< 7 May	9 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 Delete JForget 01:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Falcons[edit]

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

Not notable as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Predators, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea Titans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex Blades (American football), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEA Pirates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NTU Renegades. British university sports teams for mainstream British sports such as soccer have next to no following. American Football has an even smaller following. Article is unreferenced, Google turns up only sites directly related to the team or its rivals. If you are in doubt as to the popularity of the team, look on the gallery on the teams own website and play spot the spectator. There are quite literally appears to be more members of the team than fan. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability standards not met, independent sources not provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and per Paul. Individual university sports teams in the UK are very rarely notable, and this one does not appear to be an exception. Pfainuk talk 20:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided despite the article being online a very long time. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:54, 14 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 JForget 01:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WinAbility[edit]

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

Very little independent coverage: may not be notable. (PROD was removed by single purpose account editor.) JamesBWatson (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of promotion on the name, but a google news search reveals nothing relevant (on default settings). A good reason to refer to WP:BURDEN. Not overly promotional but without independent sourcing I think it doesn't meet notability criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional article about a software business, fails to show minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a quick search finds only press releases. ``Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:55, 14 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) 20:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Guy[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation. Non-notable minor league hockey player who has never played in the NHL. Not otherwise notable. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Redfarmer (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE both the EPHL and Central Hockey League that he played during 2008-09 are fully professional hockey leagues. Barely passes, but none the less he passes. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he did play a season in a very, low professional league, there is no actual coverage about him at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:BIO and the hockey project's notability essay. Reso lute 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some references are added. While he would barely pass, there is nothing to support the article. If that changes, I'd change my vote. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the WP:ATHLETE mark in hockey would be either Olympics or NHL. He's done neither, and I don't see any other reason to include.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The athlete mark is professional hockey. Not just the NHL. -DJSasso (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athlete gets re-written all the time. It used to say "at the highest level" I believe, to preculde a free pass minor league baseball and semi-pro football as examples. It currently states "except for those that participated only in competitions that are themselves non-notable" and I would argue that the league in question and contests in the league in question are non-notable. But hey, I'm open to it--let's hear the facts!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is in the process of being debated. I do believe the line you quote is referring to non-league sports like swimming and tennis. I was just pointing out for the most part that we do include anyone who played in the minors, but are hopefully about to change the door on that with NSPORT. This basic wording of WP:ATHLETE has actually been in effect since Oct. 3, 2005. It has never required the highest level for pro, just amateurs. Baring small unsupported changes that may have occured and been reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided at all. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:02, 14 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 JForget 01:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Net Enterprises, Inc.[edit]

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

While article attempts to establish notability, I don't think it accomplishes its goal. Reads exactly like an advertisement or company infosheet, and creator is obviously an SPA. Possibly could be improved, but I just don't think it is notable enough to warrant. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Zero coverage on Gnews. Google search provides only websites etc. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From David Finley, CEO of World Net Enterprises - We would like to make an entry on our behalf. First of all, it was not our intention to advertise or promote the company through Wikipedia. To my knowledge, users normally don’t utilize Wikipedia as a source to find products or services for purchase, rather to simply find out more about something or someone (definition, curious about its history, current status, etc.). Before our Wikipedia page was established, when trying to find information on other companies, many times we would click their Wikipedia listing, which often proved to be a great source of information. If someone wants to know more about World Net and the history of the company, we thought Wikipedia would be a great place for them to start, just as we did when wanting to know more about other companies. Though we are a young company and still have a very short Wikipedia page, we have tried to simply utilize the information found on the Wikipedia pages of larger Internet retail shopping companies and domain registrar/web hosting companies when trying to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Though their pages are much longer, most offer nothing more than ours, simply describing the history of their company and a description of their company at present. We thought modeling our page after much larger companies would be a good direction to take, being the larger companies pages are rarely flagged by other users pointing out Wikipedia guideline infringements. Though we have made most of the entries/changes to the World Net page (as larger companies do - see [1]), we are simply trying to make our history and current status available to others. We were hoping that some of our internet customers would make some entries, however none have done so to date. As far as trying to adhere to all guidelines, every time a user has pointed out something that needs improvement on our page, we made the necessary changes in an attempt to remain part of the Wikipedia community. We thought that we had met the "Notability requirements for companies & commercial enterprises" requirements, but obviously not. At this point, we would ask for assistance, rather than deletion. Any assistance in the way of suggestions, deletions, additions, etc. to the World Net page from seasoned Wikipedia members would be very much appreciated. Whatever the outcome, we believe a just decision will be made. Thank you for your consideration. David Finley, CEO, World Net Enterprises, Inc. 8 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finley500 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Finley, thank you for your input, and thank you for trying to create an excellent and useful article. The main thing that is lacking is coverage ABOUT your company from reliable sources (see WP:RS) which indicates that reporters, editors, academics, or other independent commentators have found significant things to say about your company. This would exclude your own company's press releases (even if reprinted in a newspaper or trade journal) because they are not considered independent. It would also exclude review sites, blogs, directories, etc. - places where the writer is anonymous or where you yourself supply the information. If newspapers, trade journals, etc. have reported about your company, it could be notable. If there has not been such coverage, then I am afraid your company is not "notable" in Wikipedia's eyes no matter how much you rewrite it. See WP:companies for a better explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I also appreciate Mr. Finley communicating with us here. I'll reiterate Melanie's statement: it needs reliable sourcing and a clearer attempt at communicating why the company is independently notable. Please note that this is not saying your company is unimportant, just that it may not meet the criteria for inclusion here. Also Mr. Finley, if the result of this discussion is deletion, I would be more than happy to move the article into your "namespace" (aka, something like User:Finley500/World Net Enterprises) so you can continue to improve it at your leasure, if you would like that to happen. Also, there is a group on Wiki call the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, who are experienced and often willing to help "rescue" articles from deletion, where possible. You may want to ask there for help. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely promotional article for unremarkable tech business, vaguely written, and makes no attempt to show its historical significance as opposed to hundreds of similar businesses: an Internet domain registrar, website development and web hosting company that also offers a wide range of tangible products, both online and over the counter. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:34, 13 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. Proposed merge/redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Shimeru (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Thomson (politician)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination after re-creation war - see current WP:ANI thread (now archived). Local political candidate; it is claimed that she almost certainly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN but may meet GNG due to (mostly local) press coverage. I am neutral Black Kite (t) (c) 21:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think anyone is saying she meets WP:POLITICIAN, but I believe she meets WP:GNG. Furthermore, POLITICIAN states that "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.". So redirect, rather than outright deletion, would be the appropriate course of action if the result here is not "keep". –xeno^talk 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete through failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN – I know that the repeat-create-edit-war isn't an issue here, but while I'm writing... it was pathetic. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article also fail WP:GNG? –xeno^talk 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confident to offer an opinion one way or another on that, but WP:POLITICIAN exists for a reason, not to be trumped by the GNG every time it would otherwise apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 21:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you (or perhaps I) misunderstand the hierarchy of notability guidelines. –xeno^talk 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of "The Hierarchy" the existence of WP:POLITICIAN is pointless if its outcomes are automatically overruled by WP:GNG. This article is about a politician, fails the relevant guideline, and if it were to be kept nonetheless, that guideline would be literally pointless. For that reason, I think that the page should be deleted. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding (perhaps deficient?) is that POLITICIAN is to allow articles that satisfy POLITICIAN but not GNG - not the other way around. Why else would POLITICIAN explicitly defer to GNG? ("Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.") [emph. mine] –xeno^talk 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Xeno stated, WP:POLITICIAN shows notability for that meet it, as an alternative to WP:GNG, it does not trump GNG. Silver seren^C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --John (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nom did not advance a deletion argument. –xeno^talk 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, Xeno, he did, he advanced the argument outlined by Black Kite, which is that the article "almost certainly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN." ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 21:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above. –xeno^talk 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was "above" you simply disagreeing with this argument for deletion? ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was referring to the discussion immediately above, under your vote. –xeno^talk 21:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Only real coverage seems to exist within the scope of the 2010 municipal election and the news coverage that follows. As Xeno notes, a merge into a municipal election article would also work. Reso lute 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being CEO of a major newspaper is not a single event. Silver seren^C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on "major newspaper". Reso lute 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some very limited pre-2010 coverage [2] that mentions her as publisher of Women's Post (though I've never heard of the sources). –xeno^talk 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't really sources about her, though, they're sources about other issues which mention her magazine and tangentially reference her. I'm not sure that they're enough to qualify her as a notable person in magazine circles... ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 21:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Merge into municipal election article per Xeno. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning merge per Tznkai below, but could you explain how GNG is not satisfied? –xeno^talk 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Aside from her candidacy, her claim to fame is that she's the publisher of Women's Post. Women's Post is not a newspaper, it's a twice-monthly Canadian national magazine, and its circulation is not 300,000 (that's how many they were hoping to put out) but more like 70,000. A circulation like that for a national magazine in a country with a population of 34 million does not seem terribly notable, and since her potential notability outside of WP:POLITICIAN is tied to the magazine, she's not terribly notable either. She could well be in the future, but not at this moment, at least how I read it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to just Merge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto mayoral election, 2010 Looking through this woman's other accomplishments, none of them seem to have gotten significant coverage. Pretty much all I can find is campaign related, but theres enough out there to put a useful, neutral blurb in the mayoral election.--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not be deleted because the individual has received significant, non-trivial, media coverage by reliable sources. See Google News. in mainstream media where she has received significant coverage. Also, the ex-publisher of the National Post has endorsed her candidacy. For instance, see this item from the CTV News Page (which is a national news network in Canada) "Conrad Black backs candidate in T.O. mayoral race". Notable enough to meet GNG. The person who won the 2003 Mayoral election was initially in single digits as well, see David_Miller_(Canadian_politician)#2003_Mayoral_campaign. I don't think she'll win but an early poll result is not a reason to render her unnotable. Also, if you read the Google News coverage, her promise to build more subways has influenced other candidates to respond so she is notable. See for instance this article in Toronto Life "Ford signs up for subway-unicorn brigade along with Commander Thomson". Be in Nepean (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of substantial independent reliable sources (in any version of the article). Its use as part of her campaign marketing is icing on the cake. Be in Nepean, namechecks in coverage of the mayoral campaign are no basis for a biography. There is also no claim to encyclopaedic notability in the article; while the mayor might be notable, with 7% support in the polls she ain't going to be mayor. She's not in the top three even. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look. Silver seren^C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect/merge I'm in agreement, at least so far, that the known coverage isn't enough to warrant an article. If better sources are found, and they talk about her more prominently, I'd reconsider. PS. I'd be fine with a redirect to the election article. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do take another look, as the article has been expanded. I am also still working on it. Silver seren^C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Xeno is making a good point. She has multiple, reliable sources and appears to meet the basic WP:GNG guideline. Failing WP:Politician does not trump WP:GNG. Is another guideline at play like WP:BLP1E? What is wrong with the four newpaper articles cited? RJ (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto mayoral election, 2010 per Tznkai, and per WP:ONEEVENT. If any possible notability relates to that event, include it there in a brief background of her bio. SGGH ^ping! 22:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only fails WP:POLITICIAN but also WP:GNG. At 7% support I don't really see the need to merge to the local election article. Merge if she climbs in the polls. - Josette (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how she fails WP:GNG? Silver seren^C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the minimal coverage of her job as the publisher of a small newspaper/magazine - local to Toronto with only 61,000 subscribers - satisfies WP:GNG. Any other coverage of her is about the election and we have already established she fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kww and Equazcion say it better below... - Josette (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tznkai, via WP:BLP1E; once the election passes, if she doesn't get elected (and there's not much chance of that right now) you'll have two statements - she's a publisher of a low-notability magazine, and she tried for election (probably will fail). That the page is being used as a political platform irks me. Strip away the current political platform and what do you have? Very little. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A magazine with 300,000 readers is hardly "low-notability". Silver seren^C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect: Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG (all coverage is for WP:ONEEVENT). Any useful content could be merged to the election page, but the bio there should not be expanded---it's not meant to act as an entire bio page for each candidate. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't your vote be merge and redirect then? –xeno^talk 23:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Merge and redirect, making sure to keep the bio at Toronto mayoral election, 2010 concise. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. –xeno^talk 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. I would say merge, but I don't think there are going to be enough people searching for the term Sarah Thomson (politician) to justify leaving a redirect behind. When a BLP is this short, it's probably safer to delete and interested parties can add appropriate information to the article on the election. AniMate 23:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be addressed via a hatnote at Sarah Thomson ? –xeno^talk 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for now ^{at minimum}. ^While The only significant coverage seems to be related to the election, and the guidance at WP:POLITICIAN suggests this as the appropriate course of action. –xeno^talk 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC) ^{annoted 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC) based on expansion of article, will revisit later}[reply]
Changing vote to simply keep. After the expansion, there seems to be more than enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. Agree that (politician) is probably not the best disambiguator. –xeno^talk 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect She fails WP:N via WP:BLP1E. WLU's summary makes sense. When she loses the election, we have: (1) Failed city council campaign, (2) Publisher of Women's Post, (3) Failed mayorial campaign. There is no point in merging. If you look at local election article, Sarah Thomson (politician) already has her own section which is basically a duplicate of this article. There is little to no unique information to merge. RJ (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she is founder and CEO of Women's Post. Silver seren^C 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If she is notable as a publisher, then this article should be moved to Sarah Thomson (publisher) and switch focus to her contributions there. My problem with this keep and move is the lack of references that mention her as publisher first and politician second. All the references are in relation to her political campaign. ~~I have yet to see a single reliable secondary resource about her position as the founder and publisher of Women's Post.~~ (the Publisher Article is a good one). We are left with an article that says she is the founder and publisher of the Women's Post from references that relate to her political ambitions which is odd. RJ (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added new sources and am in the process of expanding the article. Silver seren^C 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think that she should be considered notable because of her politician status (because she doesn't, she fails WP:POLITICIAN), but I do believe that she is notable because of the significant coverage about her that passes WP:GNG and the fact that she is the founder and CEO of Women's Post, which generates more than enough notability for her. Silver seren^C 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The article meets the GNG by a landslide. Forcing it to jump through the additional hoop of WP:POLITICIAN is pointless. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage of her out there. [3] Dream Focus 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least for now. I believe the specific notability guidelines trump WP:GNG, and she does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, at least right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific notability guidelines also say "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.", which means that, if they do not meet them, then they default to seeing if they meet WP:GNG. If they do not meet that, then it isn't notable. The Additional Criteria are there to establish notability for those extraneous to the GNG, so that they can still be considered notable if they meet those specific criteria, yet fail the GNG. It works the opposite as well, if they fail the specific criteria, but do meet the GNG, then they are still notable. Silver seren^C 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:GNG trumps WP:Politician. The question is forgeting her political coverage does she satisfy WP:N? RJ (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relationship between the special notability guidelines and the GNG depends on what we want to do with respect to the specific guideline--we could choose to do it either way. In general with respect to politicians, we have held that notability under the GNG is an alternative--that one can be notable as a politician without ever having been elected to anything, or even formally been a candidate for anything, if there are sufficient substantial RSs. This is the past has not resulted in many politician being found notable who have not been elected to a public office. Rather, it served to permit us to make articles on those who were elected, but we were having difficulty finding the otherwise necessary sources for the GNG. Increasingly, we have been able to find sources to meet the GNG for more and more unelected people in politics--according to our practices, it is hard to argue that they cannot have articles. I have long advocated changing our practices here, and that we can simplify decision-making by accepting that some major party candidates for higher offices will almost always meet the GNG sufficiently that they can be automatically considered notable--and I think the increasing availability of sources will lead to that result. We might of course decide otherwise--we can have whatever notability guidelines we choose to have, logical or not logical. In this particular case, I think the GNG leads to a reasonable result--she is notable either as a publisher, a political candidate, or both. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Toronto mayoral election, 2010 SNGs work best when viewed as exclusion policies. We are not under any obligation to have an article on each and every thing on which we can find two reliable sources, and SNGs let us agree on what kinds of things should be covered in various categories. Since she doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, she shouldn't have an article based on her status as a politician. The coverage of her in relationship to "Women's Post" is largely tangential, more about the magazine than her role as publisher. The sources in the article are just press releases, and don't suffice for demonstrating notability.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to the recent expansion, I'm still going to stick with my original vote (delete or redirect/merge). Per Kww above, who says it nicely, the Keep arguments here seem to want to use coverage related to her being a politician in order to satisfy GNG -- even though that coverage still doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. This is a roundabout way of justifying inclusion. Just as WP:NOTFILM tells us whether a film really deserves its own article despite satisfying GNG, since there are too many pre-development films that receive coverage, WP:POLITICIAN tells us when someone's political coverage warrants giving them an article, since even those barely in the running receive coverage. These are higher standards for inclusion for subjects of those topics. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Quite difficult to decide whether to keep it or not, but apart from those references. WP:ANYBIO says that she hasn't won any awards or made a contribution world-widely recognised. Although she was a candidate in some sort of Toronto election, she only had 7% of support from the residents. I tried to link the Women's Post which is a non-notable magazine I suspect. If that article on the magazine was created, I will change my vote. Minima c (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is blue-linked. Silver seren^C 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really impressive coat rack: two sentences about the magazine, with the circulation reproduced verbatim from an unaudited claim, combined with a copy of the material that ~~you~~Be in Nepean also placed in this article. —Kww(talk) 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that user e in nepean is working for the Thompson campaign, both from actions here and for other information received. This is an astroturfing job. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to also be attempting to establish notability by using coverage of Sara Thomson as a politician. If anything I'd say there's even less of a question than here that Women's Post (just created by the creator of this article) should be deleted. There's no notability for the magazine itself. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-per Tznkai or delete as a one event failed candidate. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What event? Silver seren^C 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been substantially rewritten. I suggest that delete voters re-read it and reconsider their vote. Be in Nepean (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per suggested readership of her magazine, although I have no problem with merging to any mayoral eletion related articles. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [Claimed] readership of a magazine does not make its founder notable. WP:SINGLEEVENT Equazcion ^(talk) 23:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Doc above or redirect and merge to the campaign page. The fact is that she seems to meet WP:GNG by having several (at least 3 or 4 and probably more) news articles from different papers devoted specifically to her in the context of her camapaign. WP:POLITICIAN #3 specifically notes that candidates can be notable under this. I realize that this might allow a lot of local candidates to be included, though, so there's obviously some tension in accepting WP:GNG for political candidates. II | (t - c) 22:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 23:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with BlackKite. Delete and salt. AGK 13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite hasn't actually advanced either of those positions. He brought this nom procedurally. Note the "but" in his statement, which is an allusion to GNG. –xeno^talk 13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AGK very obviously refers to the part of Black Kite's statement in which s/he advances the case for deletion. That's very, very clear. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 13:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing in Black Kite's statement that is even close to a case for deletion is "almost certainly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN". I don't think anyone disagrees with this claim; however, it is not per se a case for deletion. –xeno^talk 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if the nomination wasn't clear. I have refactored it. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, heh. That works. You spurn both sides. :P Silver seren^C 20:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The title may be wrong as much of the coverage isn't to do with her role as a politician but as a publisher, but the fact is that enough coverage exists to meet WP:GNG by a large margin, regardless of any other guidelines. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I feel the coverage is over a long enough time and barely enough to keep. I'm willing to listen to other opinions on why it shouldn't be kept either. Was a bit of a toss up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent improvements by editors Be in Nepean and Silver Seren. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those dismissing her as a failed candidate need to read the article more carefully; the election in question is still five months away, so you're gazing into a crystal ball. That said, in most cases the criterion that an unelected candidate for office needs to meet to be a legitimate article topic is that they're notable enough for other reasons that Wikipedia would still be reasonably expected to have an article about them even if they hadn't run for office. The simple reality, like it or not, is that separated from her mayoral candidacy, Sarah Thomson is not a person one would expect to find in an encyclopedia; she simply isn't a person about whom much is known (or has been written) apart from "publishes magazine of at best low-to-moderate importance; running for mayor".

