdom who remember the entrepreneur. The notice for a speedy deletion on the page of Robin Drinkall is requested for immediate removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancashirehotpot (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no complaint. It is not being disputed by anyone apart from you at this stage. The article has not been tagged for speedy deletion, and your edits to suggest that it had, were disruptive. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas has no "Editorial" references to determine whether or not they have the credibility to call for the deletion of the page of Robin Drinkall and should be monitored. Claritas has raised a complaint and also an insult about all the entrepreneurs at Shell Livewire UK. The insult is offensive to all UK young entrepreneurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancashirehotpot (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is complaining about anything and nobody is insulting anyone. All that's happening here is that were are having a discussion to try to decide whether Mr Drinkall satisfies the Wikipedia criteria for notability - and it would be a lot better if we could conduct it in a civil manner. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Discussion closure requested - as contributor has blanked page as a request for speedy deletion. Claritas (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as failing WP:BIO. Shell Livewire is a grant not an award in the sense of an honour and they dole out five a month. (See [26]) Nancy ^talk
Delete Only references given are one local newspaper, and the schedule for a conference at which he apparently spoke (and one 404 link) - I don't think either establishes sufficient notability for a WP:BIO. I've done some searching myself, and I can't find any other reliable sources attesting to notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Media coverage insufficient to establish notability. Favonian (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an easy call. — Timneu22 · talk 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. (GregJackP (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaker's Law

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shaker's Law

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

Contested prod. Unsourced article about a neologism. This search yields only 34 ghits. Fails WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NEO andy (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced neologism with no WP:RS coverage. See also: Talk:Shaker's Law. — Rankiri (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't find the original references as the site it appeared on has had a broken search facility for over a year and they are poorly indexed by google. I accept that it is a niche term, albeit widely used in that niche (atheist websites). I get 188 hits for the above search though. --Pappa (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try going to the last results page. Google always massively overestimates the number of hits. In this case it says 188 but when you page through them there's only 34. I've tweaked the link in the nomination so it now goes to the last page. andy (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Joe

[edit]

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

Non-notable story in a Chinese children's magazine which does not meet WP:FICTION. No claim of notability otherwise. Claritas (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated a previous version for prodding, with the rationale of "No claim of importance for this story; author has no entry at world cat, no professional reviews found. No article for author or magazine to redirect to." I don't see that anything has changed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is to delete. References are not significant enough or reliable enough to meet the criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Reichstadt

[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)

Contested proposed deletion. ProD reason was: "No evidence that he meets WP:BIO. One local article, one blog article. Not mentioned in the IMDb links given. Google News or Books give no hits either." Article expanded with more sources, but these are either primary sources or (in the case of CNet) reliable, but not about him (not even in passing), but about websites he is also part of. Fram (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage to establish notability. Claritas (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - He has had multiple news coverage articles and interviews, and being only at the age of 18 he does seem to be quite notable. paraschadha (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2010

*Keep - I was the Assistant Director on the movie "Trust," in which Dylan Reichstadt appeared as an actor, and I was instrumental in getting him cast in the film -- Awareness of him in the media business as both a unique actor and an artist was enough to bring him to my attention some time ago. glentrotiner (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2010

*Keep - He does have a large following database on Justin.tv, with a high view count. I agree with paraschadha that as an 18 year old this is a great start. puppypuppy21 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The article looks well written and is credible to the sources provided. He looks to be a notable Internet figure. evan248 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I agree with the above, in which Reichstadt has regional press sources confirming notability. The article also has credibility. adjective21 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010

Delete. All the sources are some combination of trivial, local coverage, unreliable, or unrelated to the subject of the article. The couple of reliable sources are two year old local news coverage. This seems a pretty clear indication that the subject lacks notability. Also: "well written" and "credible" are not arguments for inclusion. » scoops “ŧäłķ„ 16:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – I am the manager of Nick Consone, one of Dylan's sponsors. Although as stated above the sources are older, the article content itself is still active. Lifecasting seems to be just starting, and it’s something very interesting that will catch on as a twist off reality TV. Notability should not have to do with the date of an article, but whether the person has the foundation built (his prior coverage). shmoody (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2010

