< 25 April	27 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Keep" comments in general have not provided strong policy-based rationale for that position. Jujutacular ^talk 12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Eric Davidson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to be a biography of a non-notable person. Finding reliable sources on him is difficult due to the existence of the much better-known Jim Davidson (comedian), but filtering for something like 'Jim Davidson space' or 'Jim Davidson libertarian' doesn't bring up significant coverage in reliable sources. He was once briefly covered in connection with his 'spaceflight lottery', but if that's all there is, this is a case of WP:BLP1E (people notable for only one event) and should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more things: this article was previously discussed in 2008, resulting in no consensus. Secondly, I don't think 'former director of the National Space Society' provides grounds for notability. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly merge if a reasonable target can be found) -- clear case of WP:BLP1E (but not much coverage even for that one event). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any new information indicating fresh notability since I voted "delete" last time. Will Beback talk 05:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E is being cited incorrectly because there seems to be no separate article upon the 1E. In any case, this person is known for more than just this event, being associated with numerous pioneering ventures. For example, there's a substantial entry under the name of Jim Davidson in the Encyclopedia of constitutional amendments. One also needs to search using other names such as James E Davidson, which he used professionally. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, although there is a "substantial entry under the name of Jim Davidson", it is not a substantial entry on the topic of Jim Davidson, but rather on the topic of the constitution of the hypothetical nation of Oceania. It does not even contain enough information to confirm that it is speaking of the same Jim Davidson (I had to go elsewhere for that). Should this article (or some other article) ever cover Oceania/The Atlantis Project, it might be useful to flesh out information on the constitutional proposals contained therein, but it is too tangential to establish notability of Davidson himself. And I would point out that whilst there is "no separate article upon the 1E", there is also only very thin coverage of the 1E as well. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source supplied is enough to make the BLP1E case collapse as it establishes another field in which this person is notable. The nominator searched using the "space" keyword but it seems clear that this person has been active in politics and other fields too. I searched more widely and immediately found this encyclopedia entry. The nomination is thus completely refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Efforts by myself and people I've heard from to edit the page about James Eric Davidson have persistently resulted in the edits being eliminated. Additional citations about noteworthy activities, such Davidson organising a rally in Leavenworth Kansas in support of Bradley Manning in June 2011, Davidson organising Individual Sovereign University in 2009-2011, Davidson's book "Being Sovereign" being published late 2009, Davidson being named chair of the libertarian anarchist Boston Tea Party in 2008 and effectively quintupling its membership and state affiliates, etc., have been removed. Efforts to comment on this or any wikipedia discussion about anything by people making effective use of virtual privacy networks in order to reasonably protect their actual privacy is prevented by archaic wikipedia policies which discriminate against privacy and individual liberty. Wikipedia acts as though there were a scarcity issue, as though one needed to delete hundreds of entries every month in order to...free up space? ....make wikipedia less useful? The people discussing this topic seem to be aware of a racist British comedian Jim Davidson but not a widely known Australian-American author and National Taxpayer Union organiser James Dale Davidson. How is there an issue with Jim Davidson the British comedian - the name Jim Davidson does not appear in the name of the article. How many James Eric Davidsons are there besides this one? About four hundred people in Inverness Scotland have the name Jim Davidson. So, is it now the case that Wikipedia has a scarcity-of-things-to-disambiguate issue? Wikipedia's user community seems to be largely nationalists and socialists of the Stalinist stripe, persons who are naturally biased against libertarians and free market anarchists. It seems odd that sites such as IndSovU.com, Bostontea.us, c4ss.org, and ncc-1776.org where there are altogether many hundreds of articles, essays, and published commentaries by Davidson are not mentioned in this biography, nor discussion of the notability of its subject. But, of course, why would such resources be familiar to the socialists and Stalinists who run Wikipedia, set its policies, and enforce its "standards." larf. Planetaryjim (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources for any of this? And as far as I can make out from the article history, you haven't edited it for nearly three years -- during which time there appears to have been only one major removal, purporting to be of "all uncited references or items that were not notable or relevant". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I seem no reason to delete this entry on the basis of a 'non-notable person'. Davidson has made some achievments in the liberterian field as well as the space program field. The Virgin Space program has a lot to thank prior pioneers in this field. Also the fact that he is willing to stick his neck out where others are not on the subject of libertarianism is noteworthy. Not to say I agree with everything he states but I see no reason to delete him. Indeed, the entry is worth keeping as a way of distinguishing him from other Jim or James Davidsons User:Michael IFA —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The closest a case could come to declaring Jim Davidson "non-notable" is to say that his notability is limited to certain communities, and even then I might disagree. Besides which, within those communities he's a very significant figure and very widely-known. 68.194.82.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC). — 68.194.82.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Jim Davidson is a notable person, and I learned more about him thanks to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faré (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepFor all the reasons above I agree that Jim Davidson-former director of Space Services Inc, and political activist, SHOULD be kept as a page in Wiki, and in fact the page should be expanded to further distinguish his entry from all of the other "Jim Davidsons" of notable importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake Archer (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC) — Jake Archer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - failing to see any arguments keep that aren't some variation of WP:ILIKEIT. BelloWello (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no evidence that this meets our inclusion guidelines for notability in biographies. *** Crotalus *** 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Does not appear to meet general notability guideline. Per BelloWello, all arguments for "keep" put forth so far boil down to WP:ILIKEIT.--JayJasper (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One might also note in passing his "what links here" references on six other WP pages, as well as poorly-sourced information removed in previous edits, which is still verifiable. — Mike Gogulski^{↗C•@•T↗} 17:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of these arguments are biased in exact contradiction of this clause for using wikipedia. Who owns this property known as wikipedia that makes this rule: Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view. Unless the person that has nominated this page for deletion speaks for the ownership of the article? This seems like a property rights dipute. I for one think that Mr. Davidson is notable. I have met him, and I find the information and activities he engages in to be of value. I have referenced this page on the website that I am the editor for. To illustrate my point, here is the URL on said website, announcing Mr. Davidson's book, Being Sovereign was selected as book of the month by users of http://freedombookclub.com, here is the example page: http://freedombookclub.com/code/past/2010.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by FURBjr (talk • contribs) 06:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC) — FURBjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Mr. Davidson is notable to 1) Space Enthusiasts 2) Authorities 3) Political Activists as someone who advocates Mars as an attainable and sustainable free world. Why there are some in the WikiPedia community who feel this is not of interest is beyond me. Jordan.jelinek (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)— Jordan.jelinek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and redirect to a Space Travel Services article. I believe the subject to be mildly notable, but feel this would be better focused on the company rather than the vice-president of the company. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superman: Requiem[edit]

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

Delete as, at this point, a non-notable fan film that has yet to begin production. There also may be a concern since this appeared whole cloth in one edit along with a bio of the "producer" that was speedied as a copyvio. J Greb (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Suggest admin comparison to recently deleted version of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project) this discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err... not deleted. It was "kept" per the AFD, and subsequently there was merging and retitling of the article.[1] But no... not deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... Boy is my keyboard red. Dru of Id (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep - I don't care how much this movie seems to want to promote itself on Indie sites, it lacks any real independent sources and has a budget of $10k, all fan-raising on an indie film site. However...it may take off, and in which case, it will probably get smacked around for copyright violation pretty quickly, especially if they somehow successfully market it well enough that it gets independent coverage. Either way I'm pretty against it but I feel it should be given enough time to flop on it own before being deleted. Crtrue —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
There's a big issue with that though: That assumes there will be more coverage aside from the self promotion. And that it will then be notable. It fails that right now, and we shouldn't plug in the crystal ball and say it "might". Deletion at this point would ve without prejudice - the article could be resurrected if the film is later notable. - J Greb (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The project commences filming in just a few weeks. As for promotion on indie sites, there has been very little self promotion, as all marketing has been limited to three press releases and two interviews - all other promotion is public interest. As for copyright violation, the project has been discussed at length with Warner Bros. and they are happy with it. I am able to supply documentation if required.Supesfan (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that begs a question: Are you directly involved in the fan film? If so this becomes a major case of conflict of interest, at best, or using Wikipedia to in part promote the film, at worst. - J Greb (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am involved, and with respect we really don't need Wikipedia to promote it - promotion and public interest is high without needing Wikipedia. If this is the case by all means delete it until it becomes more notable after release. ThanksSupesfan (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may not need it, but by creating the articles as you have - and placing the unsourced information in other articles - it looks like you are trying to use Wikipedia for your own benefit. I really suggest you read WP:COI with regards to this and your other edits. - J Greb (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this page is extremely helpful. I have been following this project from the start and have always eagerly awaited new information about casting etc. It has my full support, I think the whole team of people involved should very proud. There are a lot of Superman fans out there who seem to only have negative things to say about anything related to Superman and still have the guts to call themselves fans. Surely if you're a fan you should support anything to do with the subject you're a fan of, not just beat down other peoples efforts to keep things alive. I say keep this page. For real fans of Superman it creates a great database of people to whom they will show their respect to, not beat down because they couldn't do any better.SuperLean (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Film is totally non notable at the moment, and even full studio pics (except the biggest) can't fully justify an article prior to production starting (WP:CRYSTALBALL). If it gets some real press coverage, maybe worth a try then. Hope it goes well anyway, I'd like to see it before DC/Warner get wind of it! Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 08:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would love to know how a fan film could be notable before release (actually before filming, since it doesn't even claim to start filming until May or June), yet some of our high profile REAL films are not. Somehow, someone thinks this page is of the same notability as The Dark Knight Rises? Half of the sources are not even considered reliable for any other page, yet they are being used here? Indiegogo appears to be a blog for the people making the film. I don't think self-published works establishes notability. MaxwellReyes.com is another fansite promoting a fan film. I cannot even find an 'About Us' section to determine what, if any, editorial oversight this page has. ComicBookMovie - this page even says it was submitted by a volunteer. I would wager that the "volunteer" is actually someone from the fan film's production. I could go through all of the other sources on there, but it's clear that they are not reliable. This page needs to be deleted, and only if there is actual real coverage of the completed product in a significant capacity (see WP:NOTE) should it even be considered for existence. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with BigNole. And this is just another case of someone making a film, then trying to use one of the largest websites to promote it. Everyone that is associated with the film have red links here. —Mike Allen 04:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed that this Wikipedia article is premature. Despite the previous keep discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project), I don't believe there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources -- a necessary criteria for avoiding No Future Films. The article should wait until it can be based on actual independent sources rather than PR and fan-driven information. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For those wondering how a fan-film could be notable before its release, the answer is that it would be notable the same way everything else generally is, and this is with significant coverage in reliable sources. In this case, there aren't any so it isn't notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whpq put it best, I have nothing more to add. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xhamster[edit]

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

Not notable web site, no references. Change back to original redirect. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not appear to be a notable website. Restoring it as a redirect to internet pornography is inappropriate too. If it's not notable, just delete it. Peacock (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although mentioned a fair bit on gnews little to none of the coverage is really in-depth in any regard so I would say this website fails notability. Against redirect to internet pornography. OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naukree[edit]

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

This article falls under WP:NOT#DICT. It actually is nothing more than the Indian word for "job", and I can't see why it should exist at all. I can understand having an article on the English word job, but for the Indian translation of it? No. Slon02 (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#DICT does seem to apply. The content of the article is almost like a disambig page, but the listed items are different enough to not warrant disambiguation. Peacock (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. could have been speedied. --CarTick (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to job. Salih (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it likely that a person will search using an Indian word on the English Wikipedia? --Slon02 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Naukree will bring out the matter as it relates to just South Asian significance. When a person wants to look for a job in India, Pakistan or Nepal, he or she will use the word 'Naukree' instead of Job.