Furthermore, all positions are not created equal; the fact that we can almost always write a legitimate article about an unsuccessful candidate for President of the United States does not mean that we can (or should) have articles about every parliamentary or congressional candidate in every individual electoral district; nor does it mean that we can or should have articles for every single candidate for mayor of a city. So the notion that there's a blanket consensus emerging to permit articles on unelected candidates simply doesn't wash; while a few offices are prominent and high-profile enough that even failed candidates are likely to be sufficiently notable, most aren't.

Accordingly, delete. Though certainly without prejudice against recreation in the future should she (a) win, or (b) for one reason or another (e.g. she takes off in the polls, she gets caught in a controversy, etc.) start garnering a volume of press that actually constitutes substantial coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being. If she turns out to be a brief blip in the news, merge this to the article about the campaign since wikipedia is not news. Arskwad (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a deletion argument. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL are exactly why people are arguing Sarah Thomson (politician) should be deleted. Articles must be proven notable before inclusion. Consensus supports the exact opposite path. The article should be merged/deleted and if she becomes notable recreated. RJ (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone proposes deletion on Women's Post, I feel strongly towards keeping that article. I am still on the weakside of deleting Sarah Thomson (politician) though might be favorable towards a move to Sarah Whatmough-Thomson. RJ (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with renaming this. I don't think the article should be focused around her political status, when there's other (arguably more important) things she's done. Silver seren^C 23:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no hierarchy of notability guidelines. Each guideline is just a guideline. They only create presumptions of notability. When guidelines create conflicting presumptions in a single case they should be balanced together with common sense, as follows: in this case, on balance, the extent to which the subject passes the general notability guideline outweighs the extent to which she fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Respect the fundamentals. Thparkth (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does seem to meet the general notability guideline, especially as shown by the expansion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:30, 15 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 was speedily deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 01:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno (Web Browser)[edit]

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

Unable to locate coverage in reliable sources suggesting notability. Cybercobra (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 20:43, 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. Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears doll[edit]

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

The article is just a list of Spears' dolls, all of them, unreferenced. This article lacks of relevance, and the fact that there are no references to this doesn't help. Fortunato luigi (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Play Along Toys so that the content is preserved in accordance with our editing policy. The sources out there indicate that these toys did exist and were best sellers so there will be deeper coverage in the trade and collectible press which is not known to Google. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable doll. 72.150.245.110 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal Clear x3 07:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Play Along Toys, since both articles claim it was the first product the company ever released. liquidluck✽talk 01:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes one source and the links above indicate there's plenty more to choose from. --Pink Bull 06:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Play Along Toys and Britney Spears. It's worth having some coverage, but not an entire article. Note also that it is no longer an unreferenced list. There is content backed by references, just not enough to merit an entire article. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oppose merge The article has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability and to stand on its own. I disagree with a merge to Play Along Toys because it would unnecessarily lengthen that article. My rewrite of the article on 18 May 2010 should rectify the concerns of the "delete" votes. Cunard (talk) 21:35, 22 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 JForget 01:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Morrison[edit]

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

Biography of a living person which lacks references to reliable sources. Claims of notability are not referenced. RadioFan (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It even lacks references to unreliable sources. No mention of him at imdb or amazon. Going back to the other edits by the article creator indicates he graduated Skidmore college. That info turns up this guy, with no indication that it's the same person. Overwhelming lack of evidence to show existence, let alone notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has been the target of a steady stream of vandalism (does anyone agree with me that the proportion of vandals called "Ryan" seems to be much higher than the proportion of Ryans in the general population?), but there is no confirmation of the original version, whose author only edited on the one day he created it. For instance, Google Books doesn't find his alleged three books about sharks. Likely hoax, at best fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified, probable hoax. Note the drily humorous tone of the article. Also, his claim to have hosted Shark Week appears to be false. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I ran a Google query for "Ryan Morrison" and "Alastair Fothergill"; Google did not return any reliable sources that prove that these two people had actually worked together. I ran a Google query for "Ryan Morrison" and "Shark Week"; Google did not return any reliable sources that prove that the article subject had actually hosted the TV show in question. I ran a Google query for "Ryan Morrison" and the quote that he had allegedly said in defense of sharks; Google did not return any reliable sources. And finally, I ran a Google query for "Ryan Morrison" and "Atlantic Sharpnose Shark"; Google did not return any reliable sources. Thus, I am now convinced that this article is a possible hoax. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what looks like some minor schoolboy fantasy. -- Hoary (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelLaVie (talk • contribs) 12:13, 12 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 JForget 01:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powerfull (fragrance)[edit]

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

The article has nothing. It is almost empty, it has like four irrelevant lines, and it doesn't have references. The article must be deleted beacause of its irrelevance and beacuase it is unnecessary. Fortunato luigi (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Article describes a fragrance which was developed but never released. It has no presence on Google at all. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. If it was referenced, I might have suggested merging the info to Fantasy. liquidluck✽talk 03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelLaVie (talk • contribs) 12:15, 12 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 JForget 01:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Real U[edit]

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

No indication of notability. A search returns 46 results, and the only references are self-published. Note that the user also created ToucH RadiO Internet Broadcasting. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - nn person - UtherSRG (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:12, 14 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 JForget 01:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ToucH RadiO Internet Broadcasting[edit]

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

Recreation of a page which has previously been removed as an A7 - not notable (Identical content). " A search on "Touch radio" yields quite a few results, but none seem related. Also note that every reference is self published - and that the domain is .tk. Same user created DJ Real U (Also nominated for removal). Assuming self promotion. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as spam - UtherSRG (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources provided. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:13, 14 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 G6: non-controversial housekeeping and routine cleanup: a dab page with no valid links. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Het (band)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page that disambiguates zero articles and isn't likely to disambiguate any. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 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 redirect to C file input/output. JForget 01:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fflush[edit]

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

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Pcap ping 19:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to C file input/output, as it is an important function for C file I/O. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the other C file functions already redirect there, see [4] 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:56, 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 Delete JForget 01:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3D Flash[edit]

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

This wiki page, because I cannot call it an article, is merely a list of (mostly external) links that presumably use Adobe's Flash to some 3D purpose. The word "unencyclopedic" comes to mind reading it. WP:NOTDIR etc. Pcap ping 19:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone cares to rewrite entirely; this title could potentially be a worthwhile article, but this ain't it. As a standalone list, it would have only three entries once the ones violating WP:ELNO #20 are removed. (Unless some of them are bluelinks in disguise, which seems unlikely.) Classic violation of WP:NOTDIR. —Korath (Talk) 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:39, 13 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 JForget 01:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer prank[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted after a previous AFD, but recreated with different information. I repeat part of the nomination rationale from the previous AFD: "Completely unsourced (and therefore most likely non-notable) and unencyclopedic article. It would probably need a complete rewrite to even become remotely encyclopedic." Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, due to some odd coding issues, I purposely moved the page to "Computer Prank" and created the AFD as "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Prank" and moved it to this title. Closing admin, please delete redirects as necessary if consensus is for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced original research. No hope of an encyclopedic article here.--RadioFan (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research (with a hint of prankishness of its own. "...cause the user to urinate on himself/herself"? Come on!)==MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, unreferenced, and not much different than a regular prank. The article as it stands is a concept salad. --Sigma 7 (talk) 13:18, 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. Well even with the lengthy discussions here, the consensus is quite clear here to delete JForget 00:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of Slovak nationality in Hungarian Kingdom[edit]

This is not an article, its a weak attempt to describe the "problem" Samofi is having in his mind. His personal thoughts are interesting but not wikipedia grade material. It is notable that the creator edited many articles before conforming to his personal views. The "problem" is clearly his and there is no such encyclopeadic topic, as he is trying to invent here. Hobartimus (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hobartimus (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used Slovak-Hungarian book. Name was too long but its about problem of identity in Slovak and Hungarian history. You can see this book, watch link below. Its witten by Slovak and Magyar professors, I used source from Austrian professor in Vienna University. So its against rules of wikipedia delete this article. Its important topic. So we can change name of article or improve article, but not delete. What is you next PERSONAL problem with this? I have here problem only with you and Nmate, for your Magyar nationalism and falsification of history. (Samofi (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Here the names of articles about topic in Magyar and English language:

A szlovák származású elit Magyarország iránt érzett hazafisága a Habsburg-ellenes felkelések idején Ottlyk György köznemes példáján (KÓNYA)

Értelmiségi minták és a Hungarus-tudat (SOÓS)

A nemzetfogalom változatai a 19. századi magyar irodalomban (VARGA)

A lojalitás az etnicizmus és nemzetiség kontextusában és a szlovák politika 1848 – 1849-ben (SKVARNA)

Regionális magyar identitás a XIX. század végén – Felső-Magyarország, Felföld, Felvidék Mikszáth műveiben (KISS)

The Slovakian-born elite felt toward Hungarian patriotism of the anti-Habsburg uprising the example of zeman George Ottlyk

Intellectuals and the samples of hungarus-consciousness

The versions of the nation in Hungarian literature of 19th century

Loyalty in the context of nationality and etnicity in Slovak politics 1848 - 1849

Hungarian regional identity in the nineteenth century - of Upper Hungary, Upper Land, Highlands in the Mikszáth works

--Samofi (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does read like some kind of school esay.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is based on Slovak-Hungarian book (http://www.universum-eu.sk/knihy/071_2007-regionalna_identita.html) Article is important for global understandig of identity in Hungarian Kingdom. Its not personal thoughts I used slovak, hungarian, german and english matherials to be neutral. Sources are written by scholars. Main matherial - http://www.universum-eu.sk/knihy/071_2007-regionalna_identita.html has english abstracts to each chapter so its possible to verify. Its slovak-hungarian article, so neutral. SZARKA is Magyar Professor from Hungarian academy of science, Sutaj is Slovak Professor. Here is online version of book: http://www.saske.sk/SVU/downloads/publikacie/Regionalna_identita_2007.pdf Horbatimus has problems with Slovaks probably he is chauvinist. Maybe its written like essay, but lot of articles starts like stubs or with form as essay and they are improved to encyclopedic version like article about Slovak-Hungarian relations, passage about Malinova Hedviga. NOT DELETE and improve the article. I can later improve this article but Iam busy now. Its big historical issue, its lot of books written about this, but its hot topic for Hungarian nationalists. Write something more constructive for deleteing this article. (Samofi (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

NOT DELETE This is very important article for Slovak-Hungarian history in the case of understanding nationality in Hungarian Kingdom. (Tobar888 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)) — Tobar888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note This is the first and so far only of the above sockpuppet Tobar888. Hobartimus (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be an odd series of inter-related edits of this AfD between User:Samofi, User:Tobar888 and User:78.128.181.9. Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge of the wp:SPI procedures should look into it. » scoops “対談„ 01:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.128.181.9. I think its me, sometimes Iam not logged and write. Last user is not me. --78.128.181.9 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Ok, so iam sure its me now :) but Tobar888 is not me. --Samofi (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tobar888 seems to be a single-purpose account--B@xter⁹ 14:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You told seems. Each editor starts with clean shield. So let Tobar888 to be, and watch his activity in future. --Samofi (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There might possibly be reliable sources for an article on the notable internal conflicts of the multi-ethnic kingdom, but this is not that article. I tried reading the abstracts in that series of essays, but I find the English just awkward enough to make them a pain to follow. Since I can't actually read the other sources, I can't judge their reliability. The larger problem is the article itself. First: the title is not appropriate, though that is not grounds for deletion in itself. More importantly, the article content doesn't make sense. The language is difficult to follow and the tone is not encyclopedic. It comes across as an essay disagreeing with historical labels. I was leaning towards voting to userfy, but there's nothing in the article text worth saving. Whatever notability the material may have isn't presented in this article. Perhaps Samofi can enlist the help of another editor with better English skills to try recreating an article with the appropriate title and content. » scoops “対談„ 03:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked another user for help and I agree that the name of article can be changed and that article is not encyclopedic and my english is not proper. But lot of articles started as essays or stubs and they were improved to encyclopedic form, so its not question about deletion but about improving of this article. I have not read here critics that this article is against wikipedia´s rules, its only technicaly defective and can be improved. So Not Delete it --Samofi (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Uhh...Looks like a personal reflection. The references are not verifiable ([5] and most of them is not even reliable ([6], [7], [8]). Others, like number [1] is not available online, and somewhy i dont think that Samofi owns a copy of that book. Furthermore, it has a lot of factual errors, like: "Modern scholars reflect difference between terms Hungarian and Magyar." and the whole "famouse persons from Hungarian Kingdom of Slovak origin" (i.e. examples:Lászlo Mednyánszky and Tivadar Csontváry Kosztkas' ancestors were Poles, József Károly Hell, Joseph Petzval and Franz Liszt's were Germans). Suggestion to author: Please study wikipedia's i) manual of style, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:CITE. After this issue should be explained in stub- article Natio Hungarica (Right where it belongs).--B@xter⁹ 13:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revrited and used new sources. Last Slovak source is online encyclopedy written by Slovak scholars. So what is next reason for deletion? --Samofi (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is difference between Magyar and Hungarian in modern scholars, Hungarian is used as nation in political sense and Magyar for ethnic, here is book from Aviel Roshwald: [9]

Nobody gave me proofs that its personal reflection. I always put source claiming of my true so not delete. Mednyansky and Kosztka were Slovakized Poles, so Slovaks with Polish origin with Hungarian nationality in political sense. Same with Hell and Petzval but german origin. Mednyansky wrote some of his corespondency in slovak and reflected there his Slovakian nationality. Franz list is of german and slovak ancestry, his grandmother was Barbara Slezak of Slovakian origin [10]. And I did not tell deffinitly, they are disputable. With no Hungarian blood. Its stupid to delete this important article. I miss here more neutral Not Hungarian editors. So I hope admins will not delete it, but they will give an opportunity to improve this article. --Samofi (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read, the less convinced I am about the notability of the topic as written here. People born in the Hungarian empire were called Hungarian, regardless of ethnic heritage. People born in Canada are called Canadian, regardless of ethnic heritage. You can still be an ethnic Slovakian born in Canada, just as you could be an ethnic Slovakian born in Hungary. What is the actual "problem" mentioned in the title? The article doesn't specifically address that. Is the problem just that there is confusion between the Slovakian and Hungarian ethnicities and nationalities? Is that notable in some way?