The problem isn't just that the coverage is two years old, it's that it was trivial coverage two years ago. If Mr. Reichstadt is notable, he should have received some kind of significant coverage from reliable sources in the intervening time. If lifecasting is "just starting" (which I'd dispute), then maybe Mr. Reichstadt will receive significant coverage in the future. Perhaps he will receive significant coverage for some other endeavour. At that point an article in Wikipedia will be appropriate. Now, it isn't. » scoops “ŧäłķ„ 05:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – I took a more in-depth look at cited articles, and would politely disagree with Scoops interpretation of said articles as "trivial". A live interview with an NBC affiliate in the 13th largest media market is far from trivial. Cited local articles, be it print and blog format, I find to also be far from trivial. Using your constructive opinion based upon trivial information, I would find multiple pages on this website to not be of great importance to me and many others, however many others do find such pages to be worthy of inclusion. Further research on his broadcast yields undeniable evidence that Mr. Reichstadt does receive such viewership that a simple calculation resulted in viewership of more than 5,000 people per day. With more than 2.3 million total views since the inception of his lifecast, I cannot find a significant amount of other pages who exceed this impressive number that are currently active on the justin.tv website. In regards to your analysis that "Mr. Reichstadt... should have received some kind of significant coverage... in the intervening time", I would point out that there are many pages here that lack "recent" significant coverage to warrant continued inclusion within the pages of Wikipedia, yet we do not question their notability. I also find that your argument for deletion opens up another door as well. By your own words, I find that had a page for Mr. Reichstadt been created during the time that these articles were written, the possibility exists that we would not even be having this discussion. With that in mind, I believe that Mr. Reichstadt's impressive viewer numbers, combined with established documentation that is, in my opinion, far from trival, be considered to show Mr. Reichstadt as notable and to be included on this site. Jallaopie (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2010

Note: I have blocked the bunch of SPAs above as clear socks, and semi'd this page for a week. Tim Song (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thank you for agreeing to keep the article active for an additional week. We are aggressively pursing IMDb credits to add to the entry for additional credibility of Mr. Reichstadt. Jrmediapr (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I mentioned this above, but credibility isn't what you need to be going for. You need to be going for notability. Much of the article appears to be credible (believable), but notability is not established. Just look at the references:

1 and 2) Self-published (not reliable, can't establish notability)

3) One sentence in a list (not significant, also doesn't support what it references in the article)

4) Not about the article subject, doesn't refer to him at all (not useful, doesn't support what it references in the article)

5, 6, 7 and 8) Local coverage all within about a month, two years ago (not significant, also 5 and 8 are the same source)

9) Not about the article subject, doesn't refer to him at all (not useful)

10) Blog entry (not independent, not reliable)

11) YouTube video recorded by article subject (not notable)

12, 13 and 14) Forum bio/social networks (not notable or reliable).

If you look at the the reliable sources, we have a teenager who lifecasts and got some local coverage two years ago. I believe that (it's credible), but that doesn't make him notable. Unless the IMDb credits he's missing are significant roles in notable productions, I don't see how they'll establish Mr. Reichstadt's notability. »

   scoops

“5x5„ 15:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Maiden

[edit]

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

Proposed deletion contested "to allow for discussion". Proposed deletion reason was "No evidence that this group has received attention in reliable, independent sources, and not just on websites and fora. Fails WP:N." None of the Google news hits appear to be about this group (about grapes, pot black maiden events, ...), apart from a passing mentions in [27] and [28]. Similarly, most Google books hits are about the Mabinogion, none are about this Black Maiden except for some WP mirrors (Webster's). Fram (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this group in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inglewood#North Inglewood. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Inglewood