Delete. Per the page, it's a word that some people type into search engines and that occurs in the titles of several films. By that rationale, we could have pages on virtually every word in Hindi, English, Cantonese, French, ad nauseum. Regarding the redirect, since English has official status alongside Hindi in India and Urdu in Pakistan, it's not that far-fetched as a search term. Cnilep (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, 'Shadi' is also just an Indian Word, yet it is featured on Wikipedia. Words of high significance, even if of language other than English, are featured in Wikipedia. With this logic, Naukree must also remain featured in Wikipedia. Kssohal (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shadi is a disambiguation page pointing to articles on various people and things called Shadi. Cnilep (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naukree page is also pointing to many different Indian films on the subject, with the primary titles of the films being 'Naukree'. The page also points to various Indian Websites on the subject of Naukree. Kssohal (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A case could be made for turning this into a DAB as there are currently four pages (Naukri, Nauker, Naukar Biwi Ka and Naukri.com) that might need disambiguation. But per Peacock above, those titles differ enough that disambiguation may not be necessary. If you wish to turn the page from an article to a disambiguation, see MOS:DAB for advice on proper layout and contents. Be aware, though, that disambiguation pages are still subject to deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to job per Salih, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job is not a proper fit, as Job can also mean 'assignment', but not 'Naukree'. Kssohal (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is to redirect to job (role). Salih (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without a redirect. This is an English language Wikipedia, and unless the word moves into relatively common English usage, then it's not appropriate for a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. About the only thing it isn't is a copyvio (presumably). postdlf (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blyefriend[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. –BuickCentury Driver 22:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Blatant hoax and vandalism. Nimuaq (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thuban (Document Management Software)[edit]

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

Document management software. I can't find any reliable sources on google (other than a few copies of this wiki pages/other wikis). Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check http://www.vivatia.com/ most of the information was obtained from that website. Thanks! Vdocs

Delete, probably speedy. Much of the text would appear to be a copyright violation from texts at http://www.vivatia.com/page/%C2%BFwhat-thuban%C2%AE or its daughter pages — cut and pasted or only lightly edited with minor changes in syntax. And since it's mostly been copied from the official site, it's unambiguous advertising as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - commercial software article - possible copyvio as above, created by an SPA, so probable spam. Dialectric (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –BuickCentury Driver 22:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia Commons[edit]

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

Non notable fraternal organization. Google search doesn't reveal any outside notability absent organization's own sources. Shadowjams (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7, there is no indication in the article of any importance. Likely also G11, as article was created by User:CasComm07. Tagged as such. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 15:06, 1 May 2011 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Sulene fleming" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): unsourced biography of a living person) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sulene fleming[edit]

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

This singer/songwriter exists and has released something[2], but that's about it. Also likely WP:COI. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Has been relisted twice, does not look like there is going to a conensus (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One-Shot Entanglement-Enhanced Classical Communication[edit]

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

Only fractionally better than original research. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, or verifiability for that matter, also Wikipedia is not a scientific journal (WP:NOT#JARGON (specifically point 6)) At best, we could rename to something less specific and massively overhaul it to layman's English, but I think that it's just not notable, however it's presented. User:ConconJondor _talk ^contribs 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fascinating result that entanglement can boost the success probability of a classical communication channel, having significant implications for communication over classical channels. It describes a result in the domain of quantum information theory and it is an important observation in this field. The article requires significant clean-up, but it does not deserve to be deleted immediately. The original author should be given time to clean up this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilde (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy so the author has time to clean up the article, and delete per WP:STALEDRAFT if he/she chooses not to do so. Drop the "One shot" and this becomes both notable and verifiable according to Google scholar. This doesn't look like quantum woo to me, but if someone want to correct me on the matter, I'll change my !vote to delete. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article obviously has problems; it seems to have started as propaganda for a single paper. But it now has content and seems to be quickly improving. The subject is notable. It is emphatically not quantum woo. We do have an article on Entanglement-assisted classical capacity; perhaps a merge with it? The whole subject of channel capacity is the main point of quantum and classical information theory. This article has existed for only 6 days; give it some time to improve. Tercer (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borro[edit]

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

Article doesn't appear notable: WP:CORP, WP:WEB, Advertising. If the original editor, who does not appear to have a user account, meant to create an article explaining the rise of pawnshops as alternatives to the tightening credit market and had only one example at hand, perhaps the article could be expanded to include other firms (besides the single one for whom the article is named) that are positioning themselves in the same way. As it stands currently it appears to be simple advertising and unencyclopedic. Sctechlaw (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, does at the moment appear to be self promoting. However, this company in the UK has gained a lot of press and is on the TV through both advertising and related financial daytime discussions. There was even a prime-time Channel 4 documentary about it (referenced within the article recently). For that reason, it is of relevant notability but the article needs to be edited to reflect that. Googly75 (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will state again, i feel that this company has a right to be here. They have had a lot of press, mainstream TV news even a documentary about them. Just their existence has a reflection on our modern society. Plus the fact that they pawn ferraris from bankers who have since lost their money, is an additional reflection on our current financial predicament and thus shows notability. This should stay. I have since changed some references and tried to make this page less of an advert, which was obviously initially poorly written.Googly75 (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Psychology and Religion[edit]

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

With apologies to the new editor: this strikes me as an essay composed of synthesis, not as an article on an individual, notable subject. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per my explanation on the Talk page for tagging as POV and Essay P T 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SNOW; we can see which way this is going. P T 14:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay GabrielF (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleeeete because it already exists on a much better page Crtrue —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to have a chance to publish this page and are still in the process of editing. We have been using one account, but there have been 4 editors as this page is a project for class. We would like to have to chance to clear up disputions and publish it so that we can receive concrete feedback about the article. We are still incorporating sources and additional information. --Positivepsych270 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Positive Psychology and Religion[reply]
Merge per request by creator, to Psychology of religion. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronly[edit]

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

There has been a request from Ronly Holdings Ltd. to delete this page as it was not created with its authorisation, and "we feel we do not require or want a wiki page". Request is at OTRS:5671391 for users with access. I am completing the nomination on their behalf and am currently neutral. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their notability isn't the strongest case (and the article lacks any WP:RS verification), and per their request. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. I am actually finding a fair number of reliable sources discussing this business when the name is changed to "Ronly Holdings", apparently the full form, and this strips out all the misfires on "only" typos. [3] The sources reveal that this business was apparently was used to funnel money to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, in possible violation of international sanctions. [4][5][6][7][8].

It would appear that this business has in fact taken one of the obvious paths for a business to become worthy of encyclopedic memory; it's been implicated in a scandal with historic dimensions. The instant article tells us nothing about that, and is a brief promotional stub with the usual vague hogwash about being a "global company". They do appear to get around.

Still, I'm not entirely sure that the subject meets WP:PERP or doesn't fail WP:ONEEVENT. Assuming that their activities were illegal or controversial, money laundering is a fairly routine practice with an obvious motive, and may not be enough to give this business lasting historical significance. The request for deletion would appear to be somewhat disingenuous, though. This one has a better claim to notability than most, and I'm only choosing delete because I consistently set a high bar for businesses generally. If kept, the article should be rewritten to reflect the actual cause of its notability and what the sources say. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is probably a borderline case of notability, so if the subject objects to having an article on them, I'd be inclined to acquiesce. Peacock (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REACHSingapore[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Referenced only to primary sources. Promotional tone. Is it really a government department/division? It certainly doesn't look like it from the website. It looks like a website that promotes some Government programmes. Is every individual website that a government produces notable? Probably not. Is this one? Not that I can see. Google has next to nothing on it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as important national government interface with its population. The nominator asks whether this is really an arm of government? With the three top stories when I looked on the website the results of the pre-budget consultation, the official inflation statistics and a crime prevention initiative I'd say it is fairly typical. The fact that it may be presented differently and use social media makes it notable in itself. There is a big problem in applying notability criteria to government and large organisations when most of what is produced concerning them is generated by them and therefore a primary source, but it must be well known in Singapore and it has been going for five years. The Government of Singapore, by the way, has a reputation of being a well run and progressive outfit, so it isn't surprising to see them doing something different. --AJHingston (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are certainly not here to argue the merits of any particular government and I am surprised to see it raised as an issue. Lets leave that aside and look at your points. If this really is the main government information portal then I would accept that this makes it automatically notable (for any government in the world) but it was certainly not obvious to me that this is that. Lots of governments make lots of overlapping portalish websites that repeat and reblog government information. This looks like it could be one of those and I see nothing to prove otherwise in the article.

I strongly disagree that there is any intrinsic problem proving notability. If this really is the main government web portal then it will have been covered in the Singapore media. You say it "must be well known in Singapore" (my emphasis). If that really is so then it must be possible to prove it. Where are the newspaper references from a few years back saying "Government unveils brand new web portal". Where is the verifiability here? Singapore is an English speaking country. It shouldn't be hard to find the references required, if they exist, but I am finding almost nothing when I look. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now pretty certain that www.gov.sg is actually the main Singapore government web portal. It says "The www.gov.sg Portal is the official electronic communication platform of the Singapore Government. This portal, together with three other portals - Citizens & Residents, Business and Non-Residents - collectively make up the Singapore Government Online (SGOL) presence.". It doesn't get much clearer than that. And it doesn't even mention Reach. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether we are arguing here about whether the website is what it claims to be or whether it is notable in the sense that people will have heard of it, since they overlap. The stated purpose is set out on the website . Accessing press coverage is difficult because the Straits Times does not appear to be searchable directly, but these two articles are pertinent - from Jan 2009 and Oct 2010. I didn't look for others. I am not in favout of including websites in general, but this does seem to me different from the usual. --AJHingston (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two media links are both helpful for demonstrating some notability and providing verifiability. It is now possible to be clearer about what the site actually is and what the organisation is behind it. This is something that the article, and the site itself, does not explain clearly at all. Now that we know that Reach is an agency as well as a website this does make it much more likely to be notable. If the article is kept I think we would want to use those sources as the basis for a more-or-less complete rewrite and rename the article to match the correct name. (I was taking it on trust that the article was correctly named which is why I wasn't finding stuff when I searched for sources and why I assumed it would be easier than it is.) As it stands the article is pretty much a puff piece but now we have some better sources it may be rescuable after all. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else has chimed in in favour of deletion and the above exchange has weakened my belief that deletion is necessary. Accordingly I think it best if I abandon the nomination so we can instead try to clean up the article according to the sources found. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shandalar[edit]

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

Fictional world in a trading card game. The article is entirely unsourced since its creation in 2006(!). A Google search does not show reliable secondary sources discussing this fictional world, as would be required for a separate article by WP:V#Notability. There are many mentions of this word, though many seem to concern a computer game and it's not clear that there is any basis on which an encyclopedia article can be written without engaging in original research.