As an aside, I like to think that I'm a neutral, not-Hungarian editor. » scoops “対談„ 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the difference (i.e. the core of the "problem") between this "old" and "new" nationality, (Hungarians still thinks that nationality in the 19th century is same like nationality in 21th century) nor the problem with "new" and "old sources" (like Britannica, mentioned by Samofi), since persons from Hungary with different ethnicity than Hungarian are well represented with modern English sources, even the mentioned ones: Joseph Petzval Hungarian^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] of German origin^[5]^[6], Franz Liszt Hungarian^[7]^[8] of German origin, Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry Hungarian^[9] painter of Polish^[10] origin, Maximilian Hell Hungarian of German^[11] origin.--B@xter⁹ 14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, article should be more general. Its specified for the case of Slovaks but this topic is about Germans, Slovaks, Jews, Romanians. Look to the sources about for example Slovak inventors. For Slovaks are usualy considered only persons whose made their inevntions abroad (for exampel Aurel Stodola, Jozef Murgaš). Almost all ethnic Slovakian inventors or other famouse people (or with mixed descent slovak-german, slovak-polish, slovak-hungarian). Here in Wikipedia is Hungarian lobby who tries to have "patent" for the history of Hungarian Kingdom. I agree that I have written as essay, but its necessary explanantion of this phenomene. German, English-writing, Slovak, Romanian, Czech, Serbian, Slovenian, Croation scholars and important Hungarians scholars see difference in understand of nationality in Hungarian Kingdom. Hungarian and German scholars use word "Hungarus" for people whose declare thier political nationality as "Hungarian" but they were with different ethnic origin (Kingdom was multiethnic, in 18th century there was only 30% of Hungarians). Slovaks use word Uhor, Czechs - Uher, Yugoslavians - Ugar. English-writing scholars use terms Magyar in ethnical way and Hungarian in political way (see work of Roshwald). I made article [Natio Hungarica] to reflect problem of nationality but nothing changed, Hungarians still thinks that nationality in the 19th century is same like nationality in 21th century. They use old sources (such Britannica) and dont respect evolution in historical understanding of context. Thanx for example from Canada or USA, for example community of Polish-Americans, their delclare Amarican nationality, they use english language in professional life (coz english is scholar language), but at home they speak polish, they eat polish foods, they are part of polish cultural heritage. In examples of Stefan Jedlik or Ladislau Mednansky, parents were Slovaks (in Mednansky family there was croat and polish ancestors in forepast history) but after collapse of Latin language as scholar language in Hungarian Kingdom it was use as scholar language the Magyar language, so it was natural that in public or in professional life they used Magyar language, but for example in short time in Brno had Jedlik lectures in "slovakized-czech [11]" language (students there could not understand Magyar language :) ). Its necessary to understand different nationality of Hungarian Kingdom and present understanding of Hungarian nationality. Its not good for Hungarians because majority of Hungarian inventors were Jews (declared Hungarian nationality because of Magyarization laws - if they wanted to be active in professional live they had to be "Hungarians". It was change from German to Hungarian) and there was lot of ethnic Slovaks. So Iam against deleteing article and killing of this topic. --Samofi (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is your problem that, for example, the Franz Liszt article says, "Franz Liszt [...] (October 22, 1811 – July 31, 1886) was a Hungarian composer, virtuoso pianist and teacher" and that Hungarian points to Hungarian people? While I can see that --if reliable sources indicate-- might need remedy (perhaps by pointing to Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary, or not wiki-linking at all, after a discussion), this article (and AfD) reads more and more like your personal attempt to educate people as to an issue best addressed by the broader ethnic nationalism article. Liszt's ethnicity is dealt with later in his article. Compare Liszt with Henry Ford. Ford was born in the US, and is described as American. His Irish heritage is also noted, but that doesn't change his nationality. If you disagree with how ethnicities/nationalities are wiki-linked in general, you should bring it up some place like the wp:VILLAGEPUMP rather than writing an essay in the main space. »

   scoops

“5x5„ 16:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Linking is one from the problems, small. In sources I have used its discussion about the problem of understandig of nationality in global and in Hungarian Kingdom on the examples of Slovaks. Slovaks were autochthons in Hungarian Kingdom (difference with ethnical origin of people in USA and Canada). Slavic tribes (proto Slovaks) came to this area in 5th century, Turko-Ugric tribes (proto Magyars) in 9th century. I agree that in older times was nationality only in the case of upper Nobility but this understandig of nationality had continuity later. In 18-19th century, in the time of natioanl revival in Europe lot of Slovaks considered as Hungarians (politicaly, state=nationality). But in Slovak langauge and in the other languages of nations in Hungarian Kingdom (except Magyars) it was 2 meanings of Hungarian nationality. In the case of Slovaks: They could considered as Uhor (Hungarian) in political sence and Magyar (Hungarian) in ethnical sence. They could be Uhor (Hungarian) and Slovák (Slovak) in same time - multiple national identity, see this interesting article and book: [12] [13]. In Magyar language this word means same (Magyar - Magyar), like in English. Next problem is that Hungarian editors in Wikipedia doesnt accept Slovak sources, its few books about Liszt´s Slovak origin, one in franche language: [14]. His grandmuther was Slovak, he was member of Slavic congresses, his family lived part of his life in Slovak ethnic area (Malacky), he was able to speak Slovak. I agree with his German origin, majority of his life he was more German than Hungarian, but he belongs to Slovaks, to Germans and to Hungarians. Hungarians make monopol for people from Kingdom. He was cosmopolitan. Persons from this time belongs to multiethnical Kingdom not to Magyars in present sense. So if will deleted this article, it can be new article "Problem of nationality in Hungarian Kingdom" (general) or it can be noticed in the article about Hungarian people and in the article about Hungarian Kingdom. --Samofi (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that this discussion doesn't belong here, as this is a deletion discussion, not a "how to define one's nationality" discussion. I'll be brief.

You may not be aware that this is a common problem, ranging from people with shared origins to cities (one of the most referenced example could be Gdansk), and I can assure you there is no One True Answer. National self-definition is a new thing resulted from the nation state system, before that there was no "Hungarian", "Slovakian", "Romanian" etc, so this whole nationality labeling is quite bad idea before the 17-18th century.

Other than that if there are reliable sources of a person's own nationality self-definition then it should be noted, but in most of the cases there isn't any; in these cases all relevant nationalities should be listed, most probably in order of relevance. I do not object to label Hungarian AND Slovakian origins.

But this has nothing to do with this article in question, which is (in my opinion) beyond repair. -grin ✎ 09:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, in the case of Bernolak. He was Hungarian patriot but creator of Slovak language and ethnic Slovak. He created Slovak, because he wanted to make differenton between Czech and Slovak nations. It was good for Hungarian Kingdom and it was good for Slovaks, they could start to create nationality in moderns sense. But all history of Slovaks in Hungary it was fight between political nationality connected with loyality to Hungarian Kingdom (Hungarian patriotism) and Slovak ethnicity as a part of Hungarian political nation. Weaknes of slovak national consciousness was perverted by Magyar elites to create ethnic Magyar state. It was the stone of the accident. --Samofi (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is begining to look like someones soapbox about some kind of unfairness they percive.13:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete Apart from the obvious national pride behind creating such an article (and I can relate to that, since [we] Hungarians suppressed smaller nations just the same way as we have been suppressed by larger ones) the current article is biased and skewed: if we would accept the need to such essays it should cover generally all nationality around the Carpathian basin and not just slovak one. And I feel somehow that the "rebranded" people listed in the article (as far as I know they assumed themselves as Hungarian, even if originated from multinational families) could be one of the main aspect of the creation of this article. ;-) (This pretty much remind me of Miklos Zrinyi who has been renamed from time to time...) --grin ✎ 16:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian users are not neutral. They take it emocianaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC) --Samofi (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to stop acting uncivilised. Try for a minute considering that your fellow editors may try to be objective before you reject them. And you should notice the fact that I expressly included my nationality to help other readers to decide. (And remember: even emotionally handicapped have one vote to cast.) -grin ✎ 08:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry to you, but some Hungarian editors attacked me to my personal page and speak aboslutely stupid things without references. Such Stubes99 and Horbatimus. --Samofi (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every nation have its share of uncivilised or emotionally overreacting editors. In my experience most sane editors here are quite tolerant to the other (supposedly "competing") nations... Slovakians, Romanians, Serbians, Croatians, Hungarians,... just to name a few who share history and life. --grin ✎ 13:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I share history with Hungarians and other nations in Hungarian Kingdom. I dont want Slovakize history, I dont remove conection of Hungrians with personalities from Hungarian Kingdom. But its here lot of disputable persons, very mixed, with not clear understanding of nationality in present meaning. Its nothing here about regional identity in Hungarian Kingdom, or about dualism of national identity - political/ethnical. From the begin of Hungary it was there Magyars, "Slavs of Hungary" (Slovaks), Serbians, Germans, Valachians - according to Saint Stephan´s speech about multilingual state. And it was to the end of existention of Hungarian Kingdom. It could be persons, whose declared political nationality of Hungary, they could have different origin (ancestors) but they could have different ethnicity too based on the cultural background of area of the major population. I found lot of sources about Petzval, he was Hungarian patriot - but to his Hungarian land. He was of german/moravian ancestry, but lived in Slovak (in that time 57% Slovaks in Spis) ethnic area and his Moravian ancestros could easily assmilated to Slovaks. Same with Kosztka, he was in Slovak elementary school, in town it was German and Hungarian school too. So why Slovak school? Why he went study better Hungarian to Alfold? Slovak people make bad that they want some persons only for themselves, Hungarians make bad that he dont want share multiethnical persons. Its problem of interpretation of nationality in history and in present. --Samofi (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done is reinforce the idea that this page is nothing but nationalist soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How I have done? Coz I react to Hungarian nationalists? See discussion of article. Or coz I put there relevant sources about importance of this article? Its not soapbox, its true. It would not be so many books from Hungarian, German, Slovak, English scholars. --Samofi (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop shouting, in response to your question. One how do you know he's a hungarian nationalist? Two You make a blanket assumption about Hungarians, essentialy accusing them of beging emotional cripples. A clear example of nationalist agenda itself. Moreover your sources do not it appears back up most of what the articel says, its your own synthasis.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yuvp3uoXGScJ:www.ulib.sk/sk/stredisko-unesco/pamat-sveta/pamat-slovenska/zlata-nit-slovenskej-literatury/starsia-slovenska-literatura-800-1780/johannes-de-thurocz-chronica-hungarorum.html+slovak+nationality+in+hungarian+kingdom&cd=10&hl=sk&ct=clnk&client=opera Book about problematics of article on the example of Johannes de Thurocz. --Samofi (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What prblom is this discusing, it does not (as far as I can see) say anything about there being probloms with ethinc Slovaks. In fact the book in question does seem (according to the review) differnetiate between Slovaks and other ethnic groups. So again this looks like synthasis to me. Also not all of the 'Slovaks' mentioned in the artciel appear to be ethnicly slovak, they were just born in Slovakia (as such you may in fact be gulity of the same crime you are attempting to draw attnetion to). For example Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry appears to have been of Polish extraction, not Slovak.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was in slovak elementary school, in town was german and hungarian. he went to present hungary to teach hungarian. his polish ancestors were slovakized and later he was magyarized. --Samofi (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not really even coherent, much less notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, that´s essay, not article. Some parts can be included in Kingdom of Hungary or Magyarization articles nevertheless. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://folk.uio.no/stveb1/Chapter_7_Content_id.pdf This is about topic. --Samofi (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This source does appear to be discugng the idea of Slovak identity, but does not seem to be saying that there was an issue with Slovaks being ignored. Indead (in a sence contradicting your title) it seems to say there was not historical Slovak national identity, but that there was a cultural one (unless that is what your page is about).Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, If would be article membered to theses chapters: 1. Slovak vs. Slavic identity 2. Slovak vs. Hungarian identity 3. Creation of Slovak nationality 3.1 Czech-Slovak language dualism All 4 according to this: [15]

??? --Samofi (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next article about topic: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/633/article.pdf?sequence=2 --Samofi (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about national songs, and the only issue with Slovak identiy it seems to talk about is Czec, not Hungarian. I am begining to think that your have not read these sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read but I took from articles small parts what belongs to topic. --Samofi (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I hate to say it, this article seems to be a personal essay of sorts describing why is it "likely" that many notable historical persons of various origin are supposed to have Slovak origin. There's even the name of Franz Liszt, who was obviously an ethnic German (yet he claimed all the time to be Hungarian). Sure, there are many sites where such writings are more than welcome (even the Slovak Wikipedia might be...), but I doubt the English Wikipedia is among them.

To Samofi: I've checked some of the sources you cited, but most of them are either deadlinks, irrelevant (what does a German article dealing with the usage of German in the KoH have to do AT ALL with Slovaks?), or very vague in their nature (citing >300 pages long books without the exact page numbers you've gotten the text from is NOT proper sourcing). The latter gives a suspicion of citing some books which *might* contain relevant arguments to support your claims, but probably didn't make sure it actually does. And Wikipedia's not a place for original research, as other might've pointed it out to you. Besides you seem to be missing the point the articles you've cited try to make: sure, KoH wasn't a nation-state (until the beginning of the 19th century, that is), but it didn't pretend that. And besides there wasn't a single nation-state in Europe at the time. Even the concept of nation-state has been born in the French revolution I think. Actually there were 2 concepts even for the term "nation" at the time: the French "model" stated that you're French as long as you speak French, act like French and say that you're French. The other was the German concept, which stated that you're German as long as you live within the borders of a German state (or Germany later), and that's it. I think at the beginning the second concept was prevalent in Hungary as well, until they were overwhelmed with the scholars of the French concept (Kossuth & co. I think). As we know, one thing led to another. But before the whole concept of the nation-state was born, Hungary/KoH was a feudal state. It means that only people who had an estate (feudal tenure) had any rights whatsoever, regardless of nationality. Therefore the only way to determine one's nationality is the "regular" way: to look up what one said about himself, his writings etc. and certainly not by ASSUMING (you know, the process in which you make an ASS of U & ME) this from the place he was born, lived in etc. As that leads to myths and not facts. One last note: if you really want to add some RELEVANT information about the topic, why don't you try expanding the "Natio Hungarica" article instead with RELEVANT and trustworthy information? Everybody would be definitely more interested in hearing the truth about history (especially its own) instead of some mythical fabrications. CoolKoon (talk) 11:51, 13 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wire (JTF-GTMO)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUB IQinn (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow some time for concerns to be addressed. The rules on self publication are largely written to avoid conflicts of interest and/or misrepresentation of Notability and Verifiability from primary sources. There's a clear procedural consensus that official government publications are an exception. More often than not government publications on a particular subject are the primary or even only source available on the topic. This is especially true regarding legal and military events. As for the GNG portion of the nomination criteria it's important to keep in mind both the above and that, as a military publication, it is more often cited than talked about. At the same time I'm not going to argue that interested editors need to begin to seek out additional independent coverage should they wish to build a sustainable and relevant article. As it stands now though I'd say that as a clearly verifiable publication with an eight year history in a high profile area with severely limited public access is deserving of a stay of execution. It would behoove interested editors to keep in mind though that the complaints about GNG are legit and need to be fixed in the near future. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a view on your contributions to Wikipedia shows that you are heavily involved in United States military articles and you might have more information than i have. I do not know any policy or consensus on Wikipedia that makes exceptions for military publications like The Wire (JTF-GTMO) regarding WP:SELFPUB or WP:GNG. Could you please point me to this policies or discussions.

Regarding WP:SELFPUB: It 100% fails WP:SELFPUB as the article is based primarily (entirely) on self published sources.

Regarding WP:GNG that the article fails you say (correct me if i am wrong). The article fails WP:GNG but you are confident that this could be addressed in the future. I disagree and i think we could make this claim for any article that fails WP:GNG. Not everything that comes from the military is notable. Under WP:GNG a topic should have "Significant coverage" in secondary sources. I doubt that this is the case here and will be in the future. You and other editors are welcome to point us to such sources or add these sources to the article. I for my part have intensely searched for any secondary sources that address the subject (The Wire (JTF-GTMO) directly in detail, and could not find them. IQinn (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia articles currently cite approximately a dozen articles from this publication. I believe the publication is an WP:RS, not self-published, as nominator asserts. I suggest that when wikipedia articles cite references from a publication this is a sufficient justification for having an article about it. Readers who look at our articles' references are entitled to read neutral balanced coverage of those publication -- to aid them in forming their own opinion in order to form their own conclusions of their credibility. Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT WP:VER#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves -- isn't this aimed at the personal web-pages of individuals, and of the 99% of amateur bloggers who aren't experts? Isn't it inappropriate to level this challenge at a publication with an editor, and writers and photographers, who produce the publication because it is their job? Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the citations in Wikipedia have been created by the same author who has written the article (The Wire (JTF-GTMO). Please understand WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUB. It requires a topic should have Significant coverage in secondary sources and Wikipedia does not count as secondary source. I respect your personal opinion but the fact is that no secondary source has published about the (The Wire (JTF-GTMO) so that it fails WP:GNG and WP:SELFPUB and i do not see the reason why we should make an exception because of the personal opinion of one editor who likes to use this propaganda publication to verify the tons of propaganda article that he has written about Guantanamo related topics. IQinn (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while referencing is an issue, I don't think it warrants deletion in this case. I think we can consider the publication an RS, and since the article doesn't make any dubious claims, I don't think that there is any urgency to get remove it. A quick Google search does yeild some results, so I'd recommend using the time to improve the article rather than push for it's deletion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your past contribution to Wikipedia shows that you are heavily involved in US military articles and you may have information i do not have. Could you please post a link to the results of your Google search that would show some secondary sources that address the subject (The Wire (JTF-GTMO) directly in detail and would be suitable to include in the article? My search still does not show any of such sources so i would be curious to see these sources that you claim exist. Thank you IQinn (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I added 3 outside sources to the first sentence. Took a whole 5 minutes! Instead of all this wasted time going back and forth, maybe somebody could have, oh, done a Google News Archives, Scholar, or Books search? DCico (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the work but let me point out some concerns. The references you just added do not address the subject directly in detail. I do not see that these references are sufficient under WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail and that this is more than a trivial mention. The quality of these referemces concern me. What do they say about the subject? Could you please explain what this fictional mystery/thriller novel that you have added as a reference say about The Wire (JTF-GTMO) the subject of our article? IQinn (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The novel indicates that The Wire is a sufficiently remarkable feature of Guantanamo to be included in a fictionalized account of life there by a major publisher. On a sidenote, the inclusion of actual excerpts from The Wire implies that its contents are part of the grain of life there or are at least indicative, in some way, of a state of mind there. To settle any additional concerns about the source, I have moved the citation to a new paragraph at the bottom noting the newspaper's inclusion in fiction.