[edit]

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

This page is about a neighborhood in the city of Inglewood, California. However, a subsection about this neighborhood already exists on the Inglewood, California page, thus making this page redundant. Moreover, the majority of the text on this page is not actually about the neighborhood but rather about race-relations and de-segregation in the city, topics which are already covered in the History section of the Inglewood page. The page also relies on one source and possibly constitutes original research to some degree. MidnightDesert (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inglewood#North Inglewood. Note that the text of the article has been copied from Inglewood#African-American influence without attribution, so there isn't even anything to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whpq. This article is not about North Inglewood, and in fact it never even explains the connection between the title "North Inglewood" and the content, which is entirely about race relations. It's possible that a valid article could be written about the neighborhood of North Inglewood, but this isn't it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese hair straightening

[edit]

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

promotional piece meant to advertise product Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like straight commercial promotion to me -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess there's not really a point in keeping the article here. It's actually a form of an Asian perm, that spread to Brazil and the US, but anonymous users think it's a dropping chute to advertise their own forms or businesses of it. Nothing much to really say about it. We don't have articles on every single procedure performed in salons, even if they make it past the nation of origin. I came here because I was left a notice on my talk page. I know I contributed to this in the past. It was created in 2007 and hasn't grown much at all. ★Dasani★ 08:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh McEachran

[edit]

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

Schoolboy footballer. Yet to play a professional game so fails WP:ATHLETE noq (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks pretty close to a CSD A7 to me -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Promising" means nothing. Do something first. — Timneu22 · talk 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He plays for the Chelsea academy team, Schoolboy level is U-16 and below. He did 'do something' last night and won the FA Youth Cup with Chelsea. Likely to be playing for Chelsea reserves next season. Bobbymozza (talk) 07:48 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete "Ain't done it yet" = non-notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate if & when he become notable in the future. Giant Snowman 06:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing for the academy team is not enough, and "likely to be playing for the reserves next season" is crystal balling and still won't be enough anyway. Recreate should he play professionally, which should happen eventually if the rather grandiose statement that he'll turn out to be as good as Messi (no pressure there, then......) is actually true...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RacingThePlanet: Namibia

[edit]

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

~~No assertion of notability. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Update: The author has himself since created an article (originally given the generic title "Endurance footrace" which included information solely on RacingThePlanet, so I moved it to RacingThePlanet) and copy-pasted the information from this one, so I am withdrawing this AfD nomination and marking the original with a Speedy Deletion tag (CSD A10). Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the G11-deleted RacingThePlanet and make a proper general article out of it. This race has been in Namibian news [29], even in years when Namibia did not host it here (last sentence), so it doesn't seem to be entirely unremarkable. Once in the news, there's always something to be found to argue for notability I guess (This particular race saw the largest group of people from Hong Kong ever to enter Namibian soil, see first link). In its current form it is a bit spammy, particularly the pic seems to be inappropriate. --Pgallert (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above. Not massively notable but a main article will probably meet notability with reports like this. Then this info should be merged into the main. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 12:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Merge to RacingThePlanet. One article should suffice for all of its reincarnations. Racepacket (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple sources covering event. Between The Namibian, the Telegraph and CNN, I think it is a well-established sporting event.--TM 01:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Good Old Days...

[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:MUSIC says "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I can't find significant independent coverage. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Mullet

[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:MUSIC says "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I can't find significant independent coverage. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reel Big Fish. since the previous AfD produced a Merge outcome and that appears to have been done. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buy This!