If and when reliable sources for the subject are found, it may be mentioned at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) and a redirect may be created there. But currently the article should not be redirected because it is not described at the target article. Per WP:V, the current content should also not be merged because it is unsourced. I do not object to a selective merger to the extent somebody does find reliable sources and, more importantly, adds them to the article as inline citations.

Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, where another article about a fictional world from this game was deleted for the same reasons. Sandstein 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been on my watchlist since its creation back in 2006. I'll kinda miss it, but it's not a well-documented subject and it doesn't have much hope of being verified with real sources ever. Writing is in universe, not sourced, and mostly useless. Some small portion should be merged back into Plane_(Magic:_The_Gathering)#Shandalar in spite of the lack of sources, because the basic one sentence or two worth of cites could be extracted from a game manual or the plethora of published fiction. i kan reed (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator, and I cannot find any substantial, independent sources either. Reyk _YO! 08:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I don't like the thought of deleting such an old article, I can't find any non-trivial RS treatment of it either. Probably better suited to a Wikia project about the game. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kingdom of Breifne. Der yck C. 20:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Breifne[edit]

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

The article is redundant as all of the data is already contained in the article Kingdom of Breifne. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirect - plausible search term.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. No reason why this would not be a reasonable search term, and the list is a featured part of the main article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect This article has content not already included in the redirect target. The AfD candidate has kings going back to 1128, while the redirect target only goes back to 1257. There are also a few minor discrepancies between the time lines. Regardless, an immediate redirect would not be appropriate. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Blackburn[edit]

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

Very short list, no criteria for inclusion given. Tagged for possible lack of notibility since July 2010 NtheP (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source I've found is [9] which doesn't list the building's height. It fails WP:N without any reliable source. Nimuaq (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if sourced, this list is completely unnecessary per WP:N since only 2 "tall" buildings are included, one of which does not even have an article.—Chris!_c/t 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Elekhh (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you absolutely have to state which two buildings in Blackburn are the tallest, it can go in the Blackburn article. Even then, at the very least this needs backing up in a reliable source. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Skokos[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable business-guy. Damiens.rf 17:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find independent, reliable sources that discuss this businessman and author in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company that he was the CEO of is no longer functioning. That just leaves the book which is a primary source. I suspect that is where most of the content has come from. Lots of personal content. I tried to reduce the content to make it much less promotional. But much of the content is still very personal and unreferenced outside of the primary source. I suspect that he might meet [[WP:GNG] from past deeds but I can see no evidence of that other than being listed in Who's Who in American Business Professionals. From the quality, or more to the point lack of quality, of the content. I think that we would be doing him a big favor by deleting the article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet notability criteria. --Kumioko (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin Joey[edit]

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

The movie was never realized and was never permitted to be posted on the wikipedia site. The information given is untrue and needs to be taken down for copyright reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santedorazio (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 April 2011

Please tag your post using four ~ signs (~~~~). Also, nothing in the article seems to fall under copyright. There are no links to places where the film is available online, nothing but basic plot information. Per Wikipedia:No Legal Threats, it is not a good idea to threaten or imply legal action against something on Wikipedia; it is a blockable offence.

However, I must agree that this article may not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability. A quick Google search shows only the IMDB and Wikipedia entries for this film, and then ten or twenty sites that claim to stream it. As such, Delete. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Barebones entry at IMDb, but nothing else found in a brief online search, not even a link to a home media release. According to nom (who may, by their username, have WP:COI issues), there wasn't even a theatrical release...this is not verifiable, but the glaring lack of material supporting even the movie's existence argues for deletion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Netflix doesn't seem to have heard of this movie. There is a very short entry in IMDB, but is this a hoax? I don't think that the copyright reasons stated by the nominator apply, but nor does the No Legal Threats response to that. But still delete.Dingo1729 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of a copyvio as claimed in the nom; but clearly fails WP:N and WP:NF. Via Google, I was able to locate several sites with trivial listings of the director and cast, but unable to locate any support for plot synopsis or even evidence of theatrical release. The nom (who per this edit summary may be the claimed director of the film), appears to be confirming above that the film was never completed and/or released. Given lack of any significant coverage - delete. --- Barek (talk) - 16:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a copyvio in the sense the nominating editor is suggesting but the text is still a word-for-word copy of its IMDB entry. Even if the article was re-phrased it would still not meet our notability guidelines for films and as such should be removed. doomgaze (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Karlan[edit]

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

Founder of a small company, lacks independent notability. Delete or merge into Professionals in the City Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

He gets a lot of media coverage. He was on the Today Show just this morning. It is posted on the Today Show's website at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41162089/vp/42358637#42358637. Carolinarico (talk) 1:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO. no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He gets in-depth coverage. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123001017.html. But my point was more that when stories come out about singles or young professionals, he is frequently the one being quoted. Today, for example, I saw him quoted in The Hill talking about job opportunities for young professionals. See http://thehill.com/special-reports/professional-development-april-2011/154435-dcs-unique-career-opportunities.Carolinarico (talk) 2:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Carolinarico (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination reason is entirely invalid, we have thousands of articles on entities that no longer exist. Valid arguments are made for both keeping and deleting but participation is low despite being listed for three weeks therefore closing as no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Cottage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Company Closed Cordie Southall (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but what is your rationale for deleting the article? Marasmusine (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK lets see if I have got this right. A business owner created a page for advertising purposes and then wanted it deleted after negative comments were posted. It was deleted through WP:G7 (Author request). It was created again soon after and tagged as WP:G4 (recreation of deleted article). And is now again up for AFD. I am tempted to !Vote keep as it is a case of the author using Wikipedia for advertising and then getting cold feet when something negative is added to their article. However, I don't think it meet the criteria before closure so Delete. I do think it should run through the AFD process as I am not sure C7 applies if other authors have added content. AIRcorn (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the sources cited in the article are commenting on the shop's closure. As presented, this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT ("whoop-di-doo, a shop closed.") However, further sources are available: at this Google Books search, the lower two entries (The Passionate Shopper [Ann Levine, 1999] and Business Week issue 3726) appear to have significant coverage on Maine Cottage. Although these are only snippet views - I'm extrapolating based on the context. Marasmusine (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If I recall correctly the deleted version of this had plenty more content and sources. That version shouldn't have been deleted under WP:CSD#G7 because a second editor had added content about the closure. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I've restored revisions from the first creation. The revision that I deleted can be viewed at here. The reasoning behind my deleting the page under WP:G7 as requested was that the person who requested it had added most of the content to the article and admitted to creating the page solely for advertising. As such, I felt that the page wasn't created with the encyclopedia in mind and didn't see why it should have stayed. Airplaneman ✈ 13:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, blatant hoax, "founded by Paul Bunyan's grandson", yeah, right. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beer30 Derby[edit]

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

I nominated this for speedy deletion as a hoax; an otherwise uncommunicative editor (an SPI, possibly related to the creater) removed it without explanation. Read the article; it's hardly credible. If evidence is found that Johnson Dipshit and Wildcorn Jangle-Shits did indeed win this contest I stand corrected. Please get rid of this soon. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax: The Beer30 Derby dates back to 1871 and was the brainchild of Col. Meriwether Conway, who was the grandson of Paul Bunyon. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a couple Hoaxer Style Points for the FACEBOOK PAGE included as an external link. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; " Count Fagula" and "Lord Bumblesharts"? C'mon, there's no discussion needed here. Hairhorn (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree--but the CSD template had been removed by a different username. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an obvious sock; this is something of a weakness in the CSD system. This can still be speedy deleted but an admin has to take the initiative to do it. Hairhorn (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Doyle[edit]

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

Non-notable banana eater trying to break world record is going to appear on tv. Damiens.rf 15:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Article cites five such references, thereby meeting the notability criteria. CaptainAmerica2 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:BLP1E. All cites provided in article relate to the same (future?) event. Even if event were in the past, and subject was a confirmed world record holder, would still have BLP1E problems. Same goes for "film maker" claims, which covers the same event and also falls in the WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E categories. The other apparent "notability" claims made are very very weak: "Penned books as a child"? (cite? relevance? uniqueness?) "Baron of Sealand"? (these can be bought on the web!) Guliolopez (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not notability claims, but rather items of personal information sourced from the Freiherr Films website, simply added as additional facts about the subject. The appearance on Lo Show dei Record has already occurred but has yet to be televised. However, this is not the only event for which notability is claimed. The article in the Irish Daily Star references an upcoming appearance on The Late Late Show. Furthermore, the filmmaker claim covers three films, rather than just a single one revolving around the record attempt. CaptainAmerica2 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Couple of quick points:

You may want to read the COI guidelines about declaring an association to the subject
If the assertions relating to writing and purchased Barony titles are not notability assertions, then fine. However that leaves us back with BLP1E - as the only notability claim relates to one event/rationale.
If we're asserting notability under WP:FILMMAKER, then there should be WP:SIGCOV cites on those films. Otherwise we're back to BLP1E.

Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under BLP1E and per Guliolopez' rationale. Non-notable banana eater - LOL - Alison ^❤ 13:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Snappy (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:1E, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both". The significant quantity of media coverage, as well as the appearances on television programmes in two countries, surely indicates that at least one of these is deserving of an article. Perhaps the event20:16itself should be the subject of the article: "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that20:16person is associated with in source coverage." Perhaps a retitling to "Ronan Doyle World Record Campaign" or something? CaptainAmerica2 (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi. If we're talking about an article to cover the record attempt event, then it would be subject to WP:NEWSEVENT. And, per that guideline (and WP:NOTNEWS) I can't see how a single fleeting event (involving one person) meets the longevity criteria. (Being on TV in 2 countries is not a notability criteria for events). The most the "event" would likely warrant is possibly a short mention in the competitive eating article. (FYI - If you're going to continue to contribute to this AfD discussion or otherwise contribute to Wikipedia articles relating to subjects with which you have an association, I will repeat my suggestion that you look at the relevant guidelines about avoiding COI). Guliolopez (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guliolopez. Keb25 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Baseball Watcher 21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above the Law (blog)[edit]

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

I don't think there's enough material here for this subject to qualify as notable, under the protocol established by WP:WEB:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. A quick google search doesn't reveal any significant independent information about this search.he Washington Post reference to Above the Law is parenthetical, and provides very little information on the blog. The notability question was raised when this article was created, and dismissed rather informally on the talk page, but the actual issue was not ever addressed in the article. 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. The award from the ABA journal is not well known, and looks like it was based on a web poll. It also is unclear whether the ABA still gives out this award or if it was a one time thing. In fact the only apparent reason for the 'Recognition' section is to skirt this article in under the criteria of WP:WEB

3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).