Could you take 10 minutes to help dig up a couple more sources? Thanks. DCico (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain where this fictional mystery/thriller novel that you have added as a reference mention the "The Wire (JTF-GTMO) magazine" and where does it say that the magazine has played any role in the Thriller or writing of the triller? I do not see this claims as verified and i just had a close look at it. Please provide us at least with a few sentence quote where you see this as verified.

I have already dug more that 10 minutes and other editors did the same. The fact that we do not find lots of references shows that this subject does not have "Significant coverage" what is required to achieve notability under WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cite link itself goes to Google Books with the references to The Wire newspaper highlighted. However, I went ahead and copied the sentences referencing The Wire into the article talk page and then removed the request quote tag. DCico (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 more cites added. Research refresher, maybe? DCico (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the hard work! There might be still some problems with a few of the references that have been added but considering the large improvement that have been made since nomination and the strong support for this topic from other editors i have no objection when an administrator goes ahead and closes this nomination as keep. IQinn (talk) 00:09, 14 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 JForget 00:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ska vegas[edit]

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

I proposed the article for deletion and DESiegel declined it. However, it has been several weeks since I posted User talk:DESiegel#Ska vegas and there has been no reply. My concern is that there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, as described there. PleaseStand ^(talk) 17:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:54, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miser[edit]

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

Nom - Unsourced dictionary definition with ongoing BLP issues. This AfD should pretty much go the way of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curmudgeon Rklawton (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is more than a simple dictionary definition and could be expanded. If there are BLP issues, the article should simply be protected. Laurent (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - it's not sourced, and it's identical in form to Curmudgeon. Rklawton (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the article could potentially be developed by citing studies about misers in literature. See for example this source (a blog but he's talking about an article in the Guardian) or that one. Laurent (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The same could be said of Curmudgeon. And lest I appear pointy, I agree with Curmudgeon's deletion for the reasons cited. Wictionary can handle the literature aspect of this topic with useful examples throughout history. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No, it's not a dictionary definition, it's a thinly disguised compilation that might as well be called List of famous cheapskates which will, if kept, need quite a bit of cleanup. Although I like lists, and this one is interesting, it violates WP:OR because of almost zero sourcing and it's definitely a violation of WP:POV. Whether someone is a "miser" is a matter of opinion, and some of the opinions expressed in the article are weird. It's somewhat of a surprise to see the term applied to Andrew Carnegie, perhaps the greatest philanthropist of the early 20th century. For Jack Benny, it was "all an act". The only person whom I've seen described by others as a miser is the infamous Hetty Green, who got the "she was so mean..." write up in the Guinness book for many years. I don't think there's a motivation for anyone to turn this from a "fun" article into an encyclopedia article. I'll be happy to withdraw my delete if I see any attempt at making it worthwhile. Mandsford (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As would I. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that this work is someone else's problem? We have more need of contributors than inspectors. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as List of misers and replace with a dab page (The Miser, Pete Miser, The Miser by Vasily Pashkevich) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the page would make the article's problems worse rather than better. It would encourage editors to add yet more examples when what the article needs more is general commentary on the broad concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If people want sources then they should roll up their sleeves and add some per our editing policy. AFD is not clean up but I have added several sources to the article to show willing and demonstrate how it is done. There is not the slightest case for deletion and we see none of the due diligence prescribed by our deletion process — the talk page for the article has not been used since 2007. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am happy to withdraw my delete based on the Colonel's improvements, which have added more context and citations to make this more than what was essentially an unsourced list. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a simple dictionary definition, and no one ever reads wiktionary anyway. Dream Focus 13:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. If there was a link to it on the sidebar or anywhere else on the page, the old "transwiki to Wiktionary" would be okay. However, it's difficult to reach, seems to have no reason to exist other than as a distraction, and I've never actually known anyone who ever looked at it. For that matter, who looks at Wikinews? One might as well say "maybe if you Google it you'll find what you're looking for". Mandsford (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice rescue job, Colonel Warden. As it stands the article is encyclopedic and sourced, as well as being interesting. It also avoids BLP problems by listing only dead people and fictional people. It may be necessary to keep an eye on the page to make sure it isn't used to violate BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - notable concepts are always notable - and WP:HEY - improved and rescued articles should be kept. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article looks to have good sources. Miser is a classic archetype along with hero, villain, mentor, damsel... if none of those are red links, then this shouldn't be either. Arskwad (talk) 06:58, 12 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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMDC (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Server management daughter card currently has no article for itself and is unmentioned on Wikipedia, so this disambiguation page is unnecessary. Claritas (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SMDC as long the other article doen't exist. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of a redirect ? No one is actually going to type SMDC (disambiguation) into the search bar. Claritas (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To preserve article history. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know well your guide lines. In it:wiki we have not so much pages so we use redlink to involve who's looking for an article in writing. I didn't find Server management Daughter Card and i created this disambiguation page. Now, apart that, feel free to act as guidelines require. if my reason aren't relevant. Bye --Pierpao (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wOT:if your are planning to go to Europe during the next summer, give a chance to Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland :)--Pierpao (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added one more entry and another red link (i don't understand if i could or not)--Pierpao (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are other legitimate entries that meet disambiguation guidelines, even if some of the initial entries did not. older ≠ wiser 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - legitimate entries have been added, so the disambiguation page no longer meets any deletion criteria. Claritas (talk) 19:40, 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 JForget 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Adkins[edit]

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

College baseball player should mean not notable, even if he won some All-Conference honors in a low level conference. Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's not inherently notable, and I don't see any indication that he meets WP:GNG Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small College baseball player, has not played professionally. Spanneraol (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have many discussions at the College Football Project about notability of players at the college level compared to pros. The arguments are in favor of player notability include the widespread coverage of college football. You may or may not agree with that particular case, but I would submit to you that college baseball enjoys much, much less widespread coverage than college football. Since college football players are at least "borderline" or certainly enough to argue about it, I would say that the significantly less coverage of college baseball makes a clear-cut reason to not allow "blanket notability" to college baseball players.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 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 keep. All delete !votes withdrawn following Sodabottle's sources. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mood Indigo (culfest)[edit]

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

An article on a student festival with no independent sources and a history of blatantly promotional editing. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the claims to notability are great, but unless we see independent sources substantiating these claims, the article should go. I'm guessing that such sources will not be hard to find, and I'll be pleased to change my vote at that time but not earlier. Rklawton (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - sourced and stubbed. I have removed all the advert like language and sourced all remaining claims with RS. It is the biggest college festival in India and there is no shortage of coverage in electronic and print media.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A case of "less is more". Good work. You can non-admin close this as withdrawn if you like. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 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 DeleteJForget 00:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Meiners[edit]

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

College baseball player, not notable Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small College baseball player, has not played professionally. Spanneraol (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drafted 888th says it all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:37, 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 delete. The article does not even attempt to explain why we should care or who AJ Calhoun is, therefore it lacks context and does not make a reasonable claim of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Calhoun's Favorite Movies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AJ Calhoun's Favorite Movies

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

I cannot find reliable sources about AJ Calhoun. Even if there was, the article shouldn't stand alone since it is a list of unsourced trivia. Clubmarx (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure that A.J. Calhoun is the article's author, and I have no doubt that these are his favorite movies. I wish I could see a pattern here, to gain an insight into his soul, but it must remain a mystery... Mandsford (talk) 18:48, 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 JForget 00:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ASU Baseball All-Time Letterman List[edit]

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

A list of questionable notability that links to nobody Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO. Clearly, this is lifted straight from the Arizona State baseball media guide (pages 112-115 to be exact). While I'm sure that someone typed until their fingers bled, or did cut-and-paste until they felt like they had been pitching a game, the proper method is to put a link into the article Arizona State Sun Devils baseball. Mandsford (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Spanneraol (talk) 01:33, 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 JForget 00:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Emil Pavlik[edit]

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

College baseball player, played a little bit of minor league ball. Are his college honors enough? I don't think so. Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His career never advanced above Class-A in the minors. His college accomplishments are not enough.Spanneraol (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Close but no cigar. The records in college appear to at least get close to notablity, but when the dust clears... nope. At least, not for the standards we have set here. Try another Wiki ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:39, 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. No arguments for deletion, period. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Worlds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating per DRV that was closed as relist at AfD. The original debate concerns the notability of the subject. At DRV, [16](translation), [17](translation) are asserted to be the requisite significant coverage in independent sources. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 16:40, 8 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) 18:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IGN [18] has it listed. GameSpy has an entry. RPS has an entry. GameZone has is listed. Gamasutra has entry. Of course Russian AG and Dutch Eurogamer as a proper review. Also news on update article. — Hellknowz ▎talk 19:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable per the sources listed by Hellknowz. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it well sourced (Idot (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per above comments. Article should be tagged for expansion and cleanup but not deleted. -Thibbs (talk) 14:29, 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. Shimeru (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dulwich and Sydenham Hill Golf Club[edit]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. Nice view but fails WP:ORG. Nancy ^talk 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of coverage in third-party sources other than golf directories. Might be worth a mention in the Dulwich article (it's already mentioned in Sydenham), but I don't see what this article says other than where it is. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Sydenham Hill or Dulwich (or both). This is usually the best solution for such local facilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 13 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Verkhovskaya[edit]

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

This article is no more than a resume for Ms Verkhovskaya. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the place to the post your resume or to promote one's achievements. The article might be reasonably well referenced, but it needs to be a lot more than a list of what interesting jobs she did and the dates on which she did them. Astronaut (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Deletion rationale makes no sense whatsoever, article text appears to appropriately reflect subject's notable achievements. Any tone issues can be resolved by ordinary editing processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like the article should pass notability. It just needs cleanup. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Sourcing improved, and some biographical details have been added, so changing to Weak Keep Sourcing is weak, and it is a resumé with a very promotional tone rather than a biography, which would have sourced info about place and date of birth, education, and family. She somehow sprang into existence in 1994 and had a series of jobs since then. There is much name dropping: notability is not inherited from being employed in the production of a movie, or by association with Stephen Spielberg. Only the first 2 references amount to significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Most sourcing is either press releases from the business, like a press release reprinted in "Thai Business Journal" or passing references, or refs about some film which she worked on which do not specifically mention her, or directory listings, or winner of some award given to dozens of recipients per year by The Christophers. Yet there is just enough meat there in the first two refs plus bits of info from the others to satisfy WP:BIO, after the improvements made to the article during the period it was up for AFD.Edison (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to learn that the individual aparently was born and raised in the USSR and managed to flee from the then-existing country to the United States as a political refugee when a teenager.[19][20] It follows and is reasonable to understand why sources addressing a Jewish teenager in the Soviet Union and her family background and education in that now-non-existant political entity will be quite difficult to obtain. This also explains why the chronologicaly subsequent information available in the US toward her life and achievements is so much more readily accessible.

Toward the "name-dropping", her work with Steven Speilberg has now been set in context as part of her overall notability in it reflecting her work and activism in holocaust-related issues. Though one might hope that more is found about this individual's youth in the USSR, as being able to share her growing up as a Jew in an anti-semetic country and then managing to excape to the west would likely be quite helpful for Wikipedia readers in increasing their understanding of the subject, it is in what she has done as an adult that shows notability. In its now-improved state, it can be seen that the young woman has made a mark for herself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per assertions of notability that meet WP:N and numerous available reliable sources toward expansion and improvement... both in the article and on line. Yes, indeed... the article appears to have been written by someone totally unfamiliar with WP:MOS, and is thus in need of a rewrite to address style issues... but those are surmountable issues and will just require a little work. Heck... if no else does it I may be able to get to it myself tommorrow after work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Though still under work, article concerns are being addressed to create a properly encyclopedic article about this individual and her accomplishments. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's reasons are ridiculous. All notable people have their career achievements listed in their article. Ample references in article already. Dream Focus 03:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons listed above. Hers is a remarkable career, and references already make the grade. An editor willing to follow through and make this article realize its potential will have accomplished something quite worthwhile. Evalpor (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the the superb effort by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) to make the article properly encyclopedic, I think it is appropriate that I withdraw my nomination to delete this article. Hopefully, this shows that it takes more than a list of notable achievements to make a biographical article encyclopedic. Astronaut (talk) 23:59, 12 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 Noctograph. JForget 01:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noctography[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NEO - unsourced article about a non-notable neologism. Claritas (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to night photography. Don't include in lead unless sources show that this is used frequently. It's little else it can be so rd seems unproblematic. Taemyr (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to night photography. Same reason: neologism WP:NEO. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to noctograph. After DMacks thoughtful comments and in light of the new article noctograph about some sort of writing instrument, I have changed my opinion and believe "notography" should redirect to the writing instrument. This belief rests on two assumptions. One, that the writing instrument is itself a notable article. And two, that the night photography version of "noctography" has not been proven to be in widespread use and therefore does not deserve any article, including a redirect. If appropriate third person support is found to suggest "noctography" for night photography is gaining traction, then I would support a disambiguation page. Until then, it is just something somebody made up. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noctography also refers to an unrelated photographic technique involving long exposure times, hence the disambiguation page. Claritas (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without redirect)^† as WP:NEO. Is there any evidence that the word is used/known really at all with this meaning other than by coiner? Googling finds another meaning ("painting with light"--essentially using moving light sources to create patterns on photographic plate, for example ~~time-lapse~~time exposure of highway with headlights making lines) that apparently is an artform with some following. And comments on their message-boards say that the Benbow-claimed meaning is not the same real meaning and not notable (in the casual not WP:N sense) itself. And there's an entirely different OED-supported definition (one also used in some apparently important scholarship) involving writing for the blind. So the term as meant in the article is not notable in that sense, and adding a redirect to what might be the least popular/notable use doesn't seem to be worthwhile. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^†...and replace with alternate content per following discussion. DMacks (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Incidentally, concerning the OED definition, I created the article Noctograph earlier today. Would a redirect there be appropriate ? Claritas (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd be more comfortable with a DAB page listing that and time-exposure. Two very different meanings in wildly different genres. DMacks (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I've created one at Noctography (disambiguation), and I propose redirecting Noctography there once the discussion is finished. Regards. Claritas (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Looks nice. May as well just move the (dab) page to replace the one at the primarytopic rather than redirecting to it. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Turn into disambiguation page~~ Redirect to Noctograph. (Tips of the hat to DMacks and Claritas.) Let's look at the initial "Noctography" article, composed by an editor with the possibly relevant name of "Noctographer": Noctography was a term coined in 2007 by Chris Benbow and is now a worldwide terms used by photographers. It is an abbreviated term of the words Nocturnal Photography. Noctography is a word that Chris Benbow is hoping that will be made in to the dictionary one day because of it's mass usage. Noctography is any sort of photography done at night on either film or digital. Nice try, Chris. Trouble is, you shot yourself in the foot with a bazooka. The disambig page should be watched to ensure that it doesn't mention this goofy attempt at a neologism for a pointless notion. (Any sort of photography? Even that done within a studio with the same artificial lighting options 24 hours a day?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Amended. Yes, Noctograph can become a disambiguation page IFF there's much evidence for the second use (about time exposure) in addition to the subject now covered by Noctograph. (None of this has anything to do with any innovation of one Chris Benbow.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The building, which most of the information in the article is about, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore it is clearly notable and WP:CORP is not relevant. Nev1 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nev1. (GregJackP (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per Nev1. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep NRHP-listed! Why are we here, really? LadyofShalott 17:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination is bizarre. ^Bongo_matic 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopewell Presbyterian Church (Dillsboro, Indiana) LadyofShalott 17:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I guess this is my fault, as I made a disparaging comment about this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopewell Presbyterian Church (Dillsboro, Indiana). I do have a question, though? Does listing on NRHP make the church notable according to WP policy? Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) is a failed proposal. St Anselm (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been established in multiple other AfDs that sites on the NRHP (and the counterparts in England, listed buildings) are considered notable by Wikipedia's standards because of the amount of documentation associated with such structures as well as the government recognition that they are important. From the NRHP website: "Listing in the National Register honors a historic place by recognizing its importance to its community, State or the Nation". Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability derives from the structure, through NHRP, not the organization. It doesn't matter that the organization likely fails WP:CORP. PhGustaf (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The congregation, as an organization, fails notability. However, the structure meets notability by its listing on the National Register of Historic Places. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as above - can we take off the nasty looking afd notice? Smallbones (talk) 19:53, 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 JForget 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chessammo[edit]