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all relevant content was presumably merged into the band's page after previous AFD. Claritas (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:MUSIC says "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I can't find significant independent coverage. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A previous AfD called for a merge over a year ago. The article was tagged as such but it was never carried out, then the tag was removed by an anon IP a few days later. I'd say withdraw this AfD and let's just carry out the original intent from AfD #1. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël Reclus

[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable author. Two books, neither of which Google News Archives has ever heard of (but I admit that I'm not sure how well GNA covers French newspapers, etc.) No references that I can find to the author in Google News Archives at all. Unsourced for three years. Joe Decker (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: WorldCat lists the books mentioned in the article: La Table d'Hades (2002), Les Trois du Mayne (2003). I've found two reviews of the first book, however, I'm not sure whether the sources are significant and independent. The books were published on demand by a small publishing house Cylibris. There's no article "Raphaël Reclus" on the French Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the pointer to WorldCat, I was unfamiliar with it and it looks like a useful tool. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know that lacking an article at fr.wiki is authoritative, but the lack of sources doesn't do anything to establish notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible existence of a fr:wiki article is surely not authoritative for this part of Wikipedia. The information could save time and searching of others.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found at reliable sources - Google Books confirms the existance of the books named, but I can't find anything to show that Reclus meets WP:AUTHOR -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Kwan

[edit]

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

The article's claim for the actor for greatest notability is a minor character who appeared in one episode of a television series. There are other television appearences, but Google News Archives doesn't show a single reference to the fellow. There is an IMDB entry ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0477064/ ), which I'm given to understand isn't generally considered RS. Appears to me to fail WP:ENT, WP:N. Joe Decker (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I can find him in cast listings but I can find no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Boutenko

[edit]

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

Article is a BLP containing little except references to the subject's own books, her publisher's corporate website, and testimonials. (If improperly-cited BLP content were removed, there would be essentially no article.) No evidence of notability, either via WP:N (mentioned principally in a not-quite-independent blog printing interviews with her) or even WP:PROF. Article was created by user banned for sockpuppetry, whose actions appeared almost exclusively promotional in nature. TheFeds 04:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 01:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as promotional bio. Most contributions made by single-purpose accounts that are now blocked. Most references are actually commercial websites promoting her book. The book seems to sell well according to Amazon, but it's unclear whether or not this will be a short-lived ephemeral piece. Seems like there should be some WP:RS out there and I'm glad to change positions if such are found. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West And East Collide

[edit]

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

possible hoax, no sources, no indication of existence, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Goodvac (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It should have been speedily deleted.--Dmol (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; no evidence of notability via references. I wish that crystalballing of an album was a valid reason to speedy delete under A9. TheFeds 04:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torre Futura

[edit]

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

Failure to meet WP:N Jminthorne (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sure the article needs expansion and improvement, but that's what expansion and improvement tags are for. This topic in fact has received very significant coverage from reliable sources like La Prensa Gráfica and El Diario de Hoy [30][31][32][33] (these are just a few of the many I found), thus easily satisfying WP:N. And the nom simply stating "Failure to meet WP:N" with absolutely no argument as to why they feel that way gives the impression they want the article deleted for unknown reasons.--Oakshade (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well said and thank you for the feedback. Based on your input and a second look by me I think it is reasonable to close this nom as a speedy keep. Jminthorne (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Meets or exceeds WP:CORP as reliable sources are available for this article. --Morenooso (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Morenooso's request, I've imported the history of the Spanish article on this building. Because it didn't go as I expected (I've only one before imported a page), I'll have to delete this article and restore it to get the edit history correct. Please don't see this deletion and restoration as being relevant to this AFD; it's strictly housekeeping. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done deleting and restoring. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why is this still open? The nominator conceded a Speedy Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Network Administration Visualized

[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software that has remained unreferenced, and tagged with ((notability)) since 2007. No reliable sources found to establish notability online. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not even any assertion of notability. --Pgallert (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but it looks interesting. Not notable, but interesting. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Fighting Championship

[edit]

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

The only claim to notability is that it bills itself as Alaska's premier MMA event. I can find no independent claims of notability and no independent sources, except for fight results at Sherdog. The article itself lists no sources and reads like an ad. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no sources and a weak claim of notability. I couldn't find independent sources except for fight results. It's possible there are good sources out there, but I didn't find them. The article also needs a complete rewrite, but that's not an AfD issue. Astudent0 (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks good sources, credibility, and appears to be written alot like an advertisement. 72.20.219.166 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of online social networks by libraries