I don't believe this criteria applies here. The distributor 'Breaking Media' doesn't have a wikipedia page, and a google search for 'Breaking Media' returns largely self published material, this page, another advert style wikibio page titled David Lat.

I also believe this article falls short of the criteria established in WP:V, WP:ORGIN, WP:POV. Thomrenault (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator's rationale. --Lincolnite (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was created on 24 April 2011 but does not appear to have been placed on the AfD log until today. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a rewrite, but a quick search turns up a number of references to this site in major news sources from the NY Times and NPR on down. See [10][11] etc. That seems to qualify to meet WP:N. So, I'd suggest a rewrite with new sources added. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think it's really notable. Both of those references are in passing, and there isn't really any independent source which actually goes in depth on the blog. Thomrenault (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, that's why it is called a debate :) However, for the record, I wasn't just referencing those two items; those were examples. The larger point is that news sources such as the New York Times and NPR (and others) are using Above The Law as a news reference and cited news source. That suggests notability to me. Transmissionelement (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Readily meets WP:N. Nomination is frivolous: blog regularly covered by NYTimes, ABA Journal, and NPR, among others; has broken important stories creating national controversy. Nominator appears to have COI or grudge against David Lat given other Wikipedia-noncompliant edits. 207.228.237.110 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, the article is badly in need of a rewrite with new sources. Considered to meet WP:N --Whiteguru (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other "keep" recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely recognized and cited blog, albeit of a tabloid nature. Clearly notable. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Tellus[edit]

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

Contested PROD - no reason given. Footballer fails WP:FOOTYN as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Lack of any significant media coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 15:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maltese football is not fully pro and he has not played internationally, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Shawn tellus and i can confirm that i am a professional footballer in the country of MALTA. I have played at international U21 Level with my country MALTA 23 Games, Maltafootball.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xon268 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As far as I am aware the footballers assigned to Maltese Premier League teams are professional footballers, and I would challange anyone to suggest otherwise, all the clubs in the division are professional clubs, so surely with that in mind, their players must also be professional Stew jones (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link (which is used as a source at WP:FPL) explicitly states that the league is semi-professional... or at least it was back in 2001. This forum post written at the beginning of the month says it used to be fully professional, but now most players are semi-professional. I'm trying to find a bit more reliable than a forum post though. By fully professional, we mean the players are full-time employees of their clubs, whereas semi-professional players receive a smaller wage to supplement their day job. —BETTIA— ^talk 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This news story confirms Tarxien Rainbows are a semi-pro team, while the sports editor of the Malta Independent says "In Malta, the clubs still work on a semi-professional basis although, in my opinion, it is closer to amateurism. What Valletta are proposing – to turn the club into a professional entity – is something which must be commended. ". That pretty much confirms it as far as I'm concerned. —BETTIA— ^talk 13:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not "is Maltese football professional"; that is irrelevant. The issue is does this person meet the WP:GNG and absent anyone showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then the answer is a resounding "No he does not". Mtking (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The league is not fully professional (see here - "...Maltese football is not fully professional..."), so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Number 5 7 13:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sources above. The Maltese league is semi-professional, therefore the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL and there's no evidence he meets the general notability guidelines. —BETTIA— ^talk 13:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as the subject lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Mtking (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to counteract the personal testimony above claiming that this is a fully professional league, I'll give my own personal testimony that a close family member of mine has played as an amateur in the Maltese league system, and confirms that he would have been able to carry on playing as an amateur, training in the evening after his day job, if his club had been promoted to the premier league. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayeeta Ghosh[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The only claim to notability seems to be that on YouTube (if I read the article correctly) is that "As of April 25, 2009, Tui Phele Eshechhis Kare has 35 favorites and a 4.5 star rating." I noticed this article's creation as I deleted it as an expired PROD last year. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources http://www.parabaas.com/rabindranath/articles/audio_jayita2.html http://nabc2010.org/domperformances.html shows notability for this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI would argue that if that is the best other editors can find, these extremely brief mentions suggest that he is not notable enough to meet our criteria. I may of course be wrong about this. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage in the sources shown so far is incredibly limited at best (the website of a conference that he is performing at is certainly not any sort of indication of significant independent coverage). Topping it off, fails MUSICBIO. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician. Keb25 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. slightly supervoting in the close but I can't see that a further relist will make this clearer and the demands of V & BLP require sources for individals so merging to the appropriate chrch article seems the best ciompromise between keep/merge that satisfies all the relevent policies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch Elijah[edit]

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

No indication at all of notability. There are no independent sources given, and Google searching produced none. (There are plenty of hits to non-independent and non-reliable sources, including Wikipedia, MySpace, blogspot, twitter, and sites which either clearly are or appear to be affiliated with the organisation that the subject of the article belongs to.) The article appears to be a promotional autobiography. A PROD was removed by an IP with no edits except to this article, with the edit summary "minor chage" (sic). JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate is a new structure, that's why there are no many sources. It needs some neutrality, but this is not a reason for deletion. Fijalkovich (talk —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC). Fijalkovich has made no edits except on this topic.[reply]

Is there any reason to fear vandalism to the article? As far as I can see there hasn't been any yet. In any case, that is not an issue for a deletion debate. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a new "structure" and has not yet received coverage in reliable sources then it has no yet established notability by Wikipedia's criteria, which is a reason for deletion. Besides, the issue is whether this particular individual is notable, not whether the "structure" to which he belongs is. If and when he has received substantial coverage in reliable third party sources an article on him will be fine, but if there aren't such sources an article on him is not acceptable, no matter what the reason for lack of such sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is rather known in catholic circle for fighting against Assisi and the ex-head of UGCC L.Huzar. Not sure if there is much about him in English, here is one of Ukrainian sources http://www.gk-press.if.ua/node/1021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijalkovich (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that all patriarchs are notable - it doesn't whether they get recognised by Rome or not. The church's website now mentions him. St Anselm (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protect from vandalism for some time. Fijalkovich (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. Not exactly a BLP1E case, but I don't see anywhere near enough independent coverage to support a BLP, nor do I see any independent coverage supporting the idea that a patriarchy established only two weeks ago is sufficient to create a presumption of notability. In any event, this is clearly not an appropriate title for the article, which if kept should be moved to the subject's birth name, under which the bulk of coverage seems to exist.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, where there is already some biographical information on him. If he meets notability criteria later through documentation in independent, third-party sources, a separate article will be justified. (Disclosure: I created the article on UOGCC.) --Chonak (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all patriarchs are notable. article should stay in its present state.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Reasons for re-listing: I found the reasons of keep mentioned till now to be invalid enough to be rejected outright. To mention that All patriarchs are notable has no basis on policy as far as I know. To mention that an article should be kept even though there are no sources (because some particular institution is new) goes against our verifiability pillar - which mentions that sources rather than truth defines the inclusion of any topic. Therefore, I find only the merge votes valid. But given the fact that ergo we have only two valid comments apart from the nominator's, this AfD is being relisted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyhow.. Passes wp:bio.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have a usual outcome in deletion debates that bishops (and equivalent) are notable. Since patriarchs are higher and more significant than bishops, the "all patriarchs are notable" argument is not as invalid as the relisting admin seems to think. St Anselm (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that bishops and such are inherently notable?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It's a common outcome. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/René Henry Gracida. St Anselm (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I don't think that's purely a keep just by virtue of being a bishop, but by the coverage that being one in the Roman Catholic Church almost always provides as compared to a more minor body like the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the "History" section of this article still has no references, just as it had none when this deletion proposal was made. Is nobody trying to demonstrate notability by adding sources -- even non-English sources -- to the article? --Chonak (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to church article - All Bishops, or even Patriarchs, are not inherently notable. Yes, when it is a Catholic official or other major religious body they are almost always kept, but that should absolutely not be taken to apply to all religious institutions, especially a new one like this. As such, this cannot be kept as a separate article unless it passes the GNG. None of the sources providing significant coverage are independent, and therefore it does not. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T-LAB[edit]

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

This article is about a research lab within a department of the University of Southern California which doe snot meet notability. I am unable to find any indication that this lab is notable through reliable sources. Note that the version as of the deletion nomination has much material removed and editors entering this discussion may wish to review the history. There is an apparent conflict of interest with the creation of this article although that is not usually grounds for deletion. Whpq (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Scholar shows many reelvant hits for Bosco Tjan but not in combination with "T-Lab"; perhaps the doctor warrants his own article, but the lab doesn't get mentioned. Searching Scholar with "T-Lab California" doesn't turn up anything that appears relevant to this laboratory. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to University of Southern California. tedder (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without a redirect to the USC article. Not that notable, and an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have discarded a number of spa votes and find the arguments for deletion have not been adequately refuted although I will specifically state that there is no bar on creation of a properly sourced NPOV article at the location. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Judaism[edit]