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

No notability SyG (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable game with article functioning as advertising. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unambiguous ad for what would probably make a great Father's Day gift (I'll spoil the surprise-- it's a chess set, and all of the pieces are brass and aluminum bullets, ranging from 9mm pawns to the 30-06 King). The article even has an instruction for someone who asks "How come they call it chest?"-- "The object of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king, whereby the king is under immediate attack (in "check") and there is no way to remove or defend it from attack on the next move." Mandsford (talk) 18:58, 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 redirect to Shapeshifting . JForget 01:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal transformation fantasy[edit]

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

"A theme in fantasy or erotica as a sexual fetish". Dictionary definition with no sources and little context. Suggest merge or delete. Stillwaterising (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is already covered in Shapeshifting and most psychological literature seems to include it as Shapeshifitng --Savonneux (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to shapeshifting, though its an unlikely search string.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to shapeshifting. -- Karada (talk) 15:45, 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 Delete JForget 00:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Grant[edit]

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

Unsuccessful election candidate in recent UK General Election. No hint of being notable for anything else therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN and notability criteria. Valenciano (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. A PPC who is also the leader of a council opposition group is better than usual, but I can only find incidental coverage in the local papers. Open to change my mind on presentation of better evidence of media coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN and can see no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Qwfp (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN as councillor and NN as failed Parliamentary candidate. Leaders of councils may possibly be notable (but usually are not); leaders of the oppossition certainly are not. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 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 merge to May 6, 2010 Flash Crash. Clearly no need for two articles on the subject, so a merge seems the better solution. Shimeru (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street panic of May 6, 2010[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. article about a recent trading anomaly - No reason to think it will be of significance outside the next few weeks. noq (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. No sign at the moment that this event will have any lasting significance and if it's relevant it can be included in relevant articles on financial crisis. Valenciano (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. And "panic" is a highly subjective word, considering what happened. Joal Beal (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not everything in the news is barred by WP:NOTNEWS. The working title isn't very good, and there may well be a meatier article than this one, since it isn't unusual for several editors to be starting an article independently of each other. This one, however, has the makings of historical significance. Unlike most Wall Street anomalies, this one was triggered by an error and compounded by a computer; is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission; is leading to calls for reform of "high frequency trading" in the way that computer programs are used in buying and selling; etc. etc. [21]. While most of the Dow's price fluctuations aren't newsworthy, this one was a drop of more than 1,000 points (10 percent) in a matter of minutes. It's notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will this be a notable event in 10 years that people will look up on Wikipedia. Waste of project space. - A ML-Talk-Cont-Count
Comment Its recived a fair degeee of coverage, anmd I bleive is now the subject of an investigation. As such this may be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been called an historic drop,"the steepest decline ever [22] in which the Dow dropped over 977 points and lost 9% of its value, until program buying kicked in. It was the "biggest intraday loss since the crash of 1987[23]." It was a drop of 1 trillion dollars in market value. It has had strong coverage in the short while since the occurrence, and President Obama, lawmakers and regulators are proposing revisions [24]to trading practices to prevent a recurrence, indicating it is more than a one day news story. Edison (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mandsford. Obviously notable event by all definitions, and let's stop using NOTNEWS as a blanket excuse to delete whatever people do not like. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because something is in the news, does not mean it falls under NOTNEWS. As Edison has stated, this was a drop for the record books, which gives it the appearance (at least at this time) of lasting notability. Whether this notability is real or illusory is impossible to tell this close to the actual event. Keeping the article now, allowing it to be worked on, and then perhaps brought back here for re-examination later would be the most prudent course of action. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as the market is now being moved by gross reflex action, so we have here a deletion nomination being made as a reflex, without the proper consideration and discussion laid down by our deletion process. The article was proposed for deletion within an hour of its creation and there was no preliminary discussion of this. When the prod was removed, there was still no discussion and the article still does not have a talk page. Bringing the issue to AFD should be a last resort, not an immediate escalation. We have several articles which cover this general topic area such as Algorithmic trading and it is our editing policy to keep good sourced information so that we may improve topics like this. WP:NOTNEWS excludes mundane news like weather forecasts and traffic reports, not remarkable occurrences which are explicitly noticed and acted on by the most important people in the world. Breaking news should be given time to mature before rushing to AFD so that the topic may be understood, the sources compiled, due diligence be done and good alternatives to deletion explored. As recommended, new page patrollers should please patrol the bottom of the queue, not the top, so that they are dealing with articles that are at least a day old and so have had time to develop. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor blip in the daily news feed. WP:NOTNEWS is in place to cover items of passing, trivial interest. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt's hard to believe you have read the cites I included above, and then make that comment. Edison (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of imagination is not my concern, sorry. :) There is no lasting significance of the event beyond the day that it happened, no 1929 market crash. A single day when the market went south, the media did its usual masturbatory glee over it, and then on to Lady GaGa's newest fashion line. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of research is my concern. :) This wasn't just about the market going south. Many stocks which were valued at say $80 a share briefly traded for 1 or even 0 cents. This has never happened in the history of financial markets. Stocks don't usually lose 8000% of their value in 5 minutes and then almost immediately rebound. --Rajah (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather dickish to keep suggesting that those who hold opposing points of view are some sort of backwoods rednecks who lack the ability to read about a news event beyond the headline. Stocks drop, stocks rebound, it was a day of news and some minor fodder for the Daily Show. If this had caused a huge and continuing decline, sure, it would probably with article-worthy. No one will remember this in a few months time, at it has had no lasting impact or WP:EFFECT elsewhere. Everyone else in the world has moved on; so should you.Tarc (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources - That's what happened in this case. Also, WP:EFFECT: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. . As for your "no one will remember this in a few months time", well, if it is the case, this is a strong reason I'd have personally for keeping -documenting notable events even if they disappeared from the front pages is a strongly encyclopedic purpose in my view. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a "widespread impact". Funny, but coming in to work today I didn't pass many sharecroppers making their way across the Dustbowl. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Stocks don't usually lose 8000% of their value in 5 minutes and then almost immediately rebound." Actually, nothing ever loses 8000% of its value, ever. The most that anything can lose is 100% of its value. Physalia physalis (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event, for its financial magnitude, quickness, and mystery as to its exact cause is unique and unprecedented. It has been reported on by large numbers of reliable, international sources. It is interesting, and will be studied, and people will want to read about it well into the future. Learn something - read a book today! (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Random intraday stock market fluctuations aren't notable, but this is different (otherwise it would have dropped out the news immediately). The market move by itself is just a curiosity--the frantic search for causes, and possibility of trader/computer errors give this more potential for long term notability. If something like this had happened 30 years ago, and it was sufficiently well-documented, I don't think anyone would want to delete it. Let it develop, and if the story does drop out of the news cycle without a trace, you can always renominate it in a couple of months. 140.247.253.91 (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

admittedly, the article as it stands needs a lot of improvement--doesn't really explain the event's notability. 140.247.253.91 (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with May_6,_2010_market_event which is better sourced (though it needs more on the hypothesis of technical error). I suppose those who think this is NOTNEWS should nominate that one too... 140.247.240.144 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:*Merge I don't see why wikipedia should have two separate articles about the exact same thing, so I like your idea of a merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooka and Fygar (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Oops! I guess I forgot to do those four things! Pooka and Fygar (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Merge This is a major unprecedented event in the financial markets. If we delete this article, then we should delete Black Monday (1987) etc. I have merged this article into the May 6, 2010 market event already. It is heavily sourced, verifiable, and of lasting importance. --Rajah (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merger ~~is required~~could be appropriate, since it was one notable event on one day. Edison (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, nothing is "required". This why we're here, to have a discussion on the matter and for all that are interested to weigh in. Your comment is rather odd...and not to be tallied separately in the final consideration, as you already voted earlier. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic of the two articles seems to be the same, and it is silly to thus have two such articles. Merge is an argument consistent with keep, since the references and content can be kept. No "tally" is necessary since this is not a vote. Edison (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed they do seem to be about nthe saem event, So I will change my vote to merge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Merge We already have May 6, 2010 Flash Crash which is a neater and more thorough article. --NortyNort (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested What the title should be will need some revision as we see what becomes the standard. Neither article is really very good, and a great deal more should and will be said as the expected sources and studies accumulate. But the original idea to delete this is about as absurd a misunderstanding of NOT NEWS as I can imagine. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge this is reliably sourced, and further investigations by the SEC should yield more information and thus Notability. Not News is about something that would be not talked about for more than a day (like "Joe Blow was killed in the 300 block of oak street. criminal was found near the scene and arrested" or "Paris Hilton spotted in Las Vegas"); this is clearly a mis-application of the concept. It was also, as someone above put it "Unique and unprecedented." --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with May 6, 2010 Flash Crash per DGG - seems a notable topic (but would be better covered in only one article). Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 16 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Stephens (wrestler)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007. No reliable sources found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obivious keep. A quick search found this ref to back up the tag-team title claim. Lugnuts (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that the reference has been added to the NWA website - I don't know about whether this is counted as a reliable source or not, but the reference merely lists that he fought, it is not significant coverage about Larry himself -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. (Does WP:ATHLETE apply to professional wrestlers?) Joal Beal (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ATHLETE presumably applies, and this individual does not meet the criteria. Claritas (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP:ATHLETE states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which this guy has, and he won a major title while doing so. Lugnuts (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless you want to start precedent which will lead to us going through and wholesale deleting all Professional Wrestlers because they are not mentioned in WP:ATHLETE. We have a source, he wrestled in the NWA and won a Tag-Team title, much less the years he spent in multiple organizations (which all those guys do).Trackinfo (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe in wholesale deletion - however, there are other wrestling articles which are unreferenced - if I come across them, I will look for RS to add, and if I can't find any, I am willing to AfD them. If you look at my contributions over the last couple of weeks, you will see that there are as many articles which I have found references for which have been unreferenced since May 2007, as there are articles which I have brought to AfD. I don't bring articles to AfD unless I have looked for references at RS. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a world of difference though between someone who is notable with no RS and someone who isn't notable with no RS. Then again, the WP:ATHLETE guidance isn't exactly comprehensive! Lugnuts (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ATHLETE definitely applies, and he easily makes the cut because he has competed at the fully professional level of his sport. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable, competed at the top level of his sport, won the NWA Tag Title. Obvious Keep--Curtis23's Us al ions 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, with respects to the nominator. The subject does seem to fall under, and pass, the notability criteria for athletes. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:28, 16 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 JForget 00:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RuPaul's Drag Race Season 3[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/RuPaul's Drag Race Season 3

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

PRODed twice, each time removed by IP w/o changes or improvement.

WP:CRYSTAL -- this thing presumably starts winter 2011. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice in recreating the article when the program is actually broadcast and is subject to proper reference sources. Joal Beal (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It can be recreated when the show premiere's....next year! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 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. I don't think there was any doubt that this institution existed and only one !voter addressed the lack of reliable sources in regards to WP:N. However, this discussion has already been open for 3 weeks so it's time to close it. I'm surprised that nobody bought up the possibility of a merge. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Institute of Technology[edit]

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

All components of a university are not notable and this is an unsourced, recenter organizational creation. MBisanz ^talk 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All university-level institutions are notable. "Affiliated with" is not the same as "part of". I added a reference that confirms that the institution exists, but doesn't provide any significant detail. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - post-graduate degree-awarding institutions are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastman and TerriersFan. --Lambiam 13:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is the coverage in reliable sources? Reference number 1 (the only reference) is quite plainly self-published. If it isn't there, we can't have a verifiable article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Used the way it is here, that is considered acceptable for the purpose of verifiability; see WP:SELFPUB. Furthermore, the absence of reliable sources (which IMO does not apply here) is not by itself a ground for deletion; only when the information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources (see WP:DEL#REASON). --Lambiam 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL#REASON takes us to the relevant notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:ORG) both of which rely on coverage in reliable sources. I agree that self-published sources can be acceptable for certain purposes, but I disagree that an entire article's content can properly be supported by self-published sources. Otherwise the article becomes a vehicle for the self-publication and wikipedia should not be doing that. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The DirectChennai reference added to the article appears to be copied from the About college section of the 'MIT' website. ~~The distances between cities don't appear to match up, so the reference does not seem very reliable.~~ It could be notable with respect to the guidelines, but not without any independent and reliable sources. EMBaero (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distance mentioned is correct; Arasur is about 16 km from Coimbatore. Salih (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there two Arasurs? The only one I can find in Tamil Nadu looks like it's about 350km from Coimbatore - [25] -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arasur you have found is in Viluppuram district, which is about 350 km from Coimbatore. The one mentioned in the article is in Coimbatore [26]. There could be more Arasurs! Salih (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my location question is answered. The article now has some more reliable sources that may eventually be improved upon, so I am striking out my opinion to delete. EMBaero (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I have added a ref to the institute's own site). Despite reservations about third-party sources, it seems to me that we have sufficient sources to show that the place exists and that it awards post-grad qualifications (it is also shown on a number of listings sites which, while not in-depth discussion, does lend support to the claim that it exists as described). I think showing that it exists and that it offers post-grad degrees establishes sufficient notability to avoid deletion (unless the possible discrepancy regarding distance from Coimbatore turns out to be something suspicious). -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We routinely keep articles on high schools that are verified to exist, so it would be perverse to delete an article on a post-graduate institute. It is easily verifiable that there is an Arasur in the outskirts of Coimbatore so any doubt about the location is a red herring. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FWIW, i am from (and reside in) Coimbatore and this college does exist. --Sodabottle (talk) 20:08, 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. mostly due to lack of sources and notability JForget 01:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mustaqbal Pakistan[edit]

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

Delete There is no evidence of notability. The article gives no sources at all, despite having been tagged for independent sources for a month and three quarters. My searches have produced mainly primary and/or unreliable sources (the party's own website, facebook, twitter, blog posts, etc). I did find one brief news report on the party [27], but this does not seem like enough coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines. In addition to this the article is written largely from the party's own point of view, telling us what the party claims and aims. (Earlier versions of the article were unambiguous promotion: what we ahve now is very much toned down, but still far from neutral.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually I've heard a bit about this party.. there's also a lot of circulation about it on the internet. That news link really goes into it. Mar4d (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I've heard a bit about this party" is not a reliable source. Does "a lot of circulation about it on the internet" refer to the blog posts, twitter, etc which I referred to, or is there something more reliable? If there is something more reliable then please give links to it. As for "that news link", I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the link to Google news in the "Find sources" list at the head of this discussion, then the result I got by clicking on it was "Your search ... did not match any documents." Or does it mean the article I linked to above? If so then it fairly briefly tells us what the chairman of the party thinks, and that is all. It certainly does not "really go into it". It is some coverage, but not substantial enough on its own to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 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) 00:09, 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, Sandstein 06:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 15 days after the nomination there are still no sources cited at all, unless you count an external link to the party's own site. Web searches still fail to turn up anything significant: only the party's own site, facebook, twitter, blogs, a marketing site, etc. Still no evidence of any notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it has not sources (and i can't find any) then its not notalbe.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Founded in 2009, this political party hasn't received the necessary secondary coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability. The article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability because the information in the article cannot be verified. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winross[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can't find any independent coverage of this company at all. However, there appears to be a very lively collectors' market for the trucks, which provides most of the Ghits as well as ten pages of Gnews hits. I almost hate to delete something that is of interest to so many people, even if I can't find WP:RS reliable sources about the company. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winross as Pioneer[edit]

Some Wikipedians seem to think that only verifiable categories from several other sources are worthy of inclusion. I try to include collector's categories in Wikipedia BECAUSE they are difficult to find other information on. This company almost single-handedly established the promotional model market for model trucks with logos on their sides. Ertl, Racing Champions, Hot Wheels and others followed in similar scales, thus copying Winross's lead. The company blazed an important trail, and the article is accurate and important for toy and promotional collectors. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 22:30, 29 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) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hear what Cstevencampbell is saying. Maybe this kind of situation - a small company which doesn't get RS in the usual sense, but is of great interest to collectors and antiquarians - should fall under WP:IAR and be considered notable enough to remain. There are tons of mentions about the collecting hobby in books, flea market ads, etc. If the company doesn't make it as notable, maybe a separate new article could be created about "Winross trucks (collecting hobby)" or "model truck collecting" or something like that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry but we need RS to establish most of what is claimed, as well as to establish notability. At this time I can see no reason to keep this page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RS[edit]

Many important things in the world exist independent of RS. I have collected miniature vehicles for 40 years and have gained some insight. Dave Sinclair, mentioned in the article was one of the primary starters of much diecast model collecting in the U.S. since the late 1960s - and I have verified that in my Wikipedia articles. Just because books and articles haven't been written thoroughly on a subject does not mean the subject is not worth merit. Maybe Wikipedia should adopt a policy similar to that of many professional journals - have a kind of voluntary editorial board of professionals to help establish merit of an article - because RS is going to fail much of the time.