[edit]

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

This article is half an essay about how great social networks can be for libraries, and another half about how libraries can set up social networks. It is entirely unencylopedic. Originally, with a cutesy books plus twitter bird equals happiness (before all the images got deleted) this article was much more of a POV essay than an encyclopedia article. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not an encyclopedia article, ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an essay / opinion piece. Shadowjams (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 05:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user-space. This is probably a suitable topic for Wikipedia (there are plenty of articles about social networks in the library professional literature), and the present article might provide an outline that could be rewritten. I agree that most of the current content is unsuitable (sections 1 and 3 just describe features and problems of social networks in general, while 2 and 4 are mainly original research). EALacey (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like an essay, rather than an encyclopedian entry, to me. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straight WP:OR. Should be a speedy delete. — Timneu22 · talk 14:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation 3 Technical Issues

[edit]

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

Contains no valid or cited information (and adds no value over the cited information already on the main PlayStation 3 article's Reliability section). W IKIPEE DIO 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sony provides *no* information, so Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to PlayStation_3#Reliability, as this section is properly cited and notable, but not large enough for it's own article. 124.179.205.147 (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely covered elsewhere; no sourced material suitable for merging. Marasmusine (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't clutter PS article with this unsourced OR, which poorly paraphrases much of what is already said there.— Hellknowz ▎talk 00:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Better stated in its parent article (and sourced there as well). Not a highly plausible search term, so no redirect vote for me. --Teancum (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. The event has been reported around the world. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a news website - WP:NOTNEWS. This event was rather unremarkable as nobody died, nobody was injured and no changes in the law, or proposals for changes in the law, have been made because of it. Yes, there's been news coverage and sources, but there are also sources for the weather and we don't have a day-to-day rundown of that. Shove some info into the main Times Square article maybe? Stuff like this happens in Iraq every day and the article fails WP:EVENT. A nice story - yes. A good wiki article - no. YOU CAN NOT GUESS THAT THE EVENT WILL HAVE A LASTING EFFECT, AS THAT FAILS WP:CRYSTAL. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This bombing attempt is not a small occurrence. There is ample evidence that the bomb could have done serious damage to the area, and this event will be in the news for possibly years to come. ~BLM (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

possibly years to come is a WP:CRYSTAL fail. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving this info to the Times Square article. There's already a mention of the incident there, but it's small and unsourced. A failed car bomb is certainly notable, but probably does not merit its own article at this point. As has already been pointed out, a WikiNews link takes care of a lot. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — According to Wikipedia:Notability (events) if an event has lasting effects and is widely reported it noteworthy. This event will probably have lasting effects (as there will be an investigation and a lot of commentary) and it was definitely widely reported. – Zntrip 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? Another WP:CRYSTAL fail. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know it had a lot news coverage? I read the news. How do I know their will be an investigation and lots of commentary? It's going on right now. – Zntrip 00:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But do I really even have to explain my reasoning? Yes, because it was in Times Square and not in Iraq does matter to its noteworthiness. And King, you made your point and others will make theirs; you don't need to comment on every Keep. Lexicon (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter IV

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lil Wayne is awesome but im not sure this article is totally encyclopedia like considering it wont be released till 2011. Violates some parts of WP:Crystal and WP:HAMMER. STAT- Verse 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —STAT- Verse 01:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Lil Wayne - WP:ALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Everything is sourced with an outdated source and there really isn't a lot of information known. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 03:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SE KinG - it's premature. When release is imminent, or when more information is reliably sourced, an article might be appropriate. Meanwhile, redirects are cheap - so no objection to redirecting this to the artist's article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. I considered putting this up for deletion but i was afraid all the fanboys would show up and vote to keep it, same with Detox (because it really isn't notable yet especially when he won't even release a single from it nonetheless the album itself) and, even though i contributed a hell of a lot to it a while back, the I Can't Feel My Face album is likely never going to be released so i suggest the same with those (A Redirect i mean, for the time being for those albums). Str8cash (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I Can't Feel My Face is now listed for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Can't Feel My Face. STAT- Verse 03:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). The reason given in the nomination does not apply (site is still active) and nobody else has argued for deletion, while some have argued to keep. It is also worth noting that even if the site were no longer active it is not clear that would be a reason for deletion: we have articles on many historical topics. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecocho