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

Unsourced, WP:POV & a violation of WP:SYNTH. This is an essay that is structured like an article. Joe407 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy for original author. This is an essay consisting of original research and is promotional for a small Canadian rabbinical school. The references are poor and do not establish notability for this topic. The new editor states that he/ she will be away from Wikipedia for several weeks, and it would take a major re-write to save this, if that was even possible. Cullen328 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be the philosophy of the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School.[12] However, the article does not state the notability of "Classic Judaism", is it an actual movement or is it one Rabbi's analogy? The tone of the article advocates this philosophy without taking a neutral stance. GabrielF (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a hunch that there is a legitimate encyclopedia article here, although I doubt the title reflects that content. There is clearly Original Essay dreck that needs to go away, such as this howler: When the British Industrial Revolution teamed with the French Enlightenment (today ironically called "Americanism")... Actually, nobody has written on Americanism on WP, believe it or not, so the use of the early-20th Century term in this very strange context is perhaps forgivable, but still... Really?!?! I'll ponder this one for a few days, it's not an easy call in terms of inclusion-worthiness, outside of the fact that the title strikes me as a neologism. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All right, it didn't take a couple days. This is an original essay about what seems to be a "proprietary concept," if I may use anachronistic language to get my point across, fostered by a single rabbinical school. In this I echo Cullen328 above. I think there might be material of worth for an encyclopedic article on the history of Judaism, but most of the good stuff isn't sourced and probably constitutes a content fork anyway. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the article should be userfied rather than annihilated. There remains the potential that there is a substantive article here, but not in this form. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Classic Judaism" is definitely not a term widely used. This seems to be an off shoot of Conservative/Orthodox Judaism related to the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School. There is a Classical Reform Judaism movement, but that it is completely different from what this article is. Additionally, Much of the content in the article is covered, or should be covered, on already existing pages. The "history" section, which at the moment is incredibly general, would be better served on the Haskalah article, under a Reactions/Opposition to topic. The "post-enlightenment" and the "Halakha" are covered under Halakha#Views today and, with some variation, on Conservative Halakha. Finally, the "Philosophy and Principle" does seem to be an idea of the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School and should be merged there. The article seems to try and be an overview of conservative/orthodox reactions to the Haskalah movement, but with some promotion of ideas exclusively of the Canadian Yeshiva thrown in. Again, I think that a page of this type can be useful but should be done on the main Haskalah page, as that page itself is in need of expansion and I would encourage the original creator of the article to contribute to that as well. Ravendrop 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a chance: The article as it is currently written is eminently deletable. But it also suggests that Classic Judaism is a religious movement, which might, perhaps, have adherents, and about which, perhaps, scholars have written things. The author is a rank tyro at this encyclopedia-writing business. On his talk page I gave him a few pointers about how to save the article, and I think we should give him a couple of weeks to give it a shot. If there are, in fact, Jewish congregations that adhere to this ideology, and there are published discussions about it as a movement, it is definitely worth saving. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a pretty in depth search and found no mention of a religious movement calling itself "Classic Judaism." As I mentioned above, many of the theological points are similar to certain orthodox/conservative Judaism views of Halakah, but the specific views mentioned in this article seem to be intimately (and from my findings almost exclusively) connected to the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School. Additionally, I couldn't find any significant discussion of a "Classic Judaism" in scholarly works, and Jewish specific encyclopedias, such as Encyclopaedia Judaica, have not trace of mention of it either. I'm not 100% convinced that an article can't be made out of this, but this is definitely not that article. I !vote for userification and/or merge/expansion as suggested by my previous post. Ravendrop 06:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The concept is original research/synthesis. The OR is used to push a POV. Userfy seems reasonable, but it needs to get out of the main namespace. JFW | T@lk 16:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textKEEPBold text This article. For one, I have been finding in recent years that Orthodoxy has been moving too far to the right; whereas Conservative Judaism has been moving too far to the left. I have finally found a movement that speaks to me. While at the moment, Classic Judaism is a small movement, and just 'starting out', all things MUST start somewhere. As a Masters of Information, I feel that it is necessary to retain'Bold text'this article, as one of the purposes of Wikipedia (& other new media), is so people can create 'on-line' communities to rally around causes or ideas. Thus, Wikipedia should provide some time for this article to be posted, to see if it 'catches on'. Hence, This concept is still in its incubation stage, and is thus too premature to be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baruchhakoen (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy page WP:CBALL. Wikipedia documents what exists, it's goal is not to create. If anything, Baruchhakoen puts forth an unintentional argument for deletion or userfy. Joe407 (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I also find that this speaks to me. Modern Orthodox Judaism has become entrenched in the past and its own version of the law, and Conservative Judaism does not always place an appropriate emphasis on Halacha. I always find myself trying to explain to people where I find myself on the spectrum of Jewish observance, and Classic Judaism is a term that works perfectly, as espoused by this article. Judging from people to whom I have spoken, there are many people like me. We are an existing movement, in search of a home like this. Beverlee Rapp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.52.182 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Classic Judaism is a descriptor for an increasing number of traditional Conservative Jews and left-wing Modern Orthodox Jews feeling alienated by new developments in both their movements. These movements are very recent: all within the last decade. As such, the scholarly literature on this topic is just developing, though a monograph literature is rapidly developing--best example being Samuel Heilman. Sliding to the Right: the contest for the Future of American Jewish Orthodoxy, U Cal Press, 2006, to cite but one example. The Canadian Yeshiva is among a few educational institutions that are in the forefront of this change, hence the over-reliance on quotes from its website. Certainly the article requires a rewrite and references to sociological sources that reflect the recent trends alluded to in this article are needed. However, to remove it would reduce the currency of Wikipedia for its users as the Masters of Information user so effectively pointed out. I would give the writer--who has been advised of the necessity of this process--a couple of weeks to produce the appropriate article.

"KEEP." It seems that in a way this article is condemning Reform and Orthodox practices. It needs some revising so that it is written like an encyclopedia article, not from as biased a point of view. The article does capture a real phenomenon. Without the other sides' views, it is only opinion. With all the perspectives, though, it gives people an idea of how different denominations of Judaism approached Jewish history. It has some good information, but needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.52.182 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs substantial rewrite (it is written in a defensive manner) and citation of further third party reliable sources, particularly in the Enlightenment period. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to: (a) Either the equally new Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School and/or (b) a section to the Daniel Sperber article, which this piece of WP:NOR and violation of WP:NEO is meant to support, by a couple of very new single-purpose editors. (c) Or, another serious option is to Merge and Redirect this name to the Rabbinic Judaism article because Rabbinic Judaism is considered to be "Classic Judaism"! Sheesh, someone gets some money to start a program at a university and then "invents" a new religion or religious name to back it up. Give us all a break please. (d) Therefore, the page thus should actually become a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page of sorts. IZAK (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a Persian/Jewish background and found the article to be highly interesting and worthwhile. It reflects an important direction in modern Judiasim. Nancy Bakshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.0.46 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and if creator wants, userfy so that any useful references can be placed in one of the history of judaism article (i didnt see any useful refs, but i could be wrong). this term is used ONLY to refer to the canadian school, is not used in a sense comparable to classical music, classical architecture, or classic coke. this is in fact original research and synthesis. its usefulness or appeal to any of our esteemed readers does not justify it as an article. I have myself never heard this term, and i suspect i would have. I also know that there is no consensus on such a term within jewish scholarship, and if anyone tried to introduce this specific meaning to this term, they would be drowned out by a chorus of scholars.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - just for completeness, I just want to mention that I started this with a comment at the Judaism project. I also modified the author's other edits along the same lines, but this was too huge a matter to easily correct, and I do not know the rules for "prod", so I brought up ther issue there.

(cont.) I would have no problem with the article if it would be written NPOV, particularly with its implications that Orthodoxy is not Classical Judaism, an issue about which there is consensus to accept as a legitimate POV, albeit open to question by the other denominations. In other words, the article needs to present its main concepts (that they represent classical Judaism, others do not) as the opinions of a small, recent denomination, not as facts. It was be as if an article would state, "the Catholic Church abandoned authentic Christinity, and sect xyz restored it".Mzk1 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The writer's use of the word "classic" is in line with its article on Wikipedia (of lasting worth, with a timeless quality...distinguished from a newer variety). As such, used as a way of describing Judaism especially given the context and history described in the article, is fitting. At the same time, "Early Christianity" (also on Wikipedia) describes a time-period of pre-denominational Christianity, without much direct referencing to the term itself. Rather, it describes the context of the time as different from what followed. Similarly, "Classic Judaism" describes the context of a modern, "classic" variety and a very real phenomenon among the Jewish community. Wikipedia has the opportunity to acknowledge the diversity and complexity of the Jewish community by including this article here. 76.10.136.9 (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Melanie Ollenberg[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1 May 2011 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Khabararmani.com" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khabararmani.com[edit]

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

Newly created news-based website. Lacks any sort of mention in third-party sources. Fails WP:WEB. Stickee (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB, no sources that indicate notability. Dragquennom (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website. Keb25 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close ; wrong forum. Will open a TfD shortly. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighbourhoods and Suburbs of Tiruchirappalli[edit]

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

A template explaining more about the place exists Thalapathi (Ping Back) 12:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Pickers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fritz[edit]

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

Not notable beyond American Pickers, a small section on the page can cover the people realted with the store/tv show CTJF83 12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages :

Redirect to American Pickers per the above; if there is evidence of notability beyond the TV show, I'm unable to find it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Pickers; I tagged these two article for merger originally. As above, the notability of Fritz and Wolfe is solely from the TV show, and they are unlikely to have non-trivial encyclopedic biographies beyond a paragraph or section. --Closeapple (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect until he begins receiving non-trivial coverage as an individual. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Security Essentials 2010[edit]

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

This article fails to comply with Wikipedia notability guideline and is a fork of Microsoft Security Essentials#Rogue antivirus software. Fleet Command (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fork Johnclean184 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect so the contents go but a "security essentials 2010" remains in the category —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.138.163 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so why is the axe out for this article, and not all of these? BTW, I didn't create this an intentional fork of Ms Security Essentials, but rather from perspective of the Alureon rootkit, of which this malware is a notable installer. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telescope Browser[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This article appears non-notable - written by a student coder in spare time, etc., and Wikipedia isn't for that sort of thing. Also, it's unsourced. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet released browser (aren't there enough already?). Non-notable 'company' behind it, too. I wish them luck - but they aren't ready for an article here yet. Peridon (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beta software, not yet to first release. Would seem that this company has not yet met WP:N here. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Binibining Undas 2010[edit]

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

Hoax. Either no such pageant was held and or it is not covered by reliable sources. Mentions in internet forums are made humorously. First version was copied from Binibining Pilipinas 2005. Bluemask (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Blatant hoax, only the names and dates are changed from the article Binibining Pilipinas 2005. Nimuaq (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Moray An Par (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. Requires little explaining. Whoever created this must have thought of inventing his/her own fictitious/parody and inexistent beauty contest named similarly to that well-known Filipino beauty contest. -- Tito Pao (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (WP:SNOW) as a trivial hoax. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets all the notability criteria. The Helpful One 23:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hicham Aâboubou[edit]

Hicham Aâboubou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics; (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete

This person is NOT notable. There are no sources and no news regarding this person. Notability is not inherited. The team/league MAY be notable, but Hicham Aâboubou is not. I repeat notability is NOT inherited. Just because someone plays in a notable league does not make them notable. HThe team he plays for listing a bio of him on their website does not qualify as a source. Nicweber (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep passes Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Please show how he passes Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I see that he has only played for a few Canadian based teams. Including the now defunct Laval team. I don't see how he is notable. Wikipedia is not a replacement for facebook. Nicweber (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC) —struck !vote as duplicate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NFOOTY "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable." He is playing for Montreal Impact and that team is at North American Soccer League which, according to NFOOTY, is enough notability. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 08:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NFOOTY "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable." The keyword here is "generally". He is not notable as there is no news coverage or sources beyond the team's website itself and a university webpage. There is ZERO sources in google news. The team MAY be notable, he is not notable. Nicweber (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes is pretty obvious you want this deleted, but having "zero" g-hits (inaccurate statement) is not a reason for deletion. It passes our rules, it must be kept regardless your opinion on the subject. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 08:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty obvious you want to keep this, show me the google news hits please. Back up your statement with references and facts, please. He does NOT meet the notability requirement in WP:NSPORT. Notability is not inherited. Nicweber (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't know how to use Google News because I get tons of hits from there. The very first one is from the Montreal Gazette [13], and is about how Montreal are currently struggling, partly because of Aaboubou being out because of injury, and about how Aaboubou is currently serving a suspension for an incident in last season's playoffs. JonBroxton (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞}
Keep. Clearly notable per WP:NSOCCER and WP:FPL guidelines. -- œ ^™ 08:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OE, show me a news source that is not a university webpage or the team's own website. Hicham does not meet the notability requirements.Nicweber (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google results are not the only metric we use to determine notability. Contrary to popular thought, Google does not index every single news source in existence. There could be mention of Hicham in some offline newspaper somewhere.. I don't know.. and don't have the resources to search at the moment, but I didn't think it necessary anyway, as it meets our (current) specific guidelines on soccer players. However, this being a BLP you may have a valid argument to delete under WP:JNN, but I don't see why you're so intent on this particular soccer player being not notable enough for a Wikipedia article? -- œ ^™ 08:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep He's a professional footballer who has on-field time in a professional team's games. He obviously meets WP:NSPORT. ~~This is just revenge by the nominator for his brother's article being deleted at AfD, as are all the other Speedy Deletion nominations he made earlier.~~ PhantomSteve/talk&#124contribs\ 08:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the personal attacks, we have an article here with no academic sources. Case in point. Nicweber* ^۩ 09:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll strike that out - I'll just assume that it's purely coincidental. However, the fact remains that at the moment (subject to the discussion mentioned below) he meets the criteria for inclusion. The official team website may not be independent, but there mention of his playing (rather than just being on the team's books), along with local coverage in newspapers (which may not be on the web) should between them show that he has played professionally. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'll find there's a discussion happening right now at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) about changing WP:NFOOTY in a way that would almost certainly mean this player would no longer pass. (Whether this nomination is in any way related to that, I don't know; going by some of the previous comments, it probably isn't.) Even if that change won't go through, this definitely shouldn't be a speedy keep; surely no article that can't demonstrate significant independent coverage in reliable sources should ever be a speedy keep. I'm not convinced this should be a keep at all; WP:NSPORT isn't supposed to override WP:GNG. But I won't voice my support for deletion either, at least not before seeing what kind of consensus will emerge (or fail to emerge) at the NSPORT talk page. Sideways713 (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the above, especially per WP:NSPORT. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep passes all relevant criteria for a professional soccer player, WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, WP:NFOOTY etc. The nominator seems to be abusing the Speedy and AfD system to make a WP:POINT following the deletion of an article about his brother, and this player fell foul of the fact that he is simply first in the alphabet. JonBroxton (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; yes, there is a discussion about changing WP:NFOOTY, but that shouldn't affect this discussion based on current accepted consensus, which would keep this article. Kansan (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing a bit early per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 19:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health issues in American football[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issues in American football
- Articles for deletion/Issues in American football

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

I tried cleaning up this page.

This page is mostly statistics that are unsourced.
This is written like an essay.
I have read through the article and cannot find a way to integrate the statistics that make it relevant to the title of the article.
It has been nominated for deletion before 3 years ago.Curb Chain (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. —Ute in DC (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - in reading the prior AfD, the major concerns seemed to be the combination of unrelated material ("public awareness and the media") and a lack of sourcing. The former concern appears to have been mostly addressed immediately after the close of that AfD with the removal of that section and the renaming of the article; the latter is, at least partly, a function of a bunch of unformatted external links (I'll try to get some of those fixed). Setting aside the problems of the current version (essay-like, sourcing, etc.), this is a notable topic which does deserve its own article. cmadler (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed most of the bare URL refs with Reflinks. There's one left marked as a dead link, but I think we can find an updated version here. cmadler (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a very important topic and has been covered by many sources, hence "notable." The article needs to be improved, not deleted. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can find many resources documenting "concussions in American football". — X96lee15 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started out thinking this was a new article that may well duplicate an existing article on the health aspects of American football. It turns out that THIS is the main article, established back in 2005. There was just a piece on concussions in sport (with an emphasis on football) in National Geographic. This is not only an encyclopedic topic worthy of inclusion, it is a HOT topic in popular culture. The article needs improvement, to be sure, but this is not the Article Improvement Workshop. An absolutely clear keeper. Carrite (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See: "New Brain Science on Football Concussions" (cover title), which is Luna Shyr, "The Big Idea: Brain Trauma: Lasting Impact." National Geographic, February 2011, pp. 28-31. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which (was the other) article on the "health aspects of American fooball"?Curb Chain (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is certainly a subject that has garnered a lot of media coverage in recent years. This piece from The New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell may help to beef up this article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell. This article should also incorporate the history of health concerns in football going back to the era of Teddy Roosevelt and the legalization of the forward pass. This is already referenced at History of American football#Violence and controversy (1905). Jweiss11 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable topic. The content itself might need some cleanup and editing... and I say--WP:SOFIXIT! Article content is normally not a "deletion" issue but an "editing" issue. Article "existence" is a deletion issue, and this article should exist.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Clearly notable topic as demonstrated above, it needs more referencing and improvement, not deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep: Articles have appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Times, National Geographic, the Los Angeles Times, Slate, and NPR, among others. The article meets Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A "content fork" that has actually received lots of scientific study and mainstream media coverage. An appropriate topic for a stand-alone article. (I would also support a Concussions in American football spin-off, if it were to be developed.)--GrapedApe (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this too, but citations must be referenced discretely.Curb Chain (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we count this as a withdrawal of your AFD nomination?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No:( I just support that if Concussions in American football was made with citations referenced discretely, I would support this.Curb Chain (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep per Ute in DC, Paul McDonald, and wp:gng. – OhioStandard (talk)
Keep AfD is for non-notable articles, not notable ones that need cleanup. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ericsson-Zenith[edit]

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

This almost reads like a resume, with no sources that are not self published. The non-encyclopedic tone is perhaps best summed up by the end of the article, which mentions his purported Wikipedia username. Kansan (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ericsson-Zenith's role at IASE suffices to clear the WP:PROF notability hurdle. The "resume" and "sources" issues can be resolved via editing. As per WP:ATD, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." The page needs work, but doesn't meet the criteria at WP:DEL to qualify for deletion. However, it could probably be stubbed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His company seems on the WP:FRINGE side to me rather than being a famous research institution so I think he is not automatically notable for being its principal investigator; rather, WP:GNG should apply, and I don't see any significant coverage of him in Google news archive, only some short coverage of a different company he founded for fielding complaints. As for academic notability, he'd need significantly higher numbers of citations than I'm seeing in Google scholar to pass the bar of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I have taken Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering to AfD as well as I see no evidence that it is sufficiently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please delete this article. It is awful. From the beginning it has been factually incorrect, it takes an improper place in search results when people search for my name. I certainly do not warrant coverage in an encyclopedia of any kind (but then few living scientists do, in my view). It has, however, served these past years to entertain and to enable me to illustrate to people how very wrong Wikipedia can be. --Steven Zenith (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on request of subject. Few cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus 'ac Cosgair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Seamus 'ac Cosgair

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

Non-notable poet, in a preliminarily research the only page available I could find on the internet about was a facebook relating to Wikipedia, ~~could this be a hoax~~. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think he is a hoax; a couple of indications: two mentions of the poet Seamus Cosgair (given as (1775-1847) on this Mayo Family Settlements page, albeit a page authored by school pupils), and mention of a chapbook by James Cosgrave in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales and Fairy Tales. AllyD (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've only found these two books, on the whole internet mentioning about him, but the article refers about a Seamus Cosgair who was born in 1820, no other mentions elsewhere. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the article asserts he was living in 1820, rather than born in 1820 - fl. standing for floruit. As for worries that this being possibly a hoax, they can be easily put aside. For example, there is a snippet view of the 1982 book Mayo:aspects of its heritage used as a source available on Google Books here and the book was ~~authored~~ edited by an academic at what is now the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology. Now to add a few more complications: 'ac Cosgair can also be rendered as Mac Cosgair or Mac Coscair (or MacCosgair or MacCoscair) - the dropped "m" has fallen out of general usage. For example looking for MacCosgair brings up a mention of what is almost certainly the same person being described as an "Erris folk poet" (link) in Remembering the year of the French: Irish folk history and social memory, while looking for Mac Coscair brings up a mention in "The Field day anthology of Irish writing: Irish women's writing" (link). All that said, I would like to see a few more sources covering the subject in detail. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Slight edit above. The book was edited by Bernard O'Hara; he wasn't the author of the section on 'ac Cosgair. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi guys, is mise Fergananim, creator of the article. I used Brian O'Rourke's article in the 1982 Mayo book as my source for 'ac Cosgair. I don't publish hoaxes, just try to fill in a few obscure corners of Irish literary biography. I had hoped to add more material to it, over time, but have not yet found any more published material concerning him. Fergananim (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should userfy this until more sources become available. It doesn't appear to be a hoax and its creator is clearly willing to improve the article, but at present WP:Notability (biographies) seems to be a stumbling block. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend towards suggesting "userification" if only for a brief period, until more than one source can be added. I am convinced there are more sources out there. Just taking the two brief mentions I came across: unfortunately while some of the text is visible as a summary in the link I give above for "The Field day anthology of Irish writing: Irish women's writing" (link), the page is unavailable as a preview, as so often is going to be the case using Google Books for understandable copyright reasons, but the index (page 1475 if you are looking) indicates an entry for both the poet and the poem "An Abhainn Mhor ". The other source mentioned while only mentioning the poet in passing, notes that he, along with other poets, doesn't seem to have written about the 1798 Rising and also mentions that the poet's works were collected by the folklorist Michael O'Gallaher. The point here is that while these sources only mention 'ac Cosgair in passing, as would be expected as the subjects of these books are broader, it is obvious that the authors are working from other sources. (As indeed were the 5th & 6th class pupils of Bangor National School mentioned in the link above from AllyD). It really is a case of having more than one source dealing in detail with the subject. I don't doubt that those sources exist, but there will be digging involved :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clearly is not a hoax, however the notability guideline seems to be the major obstacle for this article to stand up, the userfication proposal seems to be a good idea, so the user can find more sources (online or not) to prove the notability and verifiability of it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Davis[edit]

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

Delete - coverage stems entirely from a single news event, her arrest over five years ago for refusing to show identification papers when asked by police. She was arrested but never went to trial as charges were dropped before she was even arraigned. There has been no ongoing coverage of her or the arrest and no sources that indicate that the event is of any lasting historical significance. This amounts to a news item. The subject of the article has apparently edited it as User:DeborahDavis but very infrequently and apparently only to correct factual errors. This was nominated for deletions once before, over five years ago under different capitalization, and kept with very light participation. Harley Hudson (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add, there is an author also named Deborah Davis who has written four books, including one that has a Wikipedia article, and this article is linked to instances referring to the author Deborah Davis, likely causing confusion for readers. Harley Hudson (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per above, it seems that somewhat this person has no relevance to have an article within Wikipedia, could be a case of WP:1EVENT too. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a notable individual. Lot's of people get themselves in the press for good reasons and bad, and Wikipedia has guidelines for which qualify for an article. The comparison with Rosa Parks in the article is telling precisely by drawing attention to the differences. --AJHingston (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Christopher Valconi[edit]

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

BLP prod removed by article creator based on very weak sources. No reliable sources provided. None found. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not-notable, even if there was an actual article about it Alan - talk 04:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable, the article is about a amateur boxer, does not cite source, is not categorized correctly, search on Google only provide social network profiles, most likely the person who this article is all about is closely tied to its major editor. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardian print culture[edit]

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

Neologism; original theories and conclusions; sounds like a school or college essay tacked wholesale onto Wikipedia; possible spam; content fork; lacks notability; personal essay.