Maybe Wikipedia is just too narrow and specific for this kind of thing. If Winross is deleted it shows a certain narrowness of philosophy and some encyclopedias can be more narrow and thematic in scope, but I thought Wikipedia was a general knowledge encyclopedia. If Winross is deleted, someone is going to look it up pretty soon and -nothing- . And I AM on the constant lookout for new sources for the articles that I have created / contributed to. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Start a website about Winross, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG, and most of the information that can be found about it will fail other parts of Wikipedia, such as WP:OR. tedder (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete An admision that in fact there is no RS to establish notability means that I cannot see a resson to keep this. Yes Wikipedia is a general knowledge encylopdia, but is also must have some kind of critria for inclusion or else it will consist of pages about how wonderfull something me and a friend do is (which this page looks a bit like). Now you may have a point and that a board of experts could oversee the project, but what would be the criteria for inclusion (qualifications (In toys?), 29 years working in the industry (COI?), Claiming it (Verfiy). It seems to be that it would not solve the problom of notability (after all what if no expert is availbile to judge a page?) and does create almost a kind of offical wiki possiition (which goes againt the whole idea of Wiki). At the end of the day the idea of verifiability is the only way to keep Wiki a wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 15 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 06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Brucato[edit]

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

This page was PROD'ded by User:Darkwind on 04/19/10 and the person behind most of the article, User:Bestmusicexpert, removed the PROD without discussion or notable improvement to the article. Darkwind's reason was WP:BLPPROD. Multiple editors (including me) have been adding edit tags concerning verifiable sources and other BLP issues repeatedly, and they have always been removed by Bestmusicexpert without comment or necessary improvements. I suspect that this user simply does not understand the issues and proper procedures, and I left a comment on his/her talk page. In any case, since the original PROD was removed inappropriately and the BLP issues have not been resolved, I am bringing it to AFD to get more community involvement. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what this user is speaking of. I removed the link to the musicians website as a reference. That is what I understood the message to be so I deleted the notation because I followed its instructions.

If there is more that needs to be done, please send useful information as to how I may improve the article instead of nasty responces and threats of deleting it. I am new to this and unsure what more can be done to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestmusicexpert (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - see your talk page for a little more info from me. There are no nasty responses here and no threats. Everything that has been done are attempts to either improve the article or save it from condemnation (because it does not adequately support the biography of a real person). See WP:BLPPROD, a new guideline that was recently added at Wikipedia because LIBEL is an issue when you say something about a real person without reliable sources, even if you are supporting that person, Concerning the references, you have done well in one way by removing the unsatisfactory reference, but more sources need to be added. See also WP:MUSICBIO. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - my vote here is "neutral" because I'm not an expert on the recently updated guidelines for WP:BLP. Consider my nomination to be procedural and a follow up for Darkwind's original PROD. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag for the reference of his website, thats what I understand that to be meaning. If anyone would help me clean this up, I would be happy to, just not sure what is needed to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestmusicexpert (talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, all articles (and especially those about living people) need to cite reliable sources to verify the information in the article. One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is verifiability, and reliable sources are how we achieve that. Sources published by the subject of the article, or otherwise closely connected with the subject, are not considered reliable sources. For more information, please carefully read each of these Wikipedia policy statements or guidelines: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Under a recently adopted Wikipedia policy, any article about a living person that does not cite any reliable sources is subject to deletion. That's what the ((prod blp)) tag on the article was talking about -- the whole article is subject to deletion because there are no reliable sources cited in the article to verify any of its content. For more information about this specific policy, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. --Darkwind (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still need other help with what exactly needs to be used for references. I have proof that Steve Gadd and Alan Marino played on his albums. What else can I do? comment added by Bestmusicexpert (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC). — Bestmusicexpert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Added more references, is this helpful enough or is more needed?comment added by Bestmusicexpert (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not believe the sources currently cited qualify under WP:RS or WP:BLPPROD, as they are not verifying anything about the subject himself, just his work. That being said, I take no position on the notability of the subject, as my inital PROD was a simple procedural BLPPROD because it had no sources. --Darkwind (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with darkwinds assessment as the number 5 reference has alot of biographical information in that link.

Delete Non-notable. No outside coverage, reviews etc. The bio [28] describes his first album as a "cult classic", which is industry-speak for "poor seller". I was unable to verify most of the information in the article. It says he won a prize at the Los Angeles Music Awards, but I was unable to find a complete list of earlier winners, and he does not make their distinguished alumni list. ~~The article says he was in The Rustix, but the Wikipedia article about The Rustix doesn't mention him - and he seems rather too young to have been a member (their heyday was in 1960-1970).~~ Correction, I misread it; it says his FATHER was in The Rustix. That's more like it - but also does nothing to further Joe's notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do plan on speaking with the singer to clear some things up. I think the link to The Rustix is needed as his father Chuck performs with him onstage and was in The Rustix. As for other sources, a few ideas would be appreciated as to how to improve things. I am not sure what is needed and I think every reference backs things up so far.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestmusicexpert (talk • contribs)

Delete. Non-notable. 1)Notability is not INHERITED. 2)Little or no outside coverage other than the bio mentioned. 3)Bestmusicexpert doesn't sign his posts....whoops, another AADD —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 06:23, 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 Redirect to Woodsball, essentially a merge, because all of the content that does not fail WP:NOTHOWTO is already at the main article. (Non-Admin Closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodsball rifleman[edit]

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

Unsourced original research, looks like it was an invention of a particular website Jwoodger (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anybody? Jwoodger (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Woodsball. There is no need for this article. There is also no need for the related article Woodsball specialists - which I see is already the subject of a "merge to woodsball" discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 29 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) 00:11, 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, Sandstein 06:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per MelanieN. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No reliable sources, wikipedia is not a howto. tedder (talk) 07:44, 15 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 JForget 00:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Day of the Unborn Child[edit]

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

While it's certainly possible that this observance might be notable if it's actually been formally declared in several Central American countries, the idea of relying on LifeSiteNews as the article's only "reliable" source gives me the dry heaves. Note that there have been previous attempts to delete the article as either non-notable or a copyright violation, all of which the creator has simply removed without explanation or improvement. That said, I've been really reluctant to stick my neck out on this one lest we be accused of being biased against an anti-abortion campaign — but at some point the article truly does have to either get improved or get canned. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if real sources start showing up...but if that doesn't happen, then delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot find any thiord party RS that covers this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various campaigners often get a little publicity by deeming a particular day to be the "Day of" something or the other. Not notable. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No outside notability apart from unreliable source. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 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 JForget 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vizuarna[edit]

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

Advert Merosonox t c g 04:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advertising of a non-notable company. Propose speedy deletion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:COMPANY. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:17, 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 keep. JForget 01:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Six[edit]

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

No sign of any notability bar a few local papers reporting on a local teenage band. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per this, this, and this. Joe Chill (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This band has won significant critical attention as demonstrated by the independent reviews found by Joe Chill above, and more. Andy14and16 (talk) 01:52, 13 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. consensus is trending to a keep on the notability aspect JForget 01:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cathay Pacific Flight 780[edit]

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

First of all, this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Second, this incident does not meet notability criteria; it is a run-of-the-mill occurrence. Aircraft engines fail reasonably often. Aircraft tyres burst even more often and a wheel fire as a result of burst tyres is not unusual. An emergency evacuation due to a wheel fire would be mandated by any airline's procedures; and the injuries sustained during the emergency evacuation are also not unusual. YSSYguy (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Actually I do not quite agree. This is really called an accident as there are dual engine failure at the same time. Also investagators from UK and US come to HK to investigate this event. Moreover, flight data recorder and all stuff was transported to UK for examination. If it is not happened in CX but in other airlines, all passengers may not have the chance to survive. So, i wonder, how can you say that this is not an accident? If you say about the notability of the passage, I agree on that and I think I will make changes on that soon. User:kelvinpiggy (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and not a directory of every minor kerfluffle on an airplane which did not result in a crash or deaths. We do not have an article for every time a tire blows on a bus, and we do not need one for every time tires blow when a plane lands, or every time an engine fails. Edison (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable - totally fails WP:AIRCRASH requirements. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would meet A3 and L2. The type of incident may result in A2 too. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ - Changing my vote on this one after reading more about it. ~~it's already in Cathay Pacific#Incidents and accidents. I'll add the link to the incident report [29] if it isn't there already.~~ Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a NN aviation incident that ended with a hard landing (not a crash). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How often do you see an aircraft with BOTH ENGINE FAILURE?? Do you count BA009 as accident if you said so? It is also just engine failure and no one died! At first before the investigation you may not know what had happened, but after that it is a new history for aviation. No more aircrafts or air routes above volcanoes.Second, the incident/accident has not ended... Flight Data Recorder and all kinds of stuff is transporting to UK and US for investigations! Also if all of you said that this cannot be counted as an accident, how about Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption?? Why can this be also?? No accidents, no failure, just weather those stuff!!!kelvinpiggy (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a complete failure of both engines (as I read the report, Engine 2 was a 17% and Engine 1 was at 74%). The Airbus made a priority landing at its destination in Hong Kong. The injuries occurred, not because of the hard landing, but during the evacuation of the plane. I will admit that I am skeptical about aircrash articles, based on the past practice of every incident being turned into an info box and cut-and-paste of official reports, so perhaps I am wrong here. Mandsford (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. But I want to clarify is that both engine has got failure, not both off when landing. The pilot cannot control the speed and as a result to a very high velocity landing. Also, at midair during the flights, both engines have been at least once stalled or failure but was back to normal again. Kelvinpiggy (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, notable because it is an all-engines failed incident (failed in the sense that neither was producing anything like commanded thrust per BA038). Lack of deaths does not equate to a lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my !vote. I think that the opening paragraph understates what happened in this instance, which was that a plane with 344 persons on board was saved through the efforts of its pilot and co-pilot in averting a catastrophe. "Hero pilots safely land jet carrying 300 passengers after both engines malfunctioned" pretty well sums up what separates this from the run-of-the-mill airline incident. Although we have, unfortunately, a group of contributors who compete to be the "first kid on the block" to fill in the blanks on the template every time there's a report of a hard landing, that's no excuse for me to prejudge an article. Good work on the part of User:Kelvinpiggy. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also changing my vote to Keep; although the article has some issues, IMO notability has now been established. YSSYguy (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only because of notabiity established due to all engine failure, but also because being one of the safest airlines in the world this is partiularly important. SYSS Mouse (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both engines failed, hard landing, six tires bursted, eight people were injured... yes, it certainly qualifies as a notable accident in my view. C1010 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The type of failure was unusual, with the engines not merely failing to deliver full thrust (which wouldn't be all too uncommon), but an uncontrolled thrust increase in one engine. 201.231.173.108 (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Low or no body-count should not disqualify article. Events that occurred are also not that common.87.205.199.68 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 14 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 JForget 00:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noémie Lafrance[edit]

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

Autobio-spamvertisement Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix There are plenty of third-party sources which are clearly notable (WSJ, Gothamist, Village Voice) and if the claims of the article about her award recognition can be verified, then this is certainly a notable topic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References show notability. Spam can be removed. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 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 JForget 00:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Centro shopping centres in United States of America[edit]

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

Extremely outdated, extremely large list. Almost none of these properties is notable enough for its own page; most of the blue links point to wrong pages. Almost every listing is an extremely small (under 10-15 stores) strip or in some cases, just a single store. If more than just a tiny number were enclosed malls/lifestyle centers/power centers, then I could see a possible argument for keeping. But these lists are just way too redlinky, way too indiscriminate (apparently they own a Kroger in Alabama), and way too unlikely to spawn potential articles. This company does own a few actual enclosed shopping malls, so those could probably be listed on the main article. Otherwise, delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 8 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) 09:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their website does have a property list, but I still think that this is not an appropriate topic for a list given my other concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being of inadequate significance. This is the sort of list that belongs on the company website, not an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 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 JForget 00:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sweeney[edit]

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

The article is a biography of living person with no sources, no real assertion of notability, and could possibly be a personal promotion page. Discussion on the subject is encouraged. Paul McDonald (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--per lack of sources. I tried a variety of names and terms from the article and didn't find anything. Besides, the language of the article gives me little reason to think that this is really for real. Note, for instance, the complete absence of dates. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per the BLP policy and the notability guideline. There are no reliable sources to cover this article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 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 Merge The merger have been carried out in parallel with the opening of this AfD. Unless and untill someone disagrees with the merge this AfD is moot. Non-admin closure. Taemyr (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier High School Engineering Club[edit]

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

Non-notable. Either delete it, or merge into Xavier High School (Connecticut). —ems 2 4 02:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per the notability guidelines. Someone has already made the article into a redirect to Xavier High School (Connecticut) just now and in that article, the engineering club is already covered there. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the high school, which it looks like someone has already done, so this can be closed, I'd suggest.--Milowent (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they redirected it while I was putting this up for AFD, which was a good idea. I'll let someone else close this. —ems 2 4 12:50, 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Levitz[edit]

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

I don't think there's sufficient notability here. Doesn't meet the professor guidelines as an academic, and membership in the quartet (we don't have a page for that quartet) is not enough by itself. Shadowjams (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep given that I Solisti Veniti is a famous orchestra, and the recordings listed at [30], I think it probably meetsthe requirements. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I believe that the "professor guidelines" were not written with the musical academic in mind. There are a different set of qualities that make a music performance professor notable (performance career and the quality of the institution taught at being two important ones). Prof. Levitz is easily regarded as one of the top viola professors in the United States, and also maintains a residence in Italy where she is also known. STFine ( talk ) 10:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Normally the principal player (flautist, violist, etc.) in a major orchestra or ensemble, e.g. I Solisti Veneti is not notable (in the Wikipedia sense) unless they also have a significant performing and recording career as a soloist, independent of the ensemble. Ditto a music faculty member, unless they have been written about as such in multiple independent sources. Membership in a noted string quartet is different, but The Ives Quartet, is still pretty local and hasn't played in major concert halls. However, they've recorded one CD for Naxos which has been reviewed briefly here. That might push the subject just over the keep line. I'm undecided.Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am also undecided so far but must point out that WP:MUSIC seems to be a standard that should (also) be applied here. Agreeing with Voceditenore, though: membership of a famous orchestra isn't enough to establish personal notability even if the person is a principal player. The recordings might just be enough but it really is touch and go at this stage. Also, her awards might tip the balance if they are truly important per #9 of MUSICBIO (though I am not convinced they are yet) --Jubilee♫clipman 14:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Weak Delete~~ I have tidied up the article adding some important info from the primary sources and spent a few hours trying to source this article. However, I really am not seeing enough independent coverage out there. The Ives Quartet are getting some coverage (mostly previews of concerts as far as I can tell) but not enough even for them to get an article yet, IMO, let alone a member of the quartet. There are CDs available on Amazon etc featuring Levitz's performances but either they are on lesser labels (which don't yet have WP articles of their own) or she is simply performing as part of a group (e.g. here). There are several CDs on the Naxos label, but I can't find any reviews of them. One of her CDs was played on ABC Classic FM for a while (e.g. here on the A M Giuliani Triple Concerto in E for two mandolins, viola and orchestra) but that still does not convince me that she is notable enough for a WP article. Maybe in few years (along with the quartet) but not now --Jubilee ♫clipman 22:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have switched per Voceditenore's comments below. I forgot that I Solisti Veneti are certainly notable which means that she (Jodi not Voce!) passes MUSICBIO 6. The recordings are important, also, even without reviews and I have linked to a fair few above --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our musician standard guideline. Notability is not inherited. Eusebeus (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There do appear to be reviews out there for the Ives Quartet, mostly on subscription sites so I can't read them, but individual members of string quartets far more notable than this one do not generally merit articles of their own. Third-party coverage of her solo work might indicate notability, but I have not been able to find any. --Deskford (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the classical pedagogy world (or the music conservatory world), I would posit that there are qualifications for notability that don't appear in WP:MUSIC. I have already mentioned that membership of a famous faculty is, in itself, notable. There is also no allowance for the fact that, in the classical pedagogy world, producing successful students plays a large part in reputation/notability. I suppose my main argument for keep is that I believe that conservatory faculty are different from both traditional academics and traditional musicians. They follow a different path to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.101.52 (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V: "verifiability, not truth". That's usually why I !vote delete or keep, actually: if there are no indepentent WP:RSs (as here), we can't have an article; if there are independent RSs, we have a suggestion of notability. Further investigation is required in the latter case --Jubilee ♫clipman 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not convinced by the argument that faculty at top conservatories are automatically notable; we need to have something verifiable to say about them. But Google news archive search found nontrivial coverage of her or reviews of her performances in the Trinity Tripod (a student newspaper) [31], Buffalo News [32], Los Angeles Times [33], San Francisco Classical Voice [34], San Jose Mercury News [35] [36], [37], and Sacramento Bee [38]. I left out the ones that were just concert announcements, and one human interest story about her car getting towed when she parked it illegally after arriving late for a performance; not all of these have enough text free online to be sure, but I think they all say something nontrivial about her specifically and not just her quartet, at least a sentence about one of her performances. I think that's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep According to criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." I Solisti Veneti is certainly notable, and the Ives Quartet just about scrapes notability via the reviews. Voceditenore (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think she also passes via criterion 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." She is a soloist on the Hummel recording for Dynamic Records, which may not have a WP article yet, but is a very well-known Italian label recording rare repertoire. Its recordings appear in many, many opera articles here and in some singer articles as well. Plus there's the Naxos recording of the Quincy Porter string quartets, one for Albany Records [39] and several on Erato Records where she is one of the soloists. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...you make a good case actually, V. I'm still on the delete side of the the fence, though, simply because I can't fnd the sources (beyond Amazon, and various primaries) --Jubilee ♫clipman 17:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cds don't have to be sourced, only the serial number is needed, although it's nice to find reviews for them as well, and I'm pretty sure they can be found. Here's one ("splendid viola soloist"). She only needs to meet 1 of the criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Voceditenore. The subject does seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO (per above) after some looking into. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:35, 16 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. (non-admin closure) ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pennsylvania 500[edit]

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

This is a single race in a nascar cup series that is scheduled for August of this year.