[edit]

Both links at the bottom of entry are not working. The link at the bottom of the page to Ecocho.com does not return anything as the domain seems not to exist anymore. Without the website existing anymore, anyone opposes the deletion? (The article also seems to have been spammed by Forestle already). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azthral (talk • contribs) 2010/04/24 18:10:15

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the links all work for me. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is an active website with significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow procedure for orphaned articles under WP:ORPHAN.T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Speakers Series

[edit]

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

This speaker series is not notable. It is not associated with any award and only began in 2008. The page appears to have only been created as a promotion. I have recently worked on several articles related to the University of Texas at Arlington, but this is not useful in my opinion. EMBaero (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Ball lightning. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ball light

[edit]

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

Apparent original research (see the talk page), largely self-referenced. There may be some material that could be merged with Ball lightning. Acroterion _(talk) 11:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge and delete - save anything worthwhile to ball lightning (not much) and delete the rest. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge relevant content into Ball lightning and~~ Delete per UtherSRG, also WP:SYNTH. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are the merge and delete !voters familiar with Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Any material merged will need to be so drastically rewritten to address WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS issues that the old article history will become irrelevant. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is really that bad (arguably so), then it should be deleted. If there is anything of use, including the compilation of the reference list, then redirecting is easier. If the redirect is really not wanted, we must at least note the authorship of Vladimir Torchigin (talk · contribs) should it get used at Ball lightning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Vladimir Torchigin (talk · contribs)'s comment on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given those comments, I'll change my !vote to "delete." -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lodburaey (cyclist)

[edit]

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

Non-notable cyclist. Fails the general notability guideline, and fails WP:ATH as he hasn't competed at the highest amateur level. Severo^TC 07:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep winning the Tour de Pakistan seems notable to me. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Tour of Pakistan is a very minor race and isn't organised every year so doesn't qualify as the highest amateur level of the sport. WP:ATH focusses upon the level competed at (rather than at the level success has been achieved at) and I don't see how he satisfies that? Severo^TC 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Tour of Pakistan is not even classified on the UCI Asia Tour, which is semi-pro. This is clearly not the fully professional level of the sport. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biography of living person really needs reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Price

[edit]

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

Apparently one-time glamour model whose primary clame to fame is being the sister of Katie Price, but notability is not inherited. The only reference is to the register of births, deaths and marriages, I can't find any reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth, and the information in the article is unverified. – Toon 12:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Katie Price#Early life, where Sophie Price is already mentioned. We could add a few words to indicate that the sister is a glamour model. In this case deletion can be avoided, so per WP:BEFORE it should be -- and we certainly don't want someone searching for "Sophie Price" to find a redlink that encourages them to write an article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT and the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Get this nonsense off Wikipedia. [BLP-violating comment removed.] --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Tschohl

[edit]

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

Non-notable consultant. Refs are links to worldcat searches which are not reliable sources establishing notability in and of themselves. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain how, when he was doing his pre-nomination research, he came to the conclusion that the many independent sources found by a Google Books search fail to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but improve the sourcing. It is currently based entirely on primary sources, but a Google news archive search shows that enough secondary sources exist that he likely passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pk cards

[edit]