At worst it should be deleted. At best, a very few of the most salient cited points should be added to Edwardian era or Belle Époque or Print culture, and the article then deleted. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since a proposal for its own notability guideline is not established, it needs to follow General Notability Guideline or Notability (organizations and companies), which I must admit that this school in fact fails both. Unless someone proves the contrary my vote is going to be Delete, otherwise does not count up my vote. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~This isn't about a school -- what article does your post refer to? Please delete or strike it and repost where it belongs. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete - Looks like a personal essay filled with original content, I can't find something that would explicit its notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to Edwardian era article, the period is between 1901 to 1910. However, Edwardian print culture also discuss the events prior to 1901, thus occurred during the late Victorian era. If you search the title of the page using a search engine, you can see that the majority of the resulting pages include the term "Victorian and Edwardian print culture". Victorian print culture is discussed in many research articles ([14]). It currently stays as WP:OR as none of the sources, as far as I can see, are directly related to the topic of the article. Nimuaq (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Victorian and Edwardian print culture though, clearly, not many scholars call the topic "Edwardian Print culture" print culture during the end of the 19th, early 20th century would appropriately be called Edwardian Print Culture, and print culture is a very common historical theme, that can encompasses many different concepts. It is also clear, that during this time, print culture is talked about by many scholars to some depth (speaking as someone who has researched this area, newspapers alone have volumes upon volumes of scholarship). This article is certainly not structured very well in writing style, but the title of the topic is clearly notable, even though the use of the term is uncommon (if someone has a better title that would be awesome) the scholarly discussion on this era's print culture does exist and could use an overview article, Sadads (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all the sources that are used as references have titles which suggest coverage of print culture, which as I mentioned before, covers a lot of things including publishing, libraries, media consumption and availability of works, such as periodicals, Sadads (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a workable solution, Sadads. The Victorian and Edwardian eras lasted from 1837 to 1910. The article covers 1880 to 1914, which fits neither nor both. It's just a rambling mess that covers what it wants to and concludes what it wants to: original theories and conclusions, and a personal essay that someone has decided to post on Wikipedia rather than a blog, for some odd reason, possibly for spam and personal gain. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is though, because we have things called tags, which can identify that it a) doesn't cover the topic completely, b) is essay-like, and c) contains some original research. Deletion is for Non-notable topics or complete bungling of Wikipedia policies, this current article is simply a few mistakes and the scholarship is there to reinforce such a topic to exist, there is no rush to delete it only a month after it was started, Sadads (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted by myself and Nimuaq, the article doesn't cover the Edwardian period, nor does it cover the Victorian period, nor does it cover both. It basically covers the Belle Epoque period in England. Your solution was to retitle it "Victorian and Edwardian print culture", and I and Nimuaq have explained why that doesn't work, not to mention the fact that this is a neologism, and a new concept and new conclusion, and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Unless you have another solution, your solution as it stands doesn't work. Anything salvageable in the article can be transfered to the appropriate existing article(s). Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Georgetown County School District and/or create the dab. redirect is the common outcome in these cases although please feel free to go along and make this a disambiguation page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mcdonald Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced, elementary school. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per CSD section A7. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory for every single school or college on the world, if this school is not notable thus its article should be deleted. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. CSD-A7 does not apply to schools, so this article cannot be speedy-deleted on that basis. Articles about non-notable elementary schools are usually redirected to the locality or school district (in this case, Georgetown County School District) rather than being deleted. The reference to the Palmetto's Finest award is a claim of notability, but does not seen to be enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Georgetown County School District as per precedent for nn primary schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this isn't the only elementary school with this name. It is inappropriate to redirect it to the school district, which would imply this is the primary topic of schools with this name. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect non-notable elementary school, one of many with this same name. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Then perhaps the article should be changed to a redirect page that would look like this:

McDonald Elementary School or Macdonald Elementary School can refer to:

Atwood McDonald Elementary School, Fort Worth, Texas, operated by (link to name of school district)

or

Atwood McDonald Elementary School, Fort Worth, Texas (link to education section of locality article if there is no article on the school district)
McDonald Elementary School, Georgetown, South Carolina, operated by (Georgetown County School District
McDonald Elementary School, Moscow, Idaho, operated by (link to name of school district)

Even when an elementary school is not individually notable, it is part of a school district, and school districts are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eastmain's dab/redirect suggestion is a good idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an disambiguation page with branching redirects, as is standard practice for low-level notability elementary schools with common names. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old asia[edit]

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

This short article, which cites no sources, appears to be duplicative of various existing articles (such as History of India), and also appears to be original research as well as a neologism. Author removed prod tag without explanation or article improvement. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If its original research and neologism, then it should be deleted. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "old Asia" was Persia and Arabia. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why wasn't this tagged as CSD A10? "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic." Textbook, anyone? — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s[edit]

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

it is highly dubious as to whether this is WP:Synthesis where notability is not inherent. Its also squoting sensational media after a recent event per WP:RECENTISM which casts further doubt ont he veracity of the event as a whole and is furthermore brushing livign people with the pejorative term of "racism." Lihaas (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR/WP:SYN, plain and simple. On this basis, whether the individual organisations named are racist or not is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the phenomenon is covered by top outlets like NYtimes and the BBC, along with hundreds other sources, and is a significant aspect of the 2008 financial crisis.--Sum (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This whole article reads as if original research. WP should not be used to define an event, which is what this article is trying to do. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research written from a biased point of view, typified by the accusation that Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party fought back against anti-racism. ~~This article does not support the claim in its title that the phenomenon described is something that emerged in 2008 (nor, for that matter, that it is likely to stop before 2012).~~ Some of the sources cited in this article supposedly about the late 2000s were published before that time period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Edited my recommendation due to change to the article's title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All five sources in the lead are from 2008 on.--Sum (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per OR, SYN and SOAP --Reference Desker (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete Merge if there is anything salvageable to Racism in Europe, delete the rest. Seems like a PoV split. Monty ₈₄₅ 06:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POVOR--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly biased and based on the writer's own interpretations. It seems like the writer is using Wikipedia as a platform in a campaign directed against certain parties. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original synthesis. A balanced article called something like Nativism in Europe or Anti-Immigrant sentiment in Europe would be fine, provided that it was based on secondary sources. GabrielF (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes: lead section rewritten and more sources added. The article title and the lead section are now supported by two New York Times articles, and others from PBS, Daily Telegraph and Il Fatto Quotidiano. This should clear any good faith doubts about notability and original research.--Sum (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It still seems more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. The phenomenon may be real, but the way it is presented in unencyclopaedic. It could acceptable to have a WP article starting with "Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in late 2000s is a theory proposed by academics X and Y and supported by institution Z...." which presents it as a claim or theory and uses mainly academic sources, but that it not what this article is about. Nanobear (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York times is not an "academic source," and its reports are not usually referred as "theories." You have given an argument for rewording the lead opening, not for deleting the topic.--Sum (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note there are not 3 articles that need to be deleted Resurgence of racism in Europe 2008-2011, Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe in 2008-2011 and the current incarnation Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s Lihaas (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Any lead opening with 4 stacked footnotes on a sentence fragment (The phenomenon of growing anti-immigrant sentiment) is a really bad sign from the get-go. The periodization is bizarre, this is not a new phenomenon but an aspect of longstanding historical trends of nationalism and xenophobia, even the article acknowledges 1980s roots — but it was retro even then... All this just gets us to the kernel of the matter, that being this is an Original Essay. Dollars to donuts this is a content fork as well. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move/rename. The title makes a statement: "Racism in Europe is growing". Hence the title is "inherently POV". Instead, one should make a slightly different article, something like Anti-immigrant movement in Europe, Anti-immigrant political organizations in Europe or Anti-immigrant laws in Europe. This way it would focus on actual organizations and events (facts), rather than on the "sentiment", although "sentiment" is fine if supported by published sociological data. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the article certainly needs renaming a title can have a slant without being inherently POV. In this case there have been long discussions about the increase of far-tight politics in Europe and there have been an increase in far-right MEPs.Tetron76 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, this article does not provide any sound statistical sociological data proving that anti-national sentiment is growing (maybe there are such data, I do not know). Same problems are typical for other "anti-national sentiment" articles. Negative coverage of state policies in foreign press or refusal of investors to invest money in economies of certain countries are interpreted as discrimination or even racism. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deliberate synthesis and POV presentation. reading it makes you think that increasing racism is directly linked to the financial crisis and therefore ok. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to ??? Anti-immigration sentiment in the European Union

there are literally 1000s of RS on the topic of rising anti-immigrant sentiment and far right parties in Europe and it is not currently covered on wikipedia elsewhere. I dont believe that this Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe in the late 2000s is a synthesis other than in the time frame where it fails badly.

are even more significant in reflecting a deep and hardening anti-immigration sentiment across Europe [15]
Populist anti-immigration parties are performing strongly across northern Europe [16]
Anti-immigrant sentiment is spreading across Europe[17]

But the biggest problem is that there is no article on wikipedia that a better written version of this information can be contained as nativism is not precisely the same term. The history of this debate is largely connected to increasing Islamaphobia influenced by terrorist attacks and the expansion of the EU but started in the 90's [[18]][[19]] Tetron76 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Expand to Xenophobia in Europe. While I don't doubt the premise, having a name like this violates NPOV and makes it awkward to include source 3,001 who argues there is a steady rate of anti-immigrant sentiment. Further, the longer term history and this topic should be integrated. No harm in having a periodized history section, expanding from the 1980s and 2000s section already here. Consider linking to Fortress Europe.--Carwil (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge encyclopedic content with Racism in Europe for now. While I don't doubt that the concept exists, I don't see the need for a separate article here given the POV issues pointed out. No prejudice towards the creation on an article about Xenophobia in Europe in a general sense. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as A7 (no actual claim of importance in article) and G11 (obvious promotion of a website created by article's author). Kinu ^t/_c 02:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zapaat Context Web Search Engine[edit]

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

Notablity concerns MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the original creator's username.Sumsum2010·T·C 02:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erie Anime Experience[edit]

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

Declined Speedy Deletion, as text was not present at the indicated website. However, I see no evidence that this event meets the criteria for inclusion. The talk page mentions there was [a page] for every other anime convention but EAE, but this in itself is not sufficient reason for there to be an article. The only press coverage I can find are press releases in the Erie Times-News, and I can find no coverage at independent reliable sources. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "text was not present at the indicated website"?[20] The article, as of this comment, is a direct copy and paste of that page. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 01:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link that I went to didn't go to that page, which I see is indeed identical, my apologies! The link I followed from the page when to the site's FAQ blog.