I would normally redirect it to the Series itself, but I'm bringing it here because like individual baseball or basketball games, individual races aren't independently notable. I see no indication that this race is special (it hasn't even happened yet). Shadowjams (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual Sprint Cup races do appear to be sufficiently notable, as virtually every race from the past four seasons has its own article. Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards#Races for what appears to be a long-standing uncontroversial notability guideline for such events. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 07:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about that guideline. That's persuasive, although I seriously wonder how it would stand up if it were discussed wiki-wide, as opposed to on a specific interest group. This isn't the place to debate that guideline directly, although general WP:N reasons to oppose are certainly relevant and I think are probably necessary to keep subsidiary guidelines in check. Shadowjams (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know the article is not complete yet, but why would you want to delete something that will be recreated anyway. In my opinion the discussion isn't even needed. --Nascar 1996 21:29, 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 JForget 00:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael James Arman Brough[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:UPANDCOMING lawyer/composer who might or might not become notable someday; in the meantime, a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article makes no claim of notability and has been flagged as unreferenced for over a year. I have been unable to find independent references to provide evidence of notability. --Deskford (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have attempted to source this article several times and come up blank each time. Fails WP:V, let alone WP:!, WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Many people publish compositions and perform music in notable venues but none of that necessarily warrants a WP article, whether or not they are "up-and-coming" or established: we need the sources in all cases --Jubilee ♫clipman 11:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—I don't object to the subject of the article, but I see neither any sources that demonstrate notability nor any indication that the subject's positions are inherently notable. I'm open to the inclusion of the article if the former can be shown. I was the admin who earlier deleted this article as an expired PROD, and Hintersatz indicated on my talk page that there are "reviews" out there that might, conceivably, provide some justification for the article. If such reviews are added, and they are not trivial, then I don't think that I can support deletion. ((Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡)) 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might change my mind if these reviews were referenced. --Deskford (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you: we might have yet another WP:HEYMANN here (I seem to have been involved in a number HEY-style AfD debates recently) --Jubilee ♫clipman 20:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally prodded this as it has been tagged as unsourced for ages without improvement and I could not find coverage myself. No problems at all with changing my vote if there is significant coverage available. Quantpole (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any sources. —ems 2 4 20:07, 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 Nomination withdrawn default to keep JForget 23:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The golden cue[edit]

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

Only one reference to it, nothing else. Fails WP:N Buggie111 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The source that it cites is reliable (from the Times Union (Albany)). A quick Google search also turned up another article [40] from the Odessa American. Seems to fit WP:N, although it could use expansion and a WP:Move to fix the capitalization. GorillaWarfare ^talk 21:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, the only pool hall in Albany! two articles does not notability make. Stub created by SPA, possible WP:COI Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:notability. On a side note, what's up with the big image of a disected fish in the article?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USer must of thought it was a picof the inside of the hall. Buggie111 (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FISH IS GONE. I had to hotlink to my own domain as I can not yet upload images as my account is less than ten days old. I will continue adding what I think makes the establish notable such as hosting league play and at times having national caliper players, and lasting 42+ years in an difficult economic area. Thank you for your tolerance of my learning curve.. The Hall now has a web presence that shows up in the top several results on bing and google. Give me time and my account will expand beyond an SPA as I have expertise in several areas, and will hopefully shortly will have degrees in several areas. As it is my time is limited, and am working on my first entry.. I hope to make contributions to the areas of Psychology, Philosophy, Computer Science, Engineering, Ethics, Music, and Pharmacoloy / Psychopharmacoloy... if I dare. :) I must admit, for a while a stinking, dissected fish was fitting for my efforts, though not what was intended. John VanDerwerken 10:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC) John VanDerwerken

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two articles (the one cited in the article isn't really an article on the pool hall anyway) is not enough to make this place notable. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles is what WP:N calls for. I have not actually looked at the sources so don't consider this an endorsement. But if Drmies and Ohconfucius feels that the two articles are reliable and nontrivial I question how they can claim non-notability. Taemyr (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, WP:N is a lot more specific than "two articles." My feelings aside, I think that the two articles cited (here and in the article) do not add up to enough significant coverage to warrant inclusion. Actually looking at sources reveals that a simple "two articles and you're in" is not a good enough guideline. Cyclopia, I'd like to hear more specifics about how this meets our requirements. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are two sources which directly and prominently address the subject, from the title onwards. For me, this is enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG requirements. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and that's enough for keeping. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I'm suprised at the results here. I apologize for any mistakes I have made during this period. Buggie111 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Cyclopia ^talk 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really thought it would be a delete consensus. And this is my only failed CSD. Buggie111 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While, as I point out above two sources is sufficient, I don't see two independent non trivial sources here. The timesunion link is non-trivial and indpendent, but the remainind three sources is either not indpendent (goldencue.net, and the greater albany pool league) or merely mentions the golden cue in passing (nycgrind). Other sources ala the timesunion might exist though. Taemyr (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep: I've cleaned up the article a bit (though have not found and added any additional sources). It has two clearly reliable, independent sources, one definitely non-trivial coverage, the other arguable. I don't want to create a precedent for keeping articles on every random pool/billiard hall in the world, but we actually do not have nearly enough articles on notable cue sports venues (there's not even a category for it yet, though there may be enough articles like Crucible Theatre to make one if I get around to it). My "keep" is weak because WP:Notability's general notability guideline is only marginally satisfied, and I'm not convinced that this particular venue is genuinely notable (nor that it definitely isn't). My main concern is that I do not want to see a precedent established that pool/billiard/snooker hall articles get axed out of hand simply because they are what they are. They need to be examined on a case by case basis carefully just like a biography or an article on a novel or whatever. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was trivial to find (and a lot of work to integrate) more sources. There are 19 now (i.e. the article is very different now). The pool hall is clearly significant, and is a major venue for the Joss Tour (which doesn't have an article yet, but badly needs one, being one of the most important annual event series in pool) and the home of the Northeast 9-Ball Open (which should also have an article at some point; it sounds regional, but is not). Obviously passes WP:Notability's general notability guideline (GNG) with these additional sources added. The Golden Cue has been referred to as "famed" (I couldn't think of a good way to integrate that into the article without being heavy-handed, but it's in one of the cited sources). NB: The claim that the NYCGrind article is just a trivial passing mention is quite false. Both of the original independent sources cited went into quite a bit of detail about the venue, as do most of the newly added sources. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article meets the criteria of WP:V and WP:N. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Withdraw nomination and hope that it qualifies as a DYK. Statement said. Buggie111 (talk) 02:56, 13 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) 14:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.J.Vanston[edit]

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

Single work hasn't garnered enough attention to meet WP:AUTHOR. JaGa^talk 18:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete author of one self-published book,in almost no libraries. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable author of one self-published novel. Joe Chill (talk) 14:24, 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 redirect to 100 yard dash. JForget 00:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World record progression of the 100 yard dash[edit]

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

Seems like this is already adequately covered in 100 yard dash, and would have limited use as a redirect. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge, anything of use to 100 yard dash. As it stands these articles are almost duplicates of each other. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've checked, and there's nothing there that isn't already in 100 yard dash. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Lewis (paranormal investigator)[edit]

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

Has published some books but no significant coverage by reliable sources found that meets WP:N. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no third party RS for this person.Slatersteven (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing close to a reliable source is one appearance on the Coast to Coast AM radio show, which I'd call pretty far from reliable. The other two "sources" for his appearances don't mention him (and one specifically calls itself a fan-site anyway). His books are self-published. One local gNews hit for the paranormal investigator Chad Lewis (many for several other Chad Lewises). No indication of notability. » scoops “対談„ 06:50, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Gunnewig[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of a non-notable member of a probable non-notable band. Fails GNG & BIO. EuroPride (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article fails the notability guideline at WP:MUSICBIO and it also has no reliable sources to cover it. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continental News[edit]

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

I can find no significant coverage to assert that this band passes WP:BAND. EuroPride (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything, although it's a little difficult because of the name, but I didn't even find references to it. Shadowjams (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Joint Venture(IJV)[edit]

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

Recreation of previously prodded article [41]. Written like essay and overlaps with the Joint venture article. Beagel (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 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, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 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 redirect to Tropical Cyclone Evan. Shimeru (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Evan[edit]

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

I can barely find Cyclone Evan on google, only thing that comes up is Hurricane Ivan perhaps that's what the author meant? Maybe redirect the article to Hurricane Ivan? Lacking Sources =\ Dwayne was here! ^♫ 00:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the author did mean Hurricane Ivan, but I wouldn't bother to redirect. This is a most unlikely search term. Redirect as proposed by Dpmuk. Good research there, Dpmuk. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tropical Cyclone Evan, a disambiguation page I've just created, as a likely search term. Dpmuk (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dpmuk. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tropical Cyclone Evan. I would have originally gone with deleting, per Melanie's original rationale, but Dpmuk made a nice disambiguation page for it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, probably would've done so myself if this hadn't been at AfD right now, though I doubt there'll be any other complaints. —fetch ·comms 01:39, 13 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 Retribution (album). Shimeru (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still I Rise (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG ^Bongo_matic 04:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the single is fanous in iTunes, also is band's one most famous song!. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These purported facts—even if true—don't qualify the song for inclusion as a separate article. The song could / should be mentioned in the article on the band. ^Bongo_matic 22:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Retribution (album). The fact that the song is in the video game and music soundtrack can be mentioned at the album article. Not notable otherwise. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and re-direct- with no prejudice against de-merging if the song charts or becomes otherwise notable. Although I find it kind of sad to say that, since I love the song. Also, FYI- I reverted an edit by user Nicholasmajestic, which had removed the afd template at the top of the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Retribution (album) per above. If this single receives significant coverage in reliable sources, the redirect can be undone. I do not support a merge because the three sources used in the article are of dubious reliability. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 16 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 article as it stands is OR, and probably SYNTH. It cites a few quotes -- all to primary sources -- but it then interprets those quotes in the manner of an essay. It may be true that the topic is notable and that there are many secondary reliable sources available... but none of them is in evidence. Not a single one has been added to the article during the course of this AfD, or even mentioned on its talk page. I am closing this as delete, with no prejudice to the creation of an article on this topic that draws properly from sources. Shimeru (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Park themes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/South Park themes

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

The whole article is sheer OR: author's own interpretation of how SP treats certain theme. OR and RS templates were added two years ago and there doesn't seem to have been any improvements. --Blacklake (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a good article with a lot of interesting information, but unless it is sourced to secondary published sources ("such and such a source said something is a theme in South Park") then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with Kitfoxxe on both counts: the article provides interesting analysis of the themes in South Park, but it is original analysis without citing independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. Original analysis can be solved by the usual way: i.e. edit the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do, I assume, have reliable third-party sources to point to which indicate notability? Surely you are not suggesting it is notable without supporting evidence. ÷seresin 20:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is not for cleanup. There are tons and tons of secondary sources devoted to this - actually, whole entire books devoted to this topic. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As already stated - AfD is not cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Lugnuts and others. We better be careful or WP will have its own episode and I bet Cartman will be the ~~deletionist~~ Admin.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:04, 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United People's Party (UK)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/United People's Party (UK)

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

A very minor party. Apparently has two parish councillors, but it has received no press coverage or other outside attention. Not notable. (a prod was removed by the article creator). Fences&Windows 10:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does seem to be a lack of coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No way does a party with two parish councillors qualify as notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The party has received coverage in local news, mentioning both the party and the party leader, and it's 2 parish councillors (which were won less than 6 months after its registration) is still more seats held than that of many other parties - including the National Front, the Communist Party of Great Britain or the Alliance for Green Socialism - all of which are on Wikipedia.
However, notability is primarily measured by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The National Front has been written about over the years in many different books and newspaper stories, and (although the references in the wiki article are lacking) so has the communist party. The coverage of the Alliance for Green Socialism is a bit iffy, but that's an argument to delete that article, not to keep this one. It's highly unlikely a mention in the Newbury Weekly will be enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:38, 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, JForget 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Parish councillors are NN (unless for other reasons). Accordingly a party made up only of parish councillors should be NN. NF and CPGB are different because they were high profile campaigning organisations. Local newspapers live off press releases, so that appearance in a local newspaper is hardly a source of notability. Many parish councillors sit as independents, so that attaching a party label to some is hardly significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A political party that has succeeded electing anyone into office--even local office-- is notable, and we have a great many articles on those that have never even accomplished that, but has ereceived news coverage as here. Notable on both counts. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you decided all any political party who gets a parish councillor is elected is automatically notable. It is trivially easy to get a political party registered, Parish Council elections are very often uncontested, and the power and significance of typical Parish Councillors is microscopic. It is difficult for the opposition leader of a major local authority to pass notability, and I don't see how an organisation encompassing two Parish councillors can be considered any more important. I'm happy to discuss notability per WP:GNG, but I wouldn't normally view an organisation notable just because of a few minor stories in the very local papers. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, where's the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? I'm always happy to keep topics when they meet the general notability guideline, but this doesn't. It's a party made up of two teenage brothers who have been co-opted to the local parish council, and you want to keep it when it has no sources at all? This idea that any party with a parish councillor "elected" is notable is completely wrong. Fences&Windows 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local micro party with, as far as I can tell, no significant coverage in reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party makes up a third of a local parish council and is the largest party on the council (with others taking the form of 1 Conservative and 3 independents). It has played a key role developing the community via the Parish Plan and has attracted media attention, all be it limited, as a result. On the greater scale of things, it is rather insignificant. Having said that, it is certainly worthy of notoriety on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upp01 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upp01 is the article creator, btw. Arguing that your party is "certainly worthy of notoriety on wikipedia" because it has a couple of parish council seats is not going to wash. None of the content is even verifiable, let alone showing signs of having received significant outside attention (which is what notability boils down to). Fences&Windows 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search (with the search term: "United People's Party" Enborne) returns no results. Having reviewed the article, I read the organization "holds two seats on the local council of Enborne, a civil parish". The civil parish is the "the lowest tier of local government, below district and county councils". Clearly, this does not establish notability. This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core policy on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 16 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) ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 20:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PearC[edit]

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

Company does not meet WP:CORP or WP:N Per WP:SBST "Notability is not temporary" BruceGrubb (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with comment PearC along with MacIntelligent (UK), OpeniMac (Argentina), and Quo Computing (California, USA), and RussianMac (Bizon Computers) come to the public's attention in the light of the February 5, 2009 ruling in the Apple vs Psystar case that opened up the EULA issue again. However as the issues changed to claims about withholding financial information (April) and Psystar's Chapter 11 announcement (May) all these companies fell off the radar of the general press.

In fact the only references to Psystar after May 2009 that were found were in an obscure German macuser magazine called MacWelt: a year in review piece and a benchmark of a new Psystar machine. Nick Spence in Is Mac Cloner PearC Flouting Apple's EULA in E.U.? - PCWorld, April 10, 2009 states "Psystar, run by HyperMegaNet, based in Wolfsburg, Germany, currently ships to 23 destinations including the UK via delivery firm DHL." shows either poor editorial oversite on the part of PCWorld or that the parent company is so obscure than only a connection with noteworthy Psystar would make it noticeable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 16:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This company has been in the news in Europe, specifically the UK many times. --AnonyLog (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AnonyLog, you were the creator of this article but in the time since you created it (October 16, 2009) only one reliable reference has been provided.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has multiple reliable and independent sources. At the very least merge/redirect to OSx86 --SF007 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Insider201283 produced some of these "reliable and independent sources" one of which I provided above. All of these had the problem of if it wasn't for the development in the Psystar case nobody would know PearC existed. Bizon computers which had more references than this article was deleted because it didn't meet WP:CORP and if what it had wasn't enough than the one lone reference this article has certainly isn't. Simply claiming there are sources is not enough. We need to SEE them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more two references in the article that mention this company, one by softpedia and another by ars technica. I do not strongly oppose a deletion, but I think this should at the very least redirect to a list of some sort. --SF007 (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Remember WP:CORP clearly states "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". The ars technica article "German company PearC begins selling line of Mac clones" shows PearC is clearly riding on the coattails of the February 5, 2009 EULA ruling in the Psystar case. The softpedia article "The War Between Apple and the Mac Clone Makers" only mentions PearC in passing and therefore fails the "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." requirement of WP:CORP. Never mind these are not references but external links just thrown in at the end of the article. Also you still have to deal with WP:SBST which neither of these articles do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is significant since it seems that, under EU law it may actually be legal, unlike it's American counterpart. At worst, it should be merged with OSx86. --AnonyLog (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except the whole EULA issue became kind of moot when Apple revealed on November 27, 2008 used DMCA (Copyright Directive in the EU) protected methods to enforce its EULA. The InfoSoc Directive is even more restrictive than Section 1201 of the DMCA but all these news reports were on the EULA bandwagon. As I said in the talk page the only reason PearC is on anyone's radar is they made an announcement relating to the EULA decision in the Psystar and once that was replaced by Psystar filing Chapter 11 PearC along with MacIntelligent (UK), OpeniMac (Argentina), RussianMac/Bizon Computers (Russia) and Quo Computing (California, USA) might as well fallen off the planet as far as the general media was concerned.