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

Prod was removed. Non-notable product/game: no reliable sources to establish notability. tedder (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a well respected Magazine is not a reliable source??? The only thing I have not done is cut and paste right from these Print articles.. I would like to also note that Magic the Gathering’s Page has NO content from any source other then what is printed from their Company! The only articals on Magic's page are Review articales, no different then what I have posted here. --Shiznit1994b (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is kind of a formatting mess, so I haven't been able to evaluate it yet. Could you please tell me exactly which source you are referring to as a "well respected Magazine"? — Satori Son 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The artical has been edit by a friend who helped me with the format. The Scrye is the printed source I was writing about. I have also found a News story about PKXL.--Shiznit1994b (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are online links to either of those two articles available? Thanks. — Satori Son 20:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I can not find any links to the articles.. I have the printed copies(issue 128, Jan.2009) and the dvd (Oct.6th, 2008) of the interviews in my hands. From what I have found out the Scrye has stopped printing and the channel 12 only keeps the interviews up on the webpage for a short time. --Shiznit1994b (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra Programming Language

[edit]

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

Non-notable programming language, used only on one manufacturer's line of bar-code printers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable and isn't really a programming language, just a guide/method of customizing a printer purchased through one particular company (ZIH Corp.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEC 0585 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joal Beal (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zebra Technologies. If there is anything notable about this page description language, perhaps that section can be expanded. PleaseStand ^(talk) 11:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Time Communication

[edit]

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

Minor manga and porn publisher Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Comment There's something funky about the link to this discussion from the article, but I can't figure out what's not working correctly. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Comment References on this article and on Comic Valkyrie indicate there is enough coverage of that magazine to make it notable. Recognizing that notability is not inherited, nonetheless when a company produces a notable product it strongly suggests that the company is notable in some way. Reserving my !vote pending checking whether any of the magazine references also discuss in some way the company as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the same thing about that magazine, although I know "not inherited" rule. -- deerstop. 09:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll leave it to others to go through the hits. --Gwern (contribs) 22:44 26 April 2010 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for the South's Funniest Accountant

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Search for the South's Funniest Accountant

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

Textbook example of spammy article about non-notable local specialty event. Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went to the press page for the event website [34] and looked at the coverage. They got about a column-inch-and-a-half from the Wall Street Journal and basically a calendar listing from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Accordingly, in the current form, I don't think there's sufficient independent coverage of the event to support an article. I agree that the article is written in a promotional tone, but that's fixable. I also agree that the sourcing problem could be fixed, and if more sources turn up (or are written) after this AfD closes, I would support the recreation of the article. (Disclaimer: I am a CPA who has practiced in metro Atlanta. I know of Accountants One, the sponsor of the event; I've met their staff at trade shows, but I've never worked for them directly or indirectly, and I have never auditioned for SftSFA. Accordingly, I conclude that I am independent of the subject.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response C.Fred, did you notice who created the article in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but I didn't consider the article so flawed in tone that it was spam. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Honda motorcycles. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Trials Motorcycles

[edit]

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

Non-notable and unedited since Sept 2009. Josh 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into the Honda article... I assume there's a better specific redirect, maybe Honda Motorcycles. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How does that not exist?! Of all the insane small company sub-divisions splits that we have on here, and fight bitterly over, a major automaker's huge segment doesn't have its own article?! I would have expected Honda lawnmowers to have its own article, and yet Honda Motorcycles is a redlink?! Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No reliable sources proving the subject's notability have been put up. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Massey

[edit]