However, I also note that a request has been sent to OTRS to give permission for the text to be used. Should that be accepted, I still feel that the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. In the mean time, I am going to blank the copyrighted material until such time as either OTRS permission is sorted out, or this AfD ends up with a "delete" conclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable event. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, and above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permission for all content from http://erie-anime-experience.com received in ticket 2011042610000977. – Adrignola talk 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable guest have arrived each year. Dream Focus 20:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honors Bachelor of Arts[edit]

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

Notability concern. The article was prevoiusly tagged but the tag was removed by an ip in Cincinnati, Ohio where Xavier University is located. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 00:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absence of third-party references. I believe there's some sort of unspoken consensus that individual degree programs are generally not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's been around for a little under a year; I'm surprised this hasn't come up before. That said, the article appears to be highly localized in scope, which limits its context and causes the article to fail WP:GNG on a significant scale. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if only because most universities have an honours Bachelor of Arts program. We can't associate it with one university, and any university's version isn't worthy of an article as it becomes way too promotional. CycloneGU (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. The article is in a bad state which may qualify for deletion, but appears to be saveable. Since I can't see any harm leaving it on Wikipedia, I'll just leave it there awaiting future editors' input. A cleanup is recommended. --Der yck C. 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Lampone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, cannot be sourced, since no reliable sources exist to have this be a standalone article. Beresford 77 (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's what I think - I think we could make a case for merging all of these Godfather characters (or at least the minor ones) into one List of characters from The Godfather or some such. Then people would keep expanding the entries until they were too big for a list. And then, we'd have to split them out again. The alternative is to find sources now - and I can't believe that there aren't sources that talk about the characters. I'll see what I can dig up. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good solution here, for a fictional character with somewhat different portrayals in three different notable fictional platforms. Sourcing problems can be addressed. Better an article like this than an attempt to establish a Corleone canon. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The First Dance (EP)[edit]

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

Un-notable record collection per WP:NALBUMS, no charts and no information beyond tracklisting. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notiblity Alan - talk 04:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wynter Gordon - why would we want to lose the information here? There isn't much but what there is can be merged.--Michig (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NTU ACES[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still non-notable cheerleading squad despite existing on Wikipedia for two years now. Corvus cornix_talk 05:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"They are the current 5 times national champion cheerleading team in Singapore, winning the National Cheerobics Competition organized by the Cheerleading Association Singapore (Abbreviation: CAS) since 2006 and The Singapore National Cheerleading Championships organized by the Federation of Cheerleading Singapore(FCS) in 2010." I added a reference to their 2009 win. Winning a national competition (admittedly in a small nation) five times is enough to make them notable. Francis Bond (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; all of this can be handled in the university article or in an article on the overall association. Neutrality^talk 05:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. Since it's unsourced WP:OR I'm deleting the article and recreating it as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spodi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced and non-notable OR. The title is just one of hundreds of synonyms for "punch" applied to inexpensive alcoholic mixed fruit drinks common at American college parties. No real content worth saving to merge, though it'd be great to see the topic covered (with sources) in the Punch article. Survived AfD back in 2005, but standards are much higher now. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Punch. Apparent neologism. Not notable enough to merit an individual article... a few ghits at most, no realistic prospect of finding reliable sources. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 06:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have to agree that at best this can be merged with Punch. No sources and none likely to be found. This is just one of many other names for the same drink.SBHans13 (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Punch. Definite WP:NEO, contributes no new content, not worth saving. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MESAC[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: "A sporting association of 6 schools. Does not meet notability criteria for organisations at WP:ORG". Repeated research has not revealed reliable third party sources that extensively document this organisation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not say anything on why it's important and fails WP:N and WP:ORG.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's an article about a sports conference and even though it only cited through 1st/2nd party sources, does not mean it's content doesn't matter Casperruegg (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sure, it's about a sports conference. A non-notable sports conference as far as I can see - certainly one that seems to fail any requirement for reliable secondary sources for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Be Me[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

not notable album - did not chart Off2riorob (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until information has been transferred to artist's page. 132.195.109.67 (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)— 132.195.109.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Notability is not established for this album according to the criteria for albums. In this case, the article requires a redirect to the artist. The PROD placed could have remained, since the previous AFD was for a different song by the same name. No need to wait for merging, since content remains in the history. That said, this may all be a moot point, since the Laura Bryna article may soon be deleted as not only lacking notability, but additionally being an unambiguous copyright violation. Cind.amuse 05:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Cindamuse. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Incubate~~ until it's known whether the artist article survives in some fashion. I'll give an opinion later in this cycle. Concur possibility to delete based on not charting. CycloneGU (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Artist article is deleted, non-notable artist and non-notable album. CycloneGU (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by rule since the artist's article did not survive the notability process. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Baby Yu[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:NMG seems questionable. bender235 (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I totally think this article should be deleted. If the author is not DJ Baby Yu himself, then he/she is a friend or someone close. It's funny how the author knows the intricate details of him, despite him being someone being rather insignificant to Wikipedia.

AWDRacer (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article indicates he passes our music guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable 'musician'. Keb25 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a notable act at this time. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalliope Films[edit]

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

Updater25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Film production company. Fails ORG because of no significant coverage. Part of walled garden. Contested prod. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any movie production that is currently being made in 3D is a big deal. Most Google hits are commercial references. Kalliope Films 3D production is not invisible. There is enough there to qualify for WP:GNG from general media coverage. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only claim to fame appears to be a film which has not yet started production. See WP:NFF as well as the usual notability guidelines. Article seems to be throwing in famous names to make a case for notability, but Michael Bay isn't actually affiliated with this company and they were not involved in the making of Avatar; see WP:INHERITED. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a reference that states that the lead designer for Avatar is working on Hansel and Gretel. http://collider.com/hansel-and-gretel-in-3d-poster-synopsis-michael-bay-the-institute-kalliope-films/38600/ Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This doesn't contradict anything I've said. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, but a person involved in the making of Avatar is involved in the making of Hansel and Gretel. And he works with Michael Bay's company. And it's backed up by an article in "Variety". Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, in short, you're arguing that this company has no notability of its own, but has inherited the notability of other people at one or two removes. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very little actual coverage to satisfy WP:GNG; a few passing mentions in a very short article or two about a future film that doesn't even appear to have begun pre-production, with the rest being press releases and other such material. Apparent attempt at inherited notability as well. Appears to be part of a coatrack that includes the now-deleted article on the founder of this company. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely, the article in 'Variety' on its own is more than enough coverage. Isn't 'Variety' considered to be a big deal any more? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article in Variety probably wouldn't constitute significant coverage even of the film; it's certainly not significant coverage of the studio. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Guardians[edit]

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

Unremarkable fictional character, could not find anything in any secondary sources. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Darkeye. Contested PROD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fictional character fails WP:N and is associated with neither a notable artist nor a notable (if even published in print) work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Dark Guardian, a notable book series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it be possible to semiprotect the article for the duration of this AfD? A couple of IPs seem intent on removing the AfD tags. Or are we not allowed to do that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the slightest indication of notability. Considering the article creator's persistence in recreating this material [21] and their use of IPs to edit around their block in an attempt to disrupt the AFD process, strongly recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Chambers (economist)[edit]

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

Article is an unreferenced BLP about a subject who appears to have not received significant coverage in third party, reliable, and non-trivial sources. A Google search [22] yielded none that I can find. (In my opinion, [23] and a couple other more trivial sources the Google search found do not count as third party sources because he is employed by the sources). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. IDEAS Repec lists only one working paper of his, so he doesn't seem to be very productive as an economist. I don't think he's notable per WP:ACADEMIC. As for third-party sources: Could he be the David Chambers mentioned here? --bender235 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While that's possible (I can't find any real information about a "David Chambers" economist running in a general election...see my search), I don't really see that that source is non-trivial either...it doesn't really tell me much about him (assuming this subject is who it refers to) other than he ran for an elected position and his general political stance. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to agree with only comment, which was Keep. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OllyDbg[edit]

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

Lacks significant secondary coverage. — anndelion ❋ 20:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OllyDbg appears to be the tool of choice for many of those analysing viruses, or reverse engineering software. Coverage in the form of books appear to be readily available. Grey Hat Hacking has a section on this tool. Reverse engineering code with IDA Pro states it "has long been the staple of reversing communities". Reversing:secrets of reverse engineering although not previewable clearly has a section on it. Malware Forensics has coverage as well stating that it is "used by many malware analysts". There's more, but that should be sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the tool infrequently (prefer IDA Pro), believe it or not, but I guess I wasn't very thorough before AfDing this -- the IDA Pro book doesn't give much info, but the others are valid, so I'll chalk this up to ibuprofen and/or general incompetence. Mea culpa. — anndelion ❋ 21:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mallon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and appears to fail WP:NBASKETBALL. Highest league that he has played in, though I couldn't find a reference, was the Liga Portuguesa de Basquetebol which is not a "major professional league". Was an unreferenced BLP since August 2009. Ravendrop 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough for his own article. Sumsum2010·T·C 02:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is a WP:Run-of-the-mill former college basketball player who has not played at the highest professional level. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and does not have significant coverage per WP:GNG that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. —Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN by nominator. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Brown (actor)[edit]

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

Too minor an actor for his own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Had a decent career before the blacklisting. See IMDB. Already links to 7 Wiki articles. Notable enough even because of the blacklisting alone, never mind that he was a regular in a few major series. Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination because of his radio career as Al on My Friend Irma and also for The Damon Runyon Theatre. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Prayer Of Aleice[edit]

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

Non-notable prayer from a non-notable religion. As noted in the article version immediately before nomination,[24] there are only thirteen adherents to the religion that uses the prayer—a group that has received no substantial coverage. As such, the prayer also isn't verifiable. This clearly doesn't warrant an article, but it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- That's 'prayers' as in 'devotions', not 'people who pray'; the # of adherents has not been quantified. Dru of Id (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Edison (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, the group itself would be subject to speedy deletion. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article doesnt show notability (in fact denies notability), and a google search reveals nothing related to this prayer or the group.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable --Reference Desker (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Validays (talk) 19:00 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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