WP:CORP is quite clear "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable." The fact that even MacWelt in Germany had to go all the way back to Feb 2009 for its year in review go get anything on PearC and the only thing since then has been a benchmark test (which IMHO likely fails the WP:SPIP test and so isn't usable for notability purposes) shows PearC fails the WP:SBST test as well. There is nothing notable about PearC on its own merits and therefor it fails WP:CORP.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article clearly needs work. The company has continued to receive press coverage, as recently as last month [42] --Insider201283 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Test: Pearc Professional Stylence" is just a test of some of PearC's hardware which do NOT seem to meet WP:SPIP requirements. Again just claiming the article needs work is not enough. Will Beback gave a week for the article to get fixed and all we got were nonsense like PCWorld above and tangential reference that didn't meet WP:CORP, WP:SPIP, and-or WP:SBST. The fact we have to go to a relatively obscure German mac user magazine to find anything on PearC shows just how non notable it is. Per WP:SBST "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability."--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I counted 4 articles that exclusively deal with PearC and/or its products: [43] Network World, [44] PC World, [45] de:Macwelt, [46] Ars Technica. It's also mentioned in a few more as pointed out above (Softpedia etc.) Pcap ping 00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has now been established. I myself will work on the article in the coming days to make sure the sources are put to good use. Airplaneman ✈ 03:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not know why it was relisted, as nobody spoke for deletion except the nominator. In any case, it now has sources. "Notability is not temporary " means the opposite of what the nom. thinks--it means that if it ever was notable, even for a short while, it remains notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 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 no consensus. A merge discussion on the article's talk page is highly encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Agosto[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)

This is a case of WP:BLP1E. Agosto was totally non-notable prior to being arrested for and convicted of disobeying an order and has done nothing notable since then. Although his crime and trial were documented by numerous reliable sources, it is all still one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ to Court-martial of Victor Agosto; same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehren Watada (2nd nomination). Per WP:PERP, WP:MILPEOPLE, and WP:BLP1E, the individual isn't notable, but the court martial is and political fallout is. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I am agreeable to the other one, this one doesn't make much sense to me. Agostos case was pretty straight forwards and run of the mill. I can't see anything notable about his case. He pled guilty to a minor charge, served his sentence and that was it. No larger implication. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote to Merge with List of Iraq War resisters per Bonewah. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Agosto is on the board of directors of a national veterans organization. To say he has done nothing after his release is misleading. The case is also notable because Agosto may be the first U.S. soldier to publicly refuse deployment to Afghanistan, something of great historical significance. Sheffield10(talk), 3 May 2010

It's not misleading because he hasn't done anything notable. If his service on this small org board of directors was notable, where is the significant 3rd party coverage of it? Just being on a board of an org isn't notable. The standard is significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Aside from the WP:ONEEVENT, Agosoto has not had that significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this nomination for deletion along with your nomination for deletion of Ehren Watada and others are clearly politically motivated. Why don't you nominate Selena Coppa for deletion, someone who really hasn't done anything notable? Sheffield10(talk), 3 May 2010

So much for AGF, huh? No genius, they aren't politically motivated. I stumbled across one article and the second one was linked to it. Both were nominated because they are WP:BLP1E's. If you bothered to pay attention (instead of jumping to conclusions), you'd see that I'm amenable to redoing the Watada article as an article about the case (which is more notable) and withdraw the nom, rather than leaving it as a bio of a non-notable person. If this was "politically motivated", like your bad faith allegation says, why would I offer the compromise solution? So guess where your bad faith accusation can get filed? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that you are the author of this article, so your motivation to keep could easily be called into question. Or maybe you're just pissed because I nominated another of your articles last month and it got deleted.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight. The only reason you offered a "compromise solution" is that you realized the Watada article wasn't going to get deleted. As a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" (as shown on your profile) you would love nothing more than to discredit and hide the history of those who would challenge the wars and the military machine. Sheffield10(talk), 3 May 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Get a grip. First, it's not "obvious" that the Watada article isn't going to be deleted. There is one delete, 2 keeps and one vote to the compromise. Hardly a mandate by any standard and the AfD isn't even half done. Now, if you bothered to pay attention (which you don't seem to do often), you'd know that the whole "vast right wing conspiracy" is a big joke that conservative laugh at. It's called sarcasm. Look it up. So now we know that you are one of those people who looks at a couple of user boxes and thinks they know everything. If I had a nickle for everyone like you on here...... Face it, you're a hypocrite for accusing others of a bias while denying your own. You can't see the obvious unless someone connects the dots for you. And, if you bothered to look at my history, you'll see I reluctantly voted delete on decorated soldiers that served their enlistment honorably and bravely because they didn't meet the criteria, which really tends to discredit your whole conspiracy theory. Might I suggest that you spend your time actually trying to show significant third party coverage of Agosto instead of thinking up easily disproven conspiracy theories? Really, you've done nothing here aside from say WP:ILIKEIT. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The both of you should cool it with the name calling and stick to the merits of the AfD. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Iraq War resisters or similar and consolidate information there. Bonewah (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have changed my !vote accordingly. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly ok with that solution and would withdraw the nom accordingly if we could get a couple more !votes for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd consider only adding his name to the list because of WP:1EVENT.T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep on the basis of its likelihood of remaining a key event that will be part of the history of antiwar protest in the US. Do not rename, because the importantce is not his court martial as such, but his protest--which was a continuing event. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - DGG gets it right. Continuing event(s), not a simple BLP1E, and if anything it can be renamed (even if I wouldn't recommend it). --Cyclopia ^talk 22:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a continuing event still one event? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the One-event rule does not apply to events or persons who are continuing to be in news, history books, articles, court cases, etc.; renaming is not required. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it apply? The continuing coverage has been about the case, not the individual. As I said in another discussion, Katz v. US, which is a landmark case that has implications for almost every American, has been written about and cited more times than this case could ever hope to be. Yet the Charles Katz isn't notable. He never was. His name gets used in textbooks, court briefs etc. probably hundreds of thousands of times....but his "notability" is one event, his involvement in the notable case. Just like Agosto. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Upon information and beleif, Charles Katz disappeared from public view and wanted to do so. Victor Agosto has become an activist. Some men have notability thrust upon them. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An activist, but not a notable one. Where is the continuiing coverage that isn't about his case? Take everything not related to his case out of the article and what do you have left? A non-notable guy. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- People here keep claiming that he is notable for his continued anti-war efforts, yet the article in question says next to nothing about that. I think the case for 'keep continuing events' would be better made if one of you would update the article to reflect the anti-war efforts that are claimed here. Bonewah (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto, the article doesn't cite any notability past court-martial and discharge. Where is the continuing event argument coming from then? bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Iraq War resisters, as suggested above. News coverage seemed to have died down, indicating he's notable for one event.--Pink Bull 06:52, 16 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) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tisdall[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this individual. • ɔ ʃ → 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find significant coverage for this individual in music and in science. In music his collaborators are leading Grammy winners and nominees, for example Neil Dorfsman and David Bromberg and Nico of the Velvet Underground. In science he made significant discoveries in the mathematics of music, working with the inventor of digital sound Max Mathews, at Bell Labs where the invention occurred; another great instrument inventor he collaborated with was Allan Gittler, whose instrument is just about to be re-released with a concurrent CD release of Tisdall and Gittler performing together with punk pioneer Billy Ficca. He helped found the field of bioinformatics, published best-selling definitive books on the use of perl in bioinformatics, was the first person to use perl in biology, and for many years has taught the most famous course in bioinformatics at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; he was a co-discoverer of important human disease genes and micro RNAs; was part of the (first completed) chromosome 22 project in the Human Genome Project. I am the creator of this page -- I'll work on adding more references to his work. Pardon my newbie status and lack of knowledge on wikipedia methods - I'm a new wikipedia contributor (now working on a page for another important jazz guitarist) User:Desalane 2 May 2010
- Comment: Can you find reliable sources for those assertions? From what I can see he's performed mostly as a "guest or sideman", which is usually not enough for notability, and his albums are all self-published. As for his work on bioinformatics, we would need to see reliable third-party sources attesting to the importance of his work. — Gwalla | Talk 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think any notability is going to have to rest on either his book publishing or his music; as a research scholar I don't think he passes WP:PROF. At least, I tried a fairly wide search on Google scholar, filtering out names that were clearly not his [47]; two of the top hits are his two Perl books, with 62 and 28 citations each, two other hits with around 30 papers each are bioinformatics papers that might or might not be by him but I'm leaning towards not (the Telometric one has a mismatched affiliation and uses Java instead of Perl, and the other one is too noncomputational and too old). The next one that I think is by him (also by me) is a minor paper in computational complexity theory (neither of our specialties) with only 9 citations. So, as far as WP:PROF #1 goes, that's not enough. I added to the article a couple of published reviews of his Beginning Perl book, though, so that's at least a step towards WP:AUTHOR. And I have no strong opinion on the music; notability is not inherited, so just working with Nico is not enough, but maybe enough reliable sources can be turned up in that direction to demonstrate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 4 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) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not see any strong arguements for notability. That said, it is very hard to assess, as the page has been loaded with peacock terms and name dropping, making it very difficult to figure out what relationships actually existed. Its a long article with little concrete information. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:08, 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. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bertram Heribertson[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. one major role but not multiple notable roles to satisfy WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a filmography to the article, but as Swedish television and Swedish actors do not often get covered in English sources, this AFD definitely needs input from Swedish Wikipedians better able to find and translate Swedish sources. I'd hate it if he falls under the bus due to WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:35, 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, 1 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) 00:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double down delete. This is a BLP article which lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. I know that in some rare instances (seiyu, rappers, musicians) we make exceptions to this rule of thumb, but that certainly doesn't mean that we should. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 00:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I feel that my initial concerns have been resolved. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 13:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And continue improvements. After spending some time with a Swedish-English dictionary and translating some sources, I was able to add them to the article. Seems the gentleman also has coverage for his multiple stage performances. Definitely needs some Swedish input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Our English version is now certainly far better sourced than the equivalent article over at the Swedish Wikipedia. Apparently sourcing is of far less of a concen over there... but hey.. with a little work, it's do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps not a very major actor, but has appeared in some (at least in his home country) quite well-known productions. Tomas e (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the English version is now better than the Swedish one. Excellent work! If no Swedish Wikipedian has taken an interest, it's probably because there are so many articles to deal with, and not enough Swedish Wikipedians. The major concern right now is that he's disappeared from the article about the TV series he starred in, which is why the article is now orphaned. I have sorted that out, at least. I could, ideally, improve the Swedish article about him, but I can't promise to do it any time soon, I'm afraid. Wilma Sweden (talk) 11:13, 13 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) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UHarc[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:18, 1 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) 00:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now. Google news turns up a bunch of potential refs in Chinese and other East Asian languages, e.g. [48] from 163.com, but I can't tell if those are merely hosted blogs or what. When some knowledgeable editor becomes available, he or she should undelete and wp:userfy this article for further work. There's also an OnSoftware blog entry for a 3rd party GUI for this program [49], but that in itself is not very useful to write about UHarc itself. Pcap ping 14:35, 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 redirect to Registry cleaner. Any content worth merging can be done so under discretion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pc performance optimizers[edit]

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

Content fork of Registry cleaner, ostensibly for spamming purposes (Registry cleaner article is a very popular target of spammers); Article is orphaned. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 3 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) 00:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Bearian.T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree with the redirect; there's no content to merge though... Socrates2008 (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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Brett[edit]

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

This is a BLP. If you search for "Anwar Brett" you will find a lot of stuff, however, I have not been able to find a third party source that has information about this individual. What you'll find, instead, is articles written by Anwar Brett. He's a prolific interviewer, but I cannot find anything to indicate his notability (aside from interpreting his mass writings as an indication of notability... which fails the BLP requirements and is WP:OR).

A useful search is "Anwar Brett" -"by anwar brett" (doesn't work on Google but does on yahoo) to avoid the mass of film articles bylined by him. Shadowjams (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a search would also remove significant sources about other authors and directors because many legitimate and oft-referenced sources about people in these professions contain the phrase "by ...". As such, although the search U suggest may be helpful, it is far from indicative. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 20:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: ~~I agree, I'm not really finding anything for secondary sources here. Definitely doesn't meet WP:Notability. As for the article itself, it could almost be speedy deleted per ((db-a1))~~. Looks like notability has been met. I've changed my opinion here. GorillaWarfare ^talk 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which source is that? I have yet to see a source talking about this individual. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per User talk:Shadowjams#Anwar Brett, the quantity of his interviews and articles that Wikipedia references, the fact that he writes for BBC, BAFTA, Film Review (magazine), and other sources, and that a filming of him interviewing the producer, is globally distributed on a multiple Oscar-winning DVD. Furthermore, the Rotten Tomatoes reference strongly upholds the WP:RS questioned in the above proposal as the source is third-party and widely regarded amongst Wikipedia references. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 20:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rotten Tomatoes reference[50] is just a list of articles the subject has written for that website. This doesn't satisfy WP:N, since it's not about the subject. You need to show that there has been "significant coverage" of the subject.Pburka (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He's a prolific writer, but there's no independent sources available to either confer notability upon him or provide reliable sources for any biographical data. If someone can find a couple of independent reliable sources I'd probably change my mind. (The sources would need to be about the subject, and not simply publications by the subject or lists of his publications.) Pburka (talk) 21:21, 1 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) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The quantity of his writings don't qualify him for an article per WP:AUTHOR, nor do they mitigate WP:BLP. Pcap ping 08:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns articles where the subject interviewed people; none of the articles is specifically about him. I reviewed this source from the Post-Gazette (titled "New mag has cinema Focus") and find it insufficient because the article is mostly about a free, pocket-sized magazine, with Anwar Brett being the editor; there is little biographical information. This article from the BBC is insufficient because it is an interview conducted by Brett and thus does not count as a third-party source. The rest of the sources in the article are either unreliable, passing mentions, or a combination of both. The lack of reliable sources about Anwar Brett means that this article fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Cunard, I can't find anything significant. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:02, 16 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 Never mind, listed on Register of Historic Places. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church (Middletown, New Jersey)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 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 JForget 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Yusuf[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. JaGa^talk 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A poet or an activist/promoter? Here is an article published by Al Arabiya. The Guardian and The Economist call him "a popular poet". Furthemore, the subject seems to be discussed also in the Arabic media, see إيقاف لقاء مع نجل القرضاوي على فضائية لبنانية (Elaph.com), added from the Arabic Wiki article and another article published by Arab Times (US). The content of our article is verifiable and expandable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:37, 3 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) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vejvančický --Sodabottle (talk) 20:32, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BOOK, has been previously nominated in January 2008. No references to independent reliable sources, no assertion or support of notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What was mentioned in the previous AfD doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 18:16, 1 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) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like it fails WP:BK, but if someone can produce some reliable secondary sources that discuss this book I'll reconsider. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much fails WP:BOOK given the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 00:24, 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 speedy keep. Snow Keep. The BBC, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune... Shimeru (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Wolf Moon[edit]

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

Non notable internet meme, because it is a best selling item on Amazon and celebrities have worn it doesn't make it notable. Cat-five - talk 03:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its notable because it has received significant press coverage. Its not non-notable because its a best-selling item on amazon and celebrities have worn it. Article could be improved though.--Milowent (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsure about supposed press coverage. Notability due to celebrities having donned one is also dubious. Minor memes should be relegated to internet sites that specialize in such things. --theshizzler (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the topic is evident per the numerous sources which demonstrate the extensive coverage of this topic: BBC, New York Times, books, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage. However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability (Wikipedia:Notable#Notability_is_not_temporary)
  - Do a few references of an internet meme in the news make it notable per that? I'd argue no especially for a non event. Cat-five - talk 16:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has been covered in books too and those are not news sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This ubiquitous image is noteworthy for its iconic status. I dare anyone to go to a flea market in America and not find this image on a shirt, hat, license plate, or set of dishes. - Team4Technologies (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't really make it notable, it's cheap and easy to make any design, put it on tshirts and coffee mugs and sell it at flea markets.v I forgot to mention in the nom (my bad) but Wikipedia:Notability is the relevant policy I belive. Cat-five - talk 16:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep covered in published books and reliable news sources. could use some clean-up, but what article doesn't need clean-up? Arskwad (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found. This AFD isn't done right. There is no stuff at the top which normal AFDs have. Dream Focus 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that the script I used to do the nomination was using an old format, it should be fixed now. I don't think formatting would have been a legitimate reason to vote to keep anyway since a few links have nothing to do with the actual nomination other than making it easier to read and find information. Noticed the first part of your vote. Cat-five - talk 21:27, 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.