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

I can't see what she's done that is notable, and I can't find any reliable sources to add more information to this article. Basically unsourced biography since August 2009. Just working for Microsoft doesn't meet WP:GNG —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Laura is a public figure at Microsoft as a frequent co-host of a widely-listened, influential gaming podcast. White 720 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a source that backs this statement up? We need to prove notability through reliable sources. Generally this means significant coverage in independent sources, not simply that she is popular. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Here's a list of shows in which she's participated. Here's an article that includes a mention of her in that capacity. White 720 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying she didn't do the show, just that she is not notable enough for a WP article. The news article is a passing mention, which does not meet the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:N. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 13:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same argument. You still have not provided reliable sources as to establish notability and warrant inclusion. Having a podcast with no secondary coverage does not establish notability.— Hellknowz ▎talk 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, no indication of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The search, Laura Massey+xbox gets ghits but nothing that would most likely be considered WP:RS. I have a feeling that in the gaming community, she would be fairly notable. --Morenooso (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I'm not sure I understand - no WP:RS but a !keep? What is the rationale? Thanks. GregJackP (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe I have the same question, given you yourself quoted ghits suitability. Perhaps the subject is notable, but there are still no sources to support this.— Hellknowz ▎talk 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any sources to back up my intention to keep this. [35] seems to be the only reliable, notable source, but still does not establish the subject's notability. To above comments: Google hits aren't sources or indication of notability; podcast is primary source and not an indication of notability; being at Microsoft is not an indication of notability; being known in video game industry is not an indication of notability. </broken_record> — Hellknowz ▎talk 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The usage of a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. --Morenooso (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Due to a lack of consensus and an over-reliance on Google search results during this "discussion," I move to close this deletion discussion with no action taken. White 720 (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which just happens to be "Keep" by default. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup. White 720 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendal Calling

[edit]

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

Advert for non-notable local music gig. Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an advertisement. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not an advert and it's not about a 'local music gig'. It's an article about a fairly-major UK music festival. Plenty of Google News coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - "fairly-major"???? According to the article, they hope to get up to 8,000 this year. That's the attendance for a weekend parish festival, not a major music event! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it isn't a "weekend parish festival", it's a music festival that has some major artists playing every year and is very much part of the major festival circuit, big enough to be included in the NME festival guide this year. It has a similar attendance to others such as the Green Man Festival and bigger than Summer Sundae, and . If it were a "weekend parish festival" it probably wouldn't be notable, but it isn't, so your argument is specious.--Michig (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry if I've offended you, Michig; but an attendance of maybe 8k people doesn't match with the concept of "major music festival" in my mind. That's all I was saying. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not one of the very big UK festivals, but I've seen it described as 'mid-sized' - I described it as "fairly-major", not "major". There are an awful lot of music festivals these days - I think notability (and 'major'-ness) is best judged by coverage received rather than size of attendance, and those that have big acts playing are more likely to be notable than those that don't, regardless of how many people go along. The ones that get lots of TV coverage such as Glastonbury, T in the Park, Reading and Leeds, etc. are obviously notable, and I would draw the notability line some way below the likes of Kendal Calling. My local "parish festival" is probably attended by a few thousand people each year, but despite that an event with craft stalls, dog shows, and a local band playing isn't likely to be of encyclopedic interest, a good indication being only limited coverage in local publications. Music festivals such as Kendal Calling receive much wider coverage.--Michig (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding the Wolves

[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL and parts of WP:HAMMER apply. No confirmed release date or track list found in reliable sources. Band's official website only states that the album is in production. MySpace is the only source for the article's info about the potential release. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as this currently fails WP:NALBUMS. An article will be appropriate when a track list and release date are confirmed; for now, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. Gongshow ^Talk 17:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Scott Bell

[edit]

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

I can't find any biographical coverage. There's a couple credits listed out there, but absent any secondary source coverage, we can't ever have a verifiable article. Gigs (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and a possible WP:BLP problem. I have serious doubts that a person employed at the famous J. Walter Thompson advertising firm would write a page about himself on Wikipedia, let alone an article that implies that he has been associated with only one ad campaign. If we have an article about the ad campaign for Swedish Fish, I suppose that the many JWT persons on the team can have their names mentioned. I suspect, but can't prove, that this lone contribution from User:ScottBell5050 is a case of someone finding a person with the same name. Mandsford (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of not many reliable sources (if any at all). I don't think it's that notable to have an article. --Bsadowski1 05:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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